For the umpteenth time, Fofana, a court decision. Read it.
The evidence obtained by search procedures that exceeded normal procedures to protect protection of passengers from criminal activities was suppressed. And this has relevance to a TSA agent being concerned with the safety of an 11 year old child - how?
Originally Posted by
doober
I thought so also. Must be some kind of a reason for it.
The reason is simple - I deplore child abuse, which is really not a difficult concept to comprehend I would think.
Originally Posted by
PTravel
I am stating that the American Humane organization's opinion is irrelevant to the law.
First of all, the statute doesn't say, "criminal act," it says, "More generally, the TSA is responsible for creating “regulations to protect passengers and property on an aircraft . . . against an act of criminal
violence or aircraft piracy.”"
I have no intention of giving you a lesson in Statutory Construction 101 -- frankly, I should charge you for my time to do the minimal research that I did. I couldn't care less what the meaning of the statute is to you. It means what I said it means. Your opinion of its meaning is that of an uninformed layman and therefore irrelevant.
I see you also have conveniently ignored the other material that I provided that clearly defines the limited scope of non-police authority afforded to TSOs. I don't know what your deal is -- whether you are a TSO, or just one of those, "anything for the children," people -- but you are simply wrong.
Then you are stating they are wrong in their statement:
Approximately 18 states define mandated reporters more broadly to include any citizen who suspects that a child is being abused or neglected.
You are also stating persons acting in good faith on suspected child abuse are exceeded their legally justifiable acts - if you are, I strongly suspect you are the one who is wrong.
For the record, I am not an employee of any government agency.