Originally Posted by
Flaflyer
They arrest a local drug dealer and confiscate $200,000. They make a "procedural mistake regarding evidence" on the arrest and the dealer does not get convicted because the police do not want him convicted. They want him back on the street. Six months later, they pop him again and keep another $200,000. The dealer is happy, being out of jail and in business. The "loss due to stolen cash" is a cost of doing business no more than if he was bribing the cops. The cops get to say "We're not getting bribed", but the drug money ends up in their pocket just the same. What's the difference? None that I can see.
This is a cute story.
Originally Posted by
SgtScott31
You, Ari and others still want to ignore the fact that this type of action has been going on for years, and it will continue. TSA is just a scapegoat because the checkpoints are currently under their control rather than the FAA. Like I said before, I don't recall any forums bashing FAA and/or the contract security companies who were doing the exact same thing long before TSA came along. It's just easier to go after them because of the dislike by you and others here at FT.
While the TSA is an easy target both here on FT and in general, there are two major distinctions between then and now:
1) When the government gets involved, everyone has elevated responsibilities. Acme Security Screening Inc and the TSA are in two very different legal positions. The TSA is accountable in so many more ways than a private company would be. But it does go both ways-- they get federal benefits! Also, killing them is a federal crime.
2) Under the TSA, the option to withdraw consent during the (administrative) search was eliminated. I understand the security rationale for such a rule, but I think the result needs to be "blinders" on the TSA when it comes to things that aren't per se illegal. Otherwise the temptation is just too great-- not for the individual TSO-- but for more and more dragnet-type of procedures to be added. This is only one security directive.
While each of those distinctions seems minor, those are both major distinctions in the legal arena. I have not ignored the issue.
Originally Posted by
SgtScott31
Not that it's enforced greatly, but many states make it unlawful to carry prescription meds in anything but the containers they were issued in. I wouldn't necessarily call it a "heap 'o trouble," but yes, out on the street you can be arrested for it.
I believe most (if not all) of such laws apply only to controlled substances, a small fraction of all prescriptions filled.
Originally Posted by
SgtScott31
By policy, he is supposed to report suspicious items discovered during an administrative (and consensual) search. Again, whether you believe the policy is bologne is another question. Take that up with the suits in DC, but as far as the TSO, they're doing what they were told. You guys are wanting to punish the messenger.
The rule doesn't ask them to report suspicious items-- it asks them to report over $10k in cash
irrespective of any suspicious nature. Is over $10k in cash now per se suspicious?
As far as punishing the messenger, that would never happen around here.