Originally Posted by
tsadude1
I will challenge anyone here to provide a court case where a BDOs observations were cause to dismiss a case. Several BDOs have been to court already.
Originally Posted by
Bart
I accept that challenge. Behavior detection, by itself, is a poor basis for testimony because it ultimately boils down to convincing a jury. It's hard evidence that wins court cases. I'm not saying that BDO testimony will doom a case; but I am saying that BDO testimony alone is much like DNA evidence. If you don't connect the dots in court and do a good job explaining the theory behind SPOT, then it's not going to stand up very well.
Finding an IED through x-ray examination is pretty indisputable. All that has to be established at that point is ownership and chain of custody. However, testifying, for example, that suspicions were raised because a person wiped his forehead repeatedly becomes difficult when challenged why others who also wiped their foreheads in a similar manner were not suspect.
I'm really on your side. I think the SPOT works quite effectively. I am skeptical, however, now that Kip Hawley is gone, that the TSA leadership will be as passionate defending the program.
Well crap I don't know whose side to be on.
I will assume that every case that is pursued is based on physical evidence found and not the BDO's testimony. The exception is when the search is conducted by LEOs, or away from the screening area by non LEOs, based on the BDOs observation.
If a BDO signals a TSO to do a more extensive screening of the passenger and carry on at the checkpoint you would not run into a Constitutional issue, and I would see no reason to even involve the BDO a trial.
On the other hand if a BDO contacts a LEO because they suspect that someone wiped their forehead or has some other "micro emotion" that indicated nefariousness, and the LEO took the BDO's word without any independent observation that would raise probable cause, the search would run foul of the 4th Amendment protections.