Originally Posted by
Bart
I can't give you a good answer for a number of reasons, and most of that has to do with the nature of the judicial process. For example, I know TSOs who were notified that they were to testify in court for a drug-related incident; however, it never happened. Part of this could be because, for that particular case, there was a plea bargain agreement, or the case was dropped for other reasons, or it may be caught up in a series of delays. Or it could be as simple as the case being successfully prosecuted without the need for testimony by a TSO. Other factors are that the TSO is simply no longer employed with TSA (while not a high turnover rate, there is a steady turnover rate). Or while the incident may have been a good arrest, it may have never made it to court for a variety of reasons.
I don't know of any TSA-related court cases based solely on money being found inside a bag.
When I train Leads, I start off with a series of questions:
Q: How do you put an elephant inside a refrigerator?
A: Open the door, shove him in, and close the door.
Q: How do you put a giraffe inside a refrigerator? (They usually answer as above)
A: No, first ya gotta take the elephant out.
I ask a couple of other riddles, then I end it with:
The moral here is to read the prohibited items list....don't read into it!
I am sorry I asked that question badly. I should have said "how common is it for a TSO to be required to testify?" What I really wanted to know is if the prosecution relies on TSO’s testimony or do they try to skip over the TSO and rely on the LEO’s testimony.
On your riddles, and I would not bring this up but, we just covered being precise with your words in the kid's homeschooling.
Instead of "a refrigerator", you need to change that to "the refrigerator" to denote that you are talking about the same refrigerator. As the question stands the answer of “shove him in there” is correct.
The moral is dead on.