So your drivers license from California is not an accepted form of ID. What we know of current procedures is the blue shirt will ask for a costco card or debit card.

You will be brought through screening. You will not have any alarms or anomalies. You will be thinking "I can get to my plane."

You then will be subject to secondary screening. Your bags, despite no evidence of prohibited items, will be subject to a secondary search. Your body, despite no evidence of prohibited items will be subject to a secondary search.

By all accounts and competent screening your carryons and your person are clear and safe for travel. But since, it is January 10 2016, and your State issued California drivers license is not acceptable - even though it was from 2002 to January 09 2016, you must undergo secondary screening. Even though TSA is virtually 100% confident you no prohibited items.

So you start to think to yourself this secondary search violates my 4th Amendments rights. You find a lawyer and internet group who agree with you. You file a lawsuit in a Federal Court in California. You will claim:

"TSA screeners are limited to the single administrative goal of searching for possible safety threats related to explosives, the constitutional bounds of an airport administrative search require that the individual screener's actions be no more intrusive than necessary to determine the existence or absence of explosives that could result in harm to the passengers and aircraft. ($124,570 U.S. Currency, 873 F.2d at 1245)". In light of this limitation, Plaintiff passed through initial screening without anomalies or alarms your person or property; thus the search authority of TSA ended. However, despite the lack of legal authority or even a minutia of suspicion to search, Plaintiff was subject to secondary screening. TSA exceeded its authority in conducting a secondary search. TSA violated the Plaintiff 4th Amendment rights in conducting a secondary search.

You then find out your case was dismissed outright based on:

An administrative search "conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, namely, to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft, and thereby to prevent hijackings." ~ United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir.1973); see also United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174, 178 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 111, 166 L.Ed.2d 255 (2006); Marquez, 410 F.3d at 616.

And while every TSA agent would testify "While we were nearly 100% confident the passenger did not have a WEI or any prohibited items we still conducted a secondary search", the Court will also say "Even though everyone would testify you had no WEI, the secondary search was '"is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives [][and] that it is confined in good faith to that purpose." Davis, 482 F.2d at 913."

If you do not believe me see US v. Aukai, 497 F. 3d 955 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2007