Any time a government agent, using the authority given to him/her by the government, detains an individual for questioning without probable cause, it is inappropriate. The TSOs were acting using the color of authority and overstepping the bounds of their mandated limited "administrative search" role to question a child outside the earshot of her legal guardian.

Would you be OK with a TSO asking unknown questions to your child out of your earshot? Since we don't know the specific questions that were asked, let's change the situation just a bit and make some assumptions. Would you be OK with a TSO asking the child any of the following:
- Did mommy hit you? Is that why you're crying?
- Does your daddy touch you in bad places?
- Is your mommy doing something to scare you? What is it, dear?
- Does your mommy have any drugs?
- Where is your mommy taking you? Do you want to go?
- Is mommy or daddy a bad person? Are they mean?

I can easily see any, or all, of the above being asked during the child's interrogation by a TSO who has received exactly zero training in dealing with children. All of the above questions (and, of course, any variations) are inappropriate subject matter for a TSO with the limited authority of an "administrative search" for WEI to be asking.

Inappropriate is not just my opinion. It is the opinion held by SCOTUS in various rulings about TSA and limited administrative search authority.

Precisely. The reason why is simple: when a government agent asks questions, many times they are doing so with at least the appearance of authority. This causes many people to feel compelled to answer.

Think of it this way... You are standing in an airport with an upset child. A concerned citizen comes along and asks you if there's anything wrong, and if there's anything that s/he can do to help. You feel comfortable in replying that nothing is wrong-- or maybe even asking the person to mind their own business, depending upon the circumstances.

Now, if that person were wearing a uniform and acting as a government agent with the ability to detain or deny access to transportation, it's a game changer. Suddenly most people don't feel quite so comfortable in telling said government agent to mind their own business. Many would probably feel somewhat compelled to try to start providing an explanation.

There's also the simple fact that there are things which are inappropriate for our government to do, simply because it's a violation of civil rights. A private citizen can try and detain someone, or keep a child from going somewhere without it necessarily being a violation of your civil rights. But to detain and question (as was done in this situation), a law enforcement officer must be used and probable cause/reasonable suspicion must exist.

The answer to your "why" is because that's simply the way it is. There are different acceptable boundaries for actions when people act as a government agent (which is clearly what was happening in the OP's scenario).

Yes. Again, teachers and guidance counsellors have no business asking questions that do not pertain to their role as educators. And they would have no business in detaining a child and preventing free and open access between the child and the child's guardian, absent clear and convincing evidence that the guardian was going to put the child in imminent danger.

I don't have children myself, but can easily imagine a situation similar to the OP's at a school. If I went to the school to pick up my child but was denied access to him/her because s/he was crying, and was told that the child would have to be questioned first, I could easily imagine picking up my cell phone and dialing 9-1-1 to get law enforcement there.

So you think that TSA's intention was to help the child in this situation? Government primarily cares about a few things-- power, control, money, and getting more of all three. Maybe general welfare of the population is on the list somewhere, but it's close to the bottom-- especially with law enforcement and quasi-law enforcement agencies.

TSA representatives are entitled to the respect that they earn. Do they deserve to be treated like dirt without cause? No. But in this case, there is plenty of cause-- false imprisonment, questioning without a legal guardian or attorney present, to name two.

TSA acted inappropriately. If they had suspicions, they should have called a LEO over immediately to do an interview. And the interview should have been conducted in a much more professional manner, with the mother being fully involved in the process. Clearly that is not what happened here.

None of these are acting as government agents whose job it is to investigate crimes or catch people breaking laws. In the case of all the above mentioned, with the possible exception of the bus driver, none of them even work for the government. Hence, the same restrictions may not apply.

Now, that being said, I think I'd still have a problem with their involvement if they acted in exactly the same manner as TSA did in the OP's report. I'd probably have a large enough problem with their behavior that local media would be alerted and possibly an attorney might be contacted to file a lawsuit against the property owner and/or security company.

I would not interfere. Assuming that the child is being escorted by a legal guardian or someone else with appropriate authority, I'd assume that it's just a child crying-- nothing more.

The only time I'd consider interfering is if the child was yelling something like "Help me!", "Bad man!", "Help, help!" or something similar. At that point I think any reasonable person would at least have cause to question what's happening. But even then I wouldn't separate the child from the person and interrogate the child-- I'd talk to the adult first and see what's happening.

Bzzzt, wrong. Having the perception of being responsible does not equal being responsible, and certainly does not equate with having the legal authority or responsibility.

Unless and until TSA is given the legal authority to step in when faced with these situations, they are acting beyond their scope and potentially violating civil rights when they act. If they continue to do this, I hope they do it some day with the wrong person-- who sues TSA and the screener personally, and winds up with a lot of money in his/her pocket resulting in a screener going through significant financial hardship. It is beginning to seem like the only way to send a message to screeners about overstepping their authority is to make examples of them, and I don't think TSA has much intention of doing that in these types of circumstances any time in the near future.

Bad. Because TSA is restrained from doing so because they are acting as a government agent and doing so violates the child's civil rights, at a minimum.

How can 4 TSOs preventing a clearly emotionally upset 11 year old child from being with her mother while firing questions at her not be considered "ganging up"? I'm a grown 6' tall, somewhat chunky adult, and I'd feel that having 4 TSOs standing around me firing questions away for no good purpose was "ganging up". I'm sure that the child didn't feel more at ease or more comfortable as a result of her "encounter" with these folks.