Originally Posted by
halls120
You can't be serious. You cannot separate her actions from her motives in searching the bag.
Why not? She didn't chose to search the bag, she was directed by SOP to search that persons luggage. Or explain to me why I am wrong?
Or I'll give you a personal example of what I mean:
some weeks ago I was on x-ray. I saw something in a bag, but was nit sure what it was. It looked odd. I called another TSO to conduct the search. But when he saw the image he told me it was nothing and to
let the bag go.
However, SOP states the person on x-ray decides if the bag has to be searched, so I insist that the bag be checked.
At this point you now have a TSO searching someones bag, and the TSO does not believe there is a WEI in the bag. This is a clear example of separating the actions of a particular TSO and their "motive"/belief (you use the word motive, I use the word belief).
As it turns out what I saw was a knife.
Please explain to me why the person should have been able to pass without their bag being checked because one TSO though it was clear?
Originally Posted by
Tom M.
Actually the court ruled her actions were improper when she opened the envelope.
The court concluded that the search preformed by the screening agents could not be
justified as an administrative search
and
Mirow and Stroud testified that the TSA had a
policy of directing its agents to report large quantities of cash to other law enforcement agencies
But way to twist things. Thumbs down to you.
The court ruled based on her testimony, not SOP. And her belief was incorrect.
Or please quote for me in the decision where the judge cites SOP? Thanks.