Originally Posted by
bonoman
Probably this part that says "ensure that screening of the individual’s accessible property is completed, either by TSA or an LEO."
This still distracts from the point that passengers don't have published rights. A citizen can murder someone and know what rights they have every step of the process - documented and consistent. Every LEO in the country knows what a Miranda is, but I can't fly on a plane without guessing which act of the TSA circus I'm going to be subjected to this week.
Maybe now the SOP is out there, some lobbying can be done to remedy this belligerent department of the US Gov't.
But why do you think a LEO would have conducted the search? I can only speak from my personal experiences, and when it has gotten to the point that a pax refuses the screening of their property, the only times I have seen a LEO conduct the search is when they arrest the pax. Other than that they basically tell the person the search will go on, do not be disruptive, and then they have the TSO continue the search. Notice the SOP does not say that the pax has a choice who will continue the search.
The way I look at it, and it's just my opinion/spin on it, the LEO is an intimidation factor. Everyone I work with says they notice a change in the pax's attitude when the LEOs arrive. The pax usually becomes more cooperative.
I guess you haven't seen where I have post that much of what is SSI should be public. We do not disagree on this.
Edit: my other point seems to remain valid: by not following the sop it seems they saved you time. Yes, the TSA employees were wrong, and most likely jerks. And I am a bit confused: you said you were very rushed for time, is that true or not?