Originally Posted by
Trollkiller
Dang it Dean, I was all snuggled up in bed when it hit me. The fact the SOP requires that you report to a LEO illegal drugs or the famed $10k+ pushes the search into an unconstitutional area.
IfAre you trained on what constitutes a "suspicious" object or substance?
You have hit the issue. ^ It depends on the
intent of the SOP. When TSO finds that 1/2 oz. baggie of a green leafy substance and determines it is not a weapon, explosive or incendiary, and therefore not a threat to aviation safety, the SOP
should say (have the intent) to the TSO "At this point, assume the best case, either this is oregano cuz the pax is going to a cooking competition, or if it is a popular recreational herb, assume he comes from a state where he could get a prescription for this, thus it is not ilegal. Screening is over, pax is safe to leave the checkpoint and fly."
The current SOP says (has the intent) "When you seen an unknown green leafy material, ASSUME THE WORST CASE. Assume it is a drug, not cooking supplies, even though you have no training in telling the difference. Assume it is recreational herb, and assume the pax does not have a prescription, thus assume he is a criminal. Call the cops
to begin a criminal investigation. Make a spot on your uniform for your new flair reward for making the Big Catch™ at the next Weekly Bling Award Ceremony."
I listened to the whole STL tape. It struck me, and I am surprised no lawyers here pointed it out, that the main interrogator is the airport LEO. Cops perform
criminal investigations. If the pax was not under criminal investigation, he would not be talking to a cop or having his warrants run. Thus under the 5th Amendment and Miranda he can and should STFU until he talks to a lawyer. It is beyond administrative at the point he is detained and questioned by any LEO.
I also read the whole 8 pages of Fofana (thanks link poster) and recommend everyone do so. It is fascinating. I get the feeling the judge is reaming the TSA from start to finish. Plus TSA ticked off the judge. The TSA quoted their standard "Our SOPs are SSI" and the judge said "fine, I'll look at them in secret,
in-camera ex parte, give them to me." Quote: "The Government did not do so."
TSA had the attitude "We can share our SSI SOP with every Grade A Screener like HSVTSO Dean
, but we cannot/willnot show them to a sitting Federal Judge." I know enough to realize you don't win cases by ticking off the judge by telling him his security rating is not higher than a Grade A Screener and he is not allowed to see SSI documents. I hope the appeals court insists on using the SSIs as part of their examination of the case. I'm guessing they will not help the Government win their side.