Originally Posted by
SATTSO
I disagree with some of what you say. If someone does not have ID I think it is very reasonable to search that person and their property. I believe you agreed with this, before? Has your opinion changed since Gilmore (I believe your stance was allow someone not to show ID and allow them to be screened as a selectee).
What is an "alarm"? That's very vague. The x-ray never alarms, ever. The person working the x-ray sees something, or can't see something (think clutter, or something very dense). What do you call an alarm on the x-ray considering there is no actual alarm, but only the interpertation of th. X-ray operator, people who may very well see different things looking at the same image?
What if a person checking the bag "alarms", not for contraband, but another possible prohibited item or an WEI? At one point checking a bag I was going for one item in a multi-pocket briefcase when what might have been a knife poked me through the fabric of another pocket which the x-ray operator did not see. There were many cables in the bag. At that point I can honestly say that I wondered if the bag was too cluttered to be x-ray screened properly, and searched the compartments of the bag for other prohibited items and possible WEIs - not contraband. Was the fact that my search continued beyond the original item illegal? ccording to fofona, it was not.
I agree that a secondary screening for those that have no ID or choose not to show it is reasonable. But the courts have not ruled that way and the one time the TSA had to prove that IDs are important they abandoned the "
novel argument in its post-suppression". Maybe I am reading too much into it but is sounds like the courts would not have bought that argument.
What the courts have ruled is the search must be “no more
extensive
or
intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives;” and that the search was “confined in good faith to that purpose.”
A "random" search after the bag has been through the x-ray would be more extensive and intensive than necessary. If the TSO on x-ray sees a prohibited item like a multi-tool and that causes the "alarm" (for lack of a better term), once you locate the alarm and clear it you are done. Any more searching would be more extensive and intensive than necessary.
On the example you gave of the overly crowded bag, the search would not have been more extensive or intensive than necessary due to the limitations in the x-ray machine.
But as a policy and you correct me if I am wrong, once you have an alarm or decide to hand search a bag for any reason, you must check in every nook and cranny. The extensiveness of the search due to that policy would be illegal.