Recently, by way of sarcastically stating that he appreciated being misquoted, TSORon accused me of misquoting him:
Originally Posted by
TSORon
Originally Posted by pmocek
TSO Ron seems to think that if you see something in someone's bag that looks like illegal drugs, you [TSA airport passenger and bag search staff] are required to report it to a supervisor.
I absolutely love it when someone tries putting words in my mouth.
Ron, how was I putting words in your mouth? Reviewing the conversation, I first thought that maybe I had put words in your mouth, that maybe you hadn't said that you're
required to report your finding of something you suspect is illegal drugs to a supervisor. But I looked some more, and found that you did indeed say so.
Ron quoted N965VJ and responded:
Originally Posted by
TSORon
Originally Posted by
N965VJ
Apologies for the tardy reply. The problem is your employer’s focus on non-threats such as drugs and cash are a dangerous distraction from keeping weapons, explosives and incendiaries from passing though the checkpoint. Using illegal drugs as an analogy is an example of this.
Actually we dont. We dont stop a bag because it may have drugs in it, drugs just happen to often appear as an organic substance, just like many explosives do. But if we go into a bag looking for your toothpaste and find your stash of dope then of course we notify a LEO. What the LEO does with the situation from there is up to them.
And thats how the vast majority of drugs are found in TSA workplaces. We are searching a bag for a suspected prohibited item and we find the stash. Its not intentional but we cannot ignore it.
I quoted Ron and responded:
Originally Posted by
pmocek
Originally Posted by
TSORon
Its not intentional but we cannot ignore it.
Wrong. You
can ignore it, just like you ignore a number of other things which might indicate wrongdoing, might not indicate wrongdoing, and almost certainly do not present a danger to anyone if they are carried into the airport or onto an airplane.
Ron quoted me and responded:
Originally Posted by
TSORon
Originally Posted by
pmocek
Wrong. You can ignore it, just like you ignore a number of other things which might indicate wrongdoing, might not indicate wrongdoing, and almost certainly do not present a danger to anyone if they are carried into the airport or onto an airplane.
No, not according to SOP I cant. I like my job, I’d like to keep it for a while.
Ron, I don't think there was any putting-of-words-in-mouth on my part as you implied. Could you please explain your accusation or retract it?
In another exchange, you made it clear that you would call a supervisor regardless of whether you found something that looks like a weapon or found something that looks like illegal drugs:
Originally Posted by
TSORon
Originally Posted by
pmocek
Originally Posted by
TSORon
If between starting the search and that time when I find the prohibited item I am looking for I find your stash, I am going to call a supervisor and then move on to the next bag. If you are dumb enough to try and transport an illegal substance through a TSA checkpoint then you get what you deserve if its discovered.
Isn't that precisely what you'll do if you find something that looks like a bomb or other weapon? In either case, you're looking through someone's belongings in an attempt to find things that are not supposed to be there. In either case, if you see something that looks like one of certain items that are not supposed to be there, you're going to stop and call a supervisor. You're only going to move on to the next bag if you can do so without releasing the one with the suspicious item. Please tell me the difference in your reaction to finding something that you suspect is an illegal drug and something that you suspect is a weapon.
No difference, I will call a supervisor in either case. By weapon I mean a firearm, knives and such I have the authority to deal with on my own, unless its larger than 3inches.
Ron, can you please explain how you consider this a search only for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, when by your own admission, if you think you see drugs while you're searching someone's belongings, you will -- and are required to -- take
precisely the same action as you would take if you think you see a weapon? Remember, we're not talking just about your "find the threat item" task, but the entire search of someone's belongings.
If searching a bag, then alerting a supervisor if you find what you suspect is drugs is, as you claim, not a search for drugs, then how can you consider searching a bag, then alerting a supervisor if you find what you suspect is a weapon to be a search for weapons? If it's going to be considered a search "for" anything, it seems that it's as much a search for drugs as it is a search for weapons, regardless of what you call it.