Originally Posted by
spotnik
I know this puts me in the role of TSA apologist. For the record, I don't like that role very much, although I think it is important for people reading this forum to understand the way TSA seems to think and react on these issues.
And I think we all appreciate you're doing so. The problem, however, is exacerbated by the TSA PR machine, as exemplified by the TSA blog, which contains official lies and misrepresentations that, while satisfying to the casual and uninformed flier, makes frequent fliers like those who post on FT even more hostile to the agency.
Correct. As I understand it, you are not required to answer questions or talk to any screening personnel. You are required to submit to screening of your person and property at the checkpoint in order to access the sterile area. That screening is supposed to check for weapons and explosives. If you decide to leave the checkpoint into the sterile area before the TSA personnel decide the screening is completed, TSA will attempt to stop you from doing so with non-physical methods. If that doesn't work, a security breach will be called, and LEOs will be asked to escort you out of the sterile area. Is this more clear? If not, I can try again.
I don't think you're deliberately trying to be obscure, but neither am I. Specifically:
Once I have walked through the WTMD without alarming, completed secondary (if selected), and been cleared to retrieve my possessions as they come out the other end of the x-ray (and no bag check has been called for), as far I am concerned (and, I believe, as far as the law is concerned), I have completed screening.
If, while I'm putting on my shoes or waiting for my bag, a BDO decides that I shouldn't be cleared to the sterile area because either I've refused to talk with him, or because he doesn't like my demeanor, preventing me from doing so, either by trying to stop me in a non-physical manner or by calling over a LEO to detain me, exceeds the constitutional limits placed on an administrative search. By law, the administrative search must be minimally intrusive and is confined to confirming that I have no weapons or explosives on my person or in my possession. BDO questioning goes to questions of whether I have illegal intent (theoretically). LEOs can detain me, temporarily, if they have a reasonable suspicion. Non-LEOs, like BDOs and TSOs, can not. Moreover, refusal to engage in conversation with a government agent in this context does not constitute reasonable suspicion, without considerably more, even for a LEO.
I am always interested in a discussion of Constitutional law, if you wish to so indulge me. I can certainly understand if you're busy with work until the weekend. I won't likely have time for heavy reading until Tuesday or Wednesday, anyway.
I'll try to do so. My wife is currently in China with my sick father-in-law, so I have an empty weekend looming before me. I have Westlaw access and have already done some preliminary research so, if I can, I'll try to start another thread in this forum on the constitutional considerations of gate searches and BDO screening at checkpoints.
I wouldn't stop with the 4th and 5th amendments, actually.
I suspect there is also a First Amendment concern as well.
I am glad that you understand what you would be getting into with such a battle. I'm not sure every reader in this forum has a similar perspective.
I've written about this before in other threads. I would need the right combination of circumstances, i.e. a trip which can be delayed a day without significant prejudice to me, and a clear and egregious violation.
I try to be somewhat careful to keep my personal political beliefs out of online forums, especially if people do not specifically ask for said beliefs. Suffice to say, were I to get into a heated political discussion about the current state of the executive branch, I would likely say things I shouldn't say in unknown company.
I see this less as a political issue and more of a constitutional one.
The page is not loading right for me at the moment. I assume, from context, that this statement refers to the gate screening link.
That's correct.
I included that link because I try to take my statements of TSA positions and policies from published public sources whenever I can do so. I do not offer it as an argument for the legitimacy of the TSA policy/position, but as proof that such a policy/position exists. It also puts me on firmer ground if I were ever to be accused of violating SSI regulations, as official material developed and published for public consumption is defined as "not SSI."
I once had a supervisor tell me that "there would be trouble," if I had seen TSA SOP because it's SSI. I haven't looked at security issues, other than the fact that I once held a Secret clearance when I worked in aerospace. I am not aware, however, of any legal basis for holding
me liable for learning the contents of anything that is supposedly SSI. Though I'm sure you have a contractual obligation as a condition of employment not to disclose SSI, I'd frankly be surprised if it was subject to the same criminal penalties as disclosing state secrets.
Thank you for the compliment. In my experience, I find that most of my coworkers are decent people who are trying to do the job to the best of their abilities.
And that's been my experience of TSA as well. The overwhelming majority of TSOs that I encounter are polite, professional, efficient and good-humored. My objection is not to specific TSOs, but to what TSA requires that they do.
I see we're on the same page.
