Sorry, though I've never played one on television, I am a lawyer, and some of what you've written is incorrect.

First and foremost, TSOs are not LEOs and have none of the powers of LEOs. LEOs, appropriately, have much committed to their discretion -- that's a necessary part of police work. TSOs are permitted no such discretion.

However, that is an incomplete explanation. TSOs conduct an administrative search which, by definition, must be "narrow in scope" and "minimally intrusive". The scope of an airport search is limited to threats to aviation. TSOs cannot conduct a general search. For example, a TSO in an earlier post, either in this thread or one of the others in this forum, said that he was allowed to rip open the seams of a carry on bag. I asked him what might be within the seams of a carry-on that posed a threat to aviation. Not surprisingly, he didn't answer. Such a search, absent a belief on the part of the TSO that the seams might harbor a threat to aviation is unconstitutional and, further, illegal. By exceeding the scope of the administrative search, it is my belief that the TSO is personally liable for destruction of the bag.

Similarly, assume a carryon bag containing sweaters, a radio and, under the sweaters, a very small plastic bag containing a white powder. X-ray is insufficient to allow the screener to determine whether the box of electronics is actually a radio or something that might represent a threat to aviation and calls for a bag search. The TSO conducting the bag search opens the bag, presses against the sweater and determines the unidentified electronics are underneath. He removes a couple of sweaters, uncovers the radio, removes it and determines it is harmless. In the course of replacing the radio he notices a little bit of the plastic bag sticking out from the remaining sweaters.

He may not pull out the bag to see what is inside because that exceeds the authorized scope of the administrative search, i.e. to determine that there is nothing present that constitutes a threat to aviation. He has cleared the radio and has no reason to suspect anything in the plastic bag. If he pulls it out and calls over a LEO to verify the contents, the evidence is, by definition, fruit of the poison tree, i.e. it will be excluded, at least under current law (though not if the ultraconservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court have their way).

Again, sorry, but you're mistaken. Remember, TSOs, unlike LEOs, have no powers of seizure. They may not deprive anyone of their possessions. Doing so is no more nor less than theft.

See above. If he discovers the drug paraphernalia incident to the administrative search, e.g. in the example above, he opens the bag to look for the radio and sees drug paraphernalia sitting on top of the sweaters, the evidence would be admissible.

That's because no one is being detained. There are two separate issues, here.

"Detention" refers to detention of the person. TSOs have no power to arrest or detain. This means that they cannot physically prevent you from leaving the checkpoint. All they can do is tell you that you may not enter the sterile area and if you try to do, they can call a LEO, who does have the legal power to arrest and detain, to stop you. However, if you simply turn around and walk out of the checkpoint and back to the non-sterile area, they can do nothing except report what happened to a LEO who can then determine, through the exercise of his discretion, whether or not to approach you, ask you to identify yourself, detain you or arrest you.

Any TSO that lays hands on a passenger, other than that permitted within the narrow scope of the administrative search, has committed a battery or worse.

With respect to property, it's a little more complicated. If I were to decide I wanted to leave the checkpoint through the non-sterile area and a TSO, in an effort to stop me, grabbed my shoes from the bin, that would probably constitute illegal detention -- by taking my shoes, I can't really leave.

TSOs have absolutely no power to confiscate anything, including contraband. If a TSO finds what he thinks is "drug paraphernalia" in my carry-on, e.g. the syringes that I possess legally by prescription for injecting my prescribed migraine medication, he may not "seize" it to bring it to a LEO. If he believes that my syringes pose a threat to aviation, he may refuse to admit me to the sterile area. He may not, however, take my syringes from me and bring them to his supervisor who, in turn, calls over a LEO to examine them, at least not without my consent. If I say, "give me back my syringes," and he refuses to, he has committed, at minimum, conversion and asportation, and, possibly, theft.

A LEO who finds the syringes incident to a search can seize the syringes and hold them as part of his investigation. A TSO cannot.

A TSO is not a LEO and has none of the powers of a LEO.

A security guard at a mall may do this only in those jurisdictions where such actions are authorized by statute. California has a statute that authorizes such non-police detentions, but also has very specific conditions that must be satisfied, e.g. I believe one of the criterion is first person observation of the suspect hiding or taking merchandise by a store employee. Absent statutory authorization, or complete compliance with all the requirements of the statute, the security guard at the mall is liable for false imprisonment and battery.

For example, my syringes?

Okay, let's take another example. Bongs are legal in some jurisdictions and not in others. If I'm in a jurisdiction in which they are legal, and a TSO reports me to a LEO for having "drug paraphernalia," because he believes they are not, he has made a false police report.

Let's take another example.

Scenario 1: You, as a LEO, are on patrol on the street and see me standing on a corner. You observe me for several minutes and notice me making what you know to be gang signs to others standing midway down each street from the corner. You note that, occasionally, someone walks up to me and shakes my hand, after which I put that hand in my pocket, then shake hands with the person again, who immediately departs. You come over to me and when I spot you, I immediately become very nervous and look to my "associates" who are standing further down the street. You ask me for identification, I reach in my pocket to pull out my drivers license but, when I do, a plastic packet containing white powder falls out on the ground. As a LEO, you know that cocaine is often sold on the street in this manner. You decide to detain me and perform a pat-down to assure yourself that I have no weapons within my immediate access. In doing so, you feel a large bulge in my back pocket. You pull it out and discover it is a wad of twenties totaling $4,300. You show me the money and ask me, "What's this?" I say, "I don't have to talk to you." You decide there is enough reason to arrest me and do so. You take me back to the station, book me and enter the wad of twenties into evidence.

Later it turns out that the white powder was my migraine medication, that the people who came up to me were friends in the neighborhood, and that my associates on the corner were looking for my mother's car because she might have gotten lost.

False arrest? Theft? Battery? Of course not. Not even remotely close.

Scenario 2: I work for a political campaign and I'm returning by plane from a fund-raiser. I have cash donations from the fund-raiser, totaling $4,300, in a metal cash box. The metal cash box is in my carry-on. The cash-box shows up as a questionable item on the x-ray at the WTMD and a bag-check is called for. A TSO opens my bag and determines that the item in question is the metal cash box. The TSO opens the box and determines that there is cash inside. The TSO shows me the cash and says, "What's this?" I say, "None of your business." The TSO calls over a LEO and says, "I think this guy is a drug dealer." The LEO detains me, questions me about the cash and, eventually, decides to let me go.

False arrest? Theft? Battery? Of course not. Not even remotely close -- with respect to the LEO.

Making a false police report? That's what I think.

That's correct. And a TSO has no more legal power to do so than anyone else. And, like anyone else, a TSO should incur liability for filing a false police report in the circumstances that I've described above. A TSO cannot use a LEO as a surrogate -- if he knew or should have known that no crime has been committed, reporting that one has to a LEO is illegal.

And that's fine. That's the job of real, trained police and there are specific statutes that authorize police to do so in full compliance with the Constitution. Most LEOs spend many months at a police academy, learning both police work AND the applicable law, and then many more months on probation. That's the point -- LEOs have the training and education to exercise police powers, which is why we allow only LEOs to do so.

Nothing in the Constitution permits TSOs to exercise police powers. TSOs, who are authorized only to perform an administrative search that is narrow in scope, cannot, either legally or constitutionally, act like "junior LEOs" and exercise de facto powers of detention, arrest and seizure, by calling over a LEO to perform the actual acts.

If I see someone weaving all over the road, I'll call 911 and report a driver who is weaving all over the road and is driving dangerously. If it turns out that the driver wasn't DUI but had a broken rack-and-pinion that was causing the car to weave, I haven't made a false police report. If, however, I see someone in a tricked-out red Mustang convertible with two beautiful girls in the back and I call the police and say, "I just saw a pimp with two prostitutes," I must certainly have made a false police report. As far as who you would "go after," its within your discretion whether or not to make an arrest. It is up to the DA or CA to decide whether to prosecute. Neither have anything to do with whether the law prohibiting false police reports has been violated.

Good faith is, by definition, a complete defense to an accusation of making of a false police report. If you made the report in good faith, i.e. if didn't know AND shouldn't have known, you're not liable.

There is no legal presumption of good faith. As with any crime, the burden of proof lies with the state, which must provide, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a false police report was made.

Returning to TSOs, in the drug paraphernalia example involving my syringes, if I sue the TSO, I have the burden of proof of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the TSO made a false police report. There is no presumption involved because all a legal presumption does is shift the burden of proof from one party to the other. As I already have the burden of proof, there is no presumption because there is no burden shifting.

Criminally? Possibly so. Civilly? I would. In a heart beat.

I'm talking about the law, not the evidence.

Yup. A false citizen's arrest is unlawful detention, assault and battery. All jurisdictions of which I'm aware privilege reasonable force to resist these.

ASnd that's what I would do as well.

If I am physically assaulted by a TSO and a LEO doesn't arrest him for assault, then I'm going to follow up against the LEO as well. If a TSO confiscates my cash and a LEO doesn't arrest him for theft, then I'm going to follow up against the LEO as well.

You guys are there to protect me, not to cover up illegal conduct by TSOs.

Which brings me back to the beginning. The average pax is not going to go out, hire a lawyer and go through the expense of a lawsuit. TSOs (and TSA) count on that.

However, I am a lawyer. It costs me nothing but the filing fees.