Originally Posted by
pmocek
What do you do if that person remains silent? You've not seen him doing anything wrong. You find on him an amount of money that you consider to be suspicious. You, a police officer, give him a chance to convince you that he is not doing anything wrong by carrying that money. He remains silent. What then?
Normally I don't detain unless (a) I have reasonable suspicion to do so, or (b) I am told to by the Feds. Besides, I don't have a problem letting anyone walk by. If they actually turn out to be someone wanted, they get stopped on the other end. No skin off my back.
Yes! A hundred times, yes! If someone is simply photographing in that situation, leave him alone. As for the "non-detention/non-custodial" nature of your interrogation, it is for all intents and purposes not such if you are taking advantage of someone's ignorant belief that when a police officer questions him, he does not have the option to simply walk away from you. I suspect that you know as well as I do that in most such cases, you will be taking advantage of someone's misperception of the extent of your authority.
It is not my intention at all to take advantage of anybody. Walking up and asking someone some questions does not interpret into a detention or cutodial situation. If someone feels that way, then it is ignorance on their part, not mine. The courts agree.
In your opinion, SgtScott31, should we put government checkpoints on the streets? If you think not, then why not? Now assume that cost of erecting and operating the checkpoints is not prohibitive. Should we do it? If not, why not?
For the same reason everyone else does not want a checkpoint out on the street. Problem is, FlyerTalk folks feel that checkpoints are not necessary at airports unless the TSOs apply horse-blinders and only look for C4 and Uzis. I have never expected a checkpoint to do my job for me, but I DO expect anyone with a conscious to report illegal items to the authorities just as I would expect someone to report crimes witnessed on the streets. You all disagree. That's your right.
Your opinions are dangerous to the United States of America -- more so if you are truly an officer of the law.
Why? because they are different from yours? My opinions are reinforced by the mere fact that contraband discovered at checkpoints and reported has been upheld in every court since the beginning of aviation screening.
Therein lies the crux of the issue. In your hypothetical situation, the checkpoint is still good for keeping dangerous items off airplanes -- its stated purpose and the reason for which we allow these otherwise unconsitutional searches at airports -- but it's not so good for conducting an unconstitutional dragnet operation. The latter is what you want, isn't it?
You took my statement out of context. I asked what good is a security checkpoint if someone with weapons can simply discontinue the screening process if they know they are about to get caught? This is what occurred with Aukai. Although it was drugs, what if it was a pistol or explosives? Would I hear any griping from you then? You simply can't have it both ways. Citizens of this country should be able to report illegal activities to the police. As long as TSA's primary focus is on dangerous items, why is it so wrong that they also report other contraband to law enforcement? How do you impose a policy that forces them to turn a blind eye to anything but weapons? It just isn't going to happen. So all this bickering is not really worth it now is it?