Here are my problems:
she is required by TSA Operations Directive OD-400-54-2 to call a law enforcement officer.
The court should have struck down this directive as a violation of the administrative search - this clearly morphs an administrative search into a criminal one, often without the knowledge or consent of the searchee and should be un-Constitutional.
She noted that, after searching the laptop, she needed to find the dark mass shown in the CTX image, which she believed could be the photographs on the
table. Andrade could not “precisely say what photographs” and turn the item over for further action if they simply “feel it possibly could be contraband.” ....were immediately visible when they first spilled out, but she did
remember seeing photos of nude children, including one of a boy on a bed with his eyes closed.
It's clear from this section that her search was not based on seeing a 'dark mass' on the screen, but rather a desire to further explore the photos and other bag content based on the photos that spilled out that she could she - therefore those photos triggered a deliberate fishing expedition. The court was WRONG to not see this clearly and rule to block this evidence.
Then, although she was no longer concerned about explosives and felt that the “pictures that [she] saw [were] enough to make [her] determine that the children weren’t in a good situation,” Andrade proceeded to read a few lines of the letters in the envelope to “determine what the pictures were all about” and to “make sure” that the photographs were contraband before she called her lead officer to report them
Again, clear evidence in support of my immediate previous statement that the screener engaged in a fishing expedition to determine whether or not the photos *should* be reported - this clearly exceeded the scope of the administrative search.
I hope the case is appealed - the court was totally wrong here.