Originally Posted by
gsoltso
1st Amendment suits are a more cut and dry statutory yardstick. In many cases, there doesnt even have to be an intent of malice. Other concepts like the Administrative Search doctrine, and the way the SOP covers searches and the like, are much more murky. As long as the TSO adheres to the concept of resolving an alarming object/possible threat item, they are going to win most court battles rather quickly. The legal team for TSA/DHS are fairly good at litigating in cases like this. I would think that for a 1st Amendment challenge, they would really push, unless they think the case against them is a slam dunk win that is teflon.
I think there are those who might disagree with your assessment of 1st Amendment suits being cut and dried. The issue, to me, is certainly cut and dried, but the legality of it has not been long established. There was considerable controversy about the filming of government actors in public places up until just a few years ago, with police all over the country blocking cameras and arresting people who tried to film them, typically on trumped up charges of disturbing the peace, interference, or obstruction, and falsely claiming later that it's not lawful to film uniformed government employees in public places performing their duties.
The overwhelming prevalence of cameras today, in everyone's phone, along with streaming video and cloud video storage, is what really turned the tide, since so many people take it for granted that they can and will record every aspect of their lives and put it all online, including any interactions they have with government officials in public. Those TSOs and LEOs who continue to harass people with cameras are merely holdouts for the lost cause of zero accountability.
Likewise, the issue of 4th Amendment rights are similarly cut and dried to me, but as you say, those issues are murky in terms of established law. In my opinion, however, the murk stems solely from government agencies whose wish is to bypass or eliminate 4th Amendment protections and strip those rights from the people. The legal contortions necessary to justify many modern TSA and law enforcement practices are truly mesmerizing, but in the end the arguments are simply that the sky will fall and the world will end if government actors are prevented from violating the rights of the people. And so I hope that more cases like this one will eventually make their way into the circuits and maybe even to the Supreme Court, to reign in the fear-mongers and bullies who have been chipping away at the Bill of Rights for decades.
Originally Posted by
i0wnj00
I would agree that such training is conducted via OLC but for some reason TSOs (even STSOs) just fly through it, slack off or they complete it they return to the checkpoint and act differently. As I pointed out even STSOs act like this and justify it by saying that it is their checkpoint so they get to make up the rules. I've seen it happen with a few STSOs, but most of them won't do this and will even brief this as this issue comes up from time to time, filming is ok unless it is SSI related and it doesn't interfere with the TSOs work.
Unfortunately, some TSOs do not understand that they are in a public space so they don't really have an expectation of privacy. The best way to handle being in a public space is to not to react to the person filming and knowing your procedures. Or ask the LTSO/STSO for permission to leave the checkpoint. There are better ways to handle situations like this besides using bins to hide oneself or the filming.
I wonder if the "this is MY checkpoint" attitude stems from so many TSOs being military veterans? The "my place" thing has always seemed to me to be a military attitude - my post, my gate, my street, my town, my airport, my checkpoint. I've been placed in charge of this place, that makes it mine, and anyone who enters it must submit to my authority over it and them.
I see this type of attitude being part of a much wider problem in America.