Let's try this again:
Originally Posted by pmocek
Originally Posted by
gsoltso
Originally Posted by
pmocek
So if while searching someone's belongings with your X-ray machine, you see something that looks like a bag of plant matter and some rolling papers, a bag of powder along with a scale, razor blade, and a straw, a bag of powder with a syringe and a tourniquet, a big bag of pills, a bong, a fancy glass pipe, a large quantity of cash, a bunch of credit cards, or a bunch of passports, you're going to ignore that thing and move on? I find that hard to believe.
Of course I am not going to pass that up, there is a razor blade in it and razor blades are verboten.
I shouldn't have included the razor blade in my example. I was just trying to emphasize the idea that you'd be seeing something that you were likely to suspect to be cocaine.
Originally Posted by
gsoltso
The other items (depending on what they look like, some of the stuff you list here would be dense enough to cause a bag check based on a possible threat) would possibly be discovered while looking for the razor blade. IF there is nothing in the bag that looks like a threat or possible threat, then the bag rolls on. Sorry if you don't believe me, but I really don't care. I tell you what I have done in the past and would do now on xray, whether you believe or not is not my problem.
Okay, so when you're doing the search with an X-ray, you'll ignore anything that looks like drugs or drug paraphernalia, and stick to looking for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries. Great! That's what I and many other people think you should do. None of that other stuff is any of your business. Congress would not have authorized warrantless searches for arbitrary indications of possible wrongdoing; they authorized you to search for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries. Searching everyone who passes to look for any indication of wrongdoing is unamerican and unconstitutional, no matter how much crime it would allow you to detect. Your job is not to detect crime; it's to keep dangerous items off airplanes.
That's what you said, right? You said that if there's nothing in a bag that looks like a threat or possible threat (such as a bag of plant matter), you take no action and move on, right?
Originally Posted by pmocek
Originally Posted by
gsoltso
Originally Posted by
pmocek
West, this is so simple: 1) When you and your associates are searching someone's belongings, and you see something that looks to you like illegal drugs, what do you do? 2) When you and your associates are searching someone's belongings, and you see something that looks to you like a weapon, what do you do? Ron tells us that the next step in each case is the same: get a supervisor involved. Is that correct? If so, how can you say that you are searching for weapons but not for drugs?
When I am searching and see something that looks like illegal drugs, I refer to a supervisor, period. That has nothing to do with the reasoning behind the bag search. That is a response that the agency has in place based upon discovery - meaning that if we come across it while performing the basic duty (searching for WEI), we report it, end of story.
Wait a minute -- that directly contradicts what you just wrote. Now, you're saying that when you search a bag, if you see weapons, explosives, incendiaries, or drugs, you refer to a supervisor. Call it what you like; that's as much a search for drugs as it is a search for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries. Why do you suppose you've been trained to take the same action when you find something that looks like it might be and illegal drug as you've been trained to take when you find somethign that looks like it might be a weapon? Why do you suppose you've been indoctrinated with the idea that it's a search specifically for weopons, explosives, and incendiaries, when in reality, a number of other things are treated exactly the same in the course of your searches?
Okay, so this time, you said that those things would not be ignored. Can you please reconcile your two statements?
Originally Posted by pmocek
Originally Posted by
gsoltso
What you keep trying to make out is that all TSOs go into a bag looking for drugs or money and anything else that would be "the big catch" and it is just not true. Many of the TSOs would rather go through their entire career without finding anything other than the odd pocket knife or soda (it means that they are safer in general AND they don't have to run the chance of testifying in court!). Some TSOs may say they are doing this, and to those I say - Bad idea, it can get you in trouble.
And what you don't seem to understand is that even if you call it a search for potatoes, and you
really think you're looking for potatoes, if you have a list of other things that you're supposed to watch out for, then you're really searching for those other things. There's just no way around it. You look in a bag, and you ignore everything except for certain things. That's a search for those things.
Do you agree or not that when you look in a bag and ignor everything except for certain things, that's a search for those things?
Originally Posted by pmocek
Originally Posted by
gsoltso
Oh yeah, if I find a weapon the correct response is to notify the STSO and let them move forward, so yes the response is exactly the same [as it would be if I found illegal drugs], but the situations are not.
Okay, so you
do treat illegal drugs the same as weapons when searching people and their belongings. Again, call it a search for potatoes if you want, but it's clear that you're searching for weapons, explosives, incendiaries, drugs, and likely a few other things. There is a nearly-nearly infinite number of things you are
not searching for, but according to you, Ron, and the TSA operational directive I quoted above, drugs are not on that list. They're on the same list as the dangerous items.
You treat things that appear to be illegal drugs the same as things that look like weapons when searching people and their belongings, don't you? You alert a supervisor in each case, don't you?
Are drugs on the list of things you ignore when searching someone's things, or are they on the list of things that results in action being taken?
Originally Posted by pmocek
If you were hand-searching someone's bag and you saw three cameras along with photographs of that person smashing a store window, crawling through the hole, and leaving with a bag of cameras, you'd probably ignore it and move on, right? It would look like an indication of transporting stolen goods, but it's not on the list of things you're told to look out for, right? You could do the same thing when you see something that looks to you like illegal drugs, but you do not, because those are on the list of things you're told to look out for, right?
What would you do if were hand-searching someone's bag and you saw three cameras along with photographs of that person smashing a store window, crawling through the hole, and leaving with a bag of cameras?
Originally Posted by pmocek
Even the TSA staff who perform the searches admit that they'll stop and take further action when they see, for instance, something that looks like it might be drugs that are illegal for some people to possess in some places, while they're searching our belongings. TSA proudly announces the fact that it finds evidence of identity theft, credit card fraud, passport fraud, immigrations violations, and possession of controlled substances, when "searching for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries".
You disagree with any of that?
Originally Posted by pmocek
We could surely find even more evidence of such wrongdoing if we allowed our government agents to stop everyone who passes other places -- highway entrance ramps, for instance -- and search them for evidence of wrongdoing.
Right?
Originally Posted by pmocek
However, our courts have ruled that such fishing expeditions are unconstitutional. In this nation, we aren't supposed to stop all the good people just to look for the few bad people.
Right?