Originally Posted by
SgtScott31
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.
I don't mean to join the dog pile but there is a bit about the statement above that bothers me. By the statement above you admit that there are times that you have detained someone without reasonable suspicion and you were not told by the Feds to detain. Care to elaborate under what circumstances you find it nessary to detain a Citizen without suspicion.
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.
Sorry the courts do not agree. It all depends on the scope of the questions, if you have suspicion and if the person you are speaking with has the understanding that they are free to walk away. See Miranda v Arizona. Here is a pretty
good synopsis.
I am sure in your oath you are required to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America as well as your State Constitution. If you allow someone to unknowingly forfeit a right, you have broken your oath.
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.
If a person fails to report a crime that they know is a felony they are guilty of misprision of a felony. The problem most of FT has is the fact that TSO are required to report things that are NOT illegal and may not raise a reasonable suspicion in the screeners mind to make it worthy of police involvement. The $10k directive jumps to mind. I don't want the TSOs to have blinders on but I do want them to stick to statutory boundaries of that search.
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.
You may want to search that one out because I do not believe it has been true in all cases. Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to check. When I find the appropriate case I will post 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?
Bickering is always worth it. Even if your mind won't change and my mind won't change there are those that have not been exposed to the opposing viewpoints. Without hearing opposing viewpoints one can not make an informed opinion.
.