Originally Posted by
TSORon
As folks here at FT are so fond of making a point of, TSO’s are not Law Enforcement Officers, therefore reasonable suspicion is not a legal requirement for them. If a TSO makes a statement to a LEO that LEO has the option of believing them or not, their choice (uh oh, there’s that horrible word again, “choice”).
And this is precisely where things get Constitutionally murky. LEO's require reasonable suspicion. TSO's don't. Since they don't require it, they may not
have it when they refer to an LEO.
So now we have a situation where no reasonable suspicion exists and if the LEO were the only person doing the observating, he wouldn't be able to do anything. But somehow just because there's somebody
else doing the observation of the exact same set of circumstances, reasonable suspicion magically occurred? There's absolutely no Consititutional basis for this.