Just to give this some perspective:

TSA screeners are not law enforcement officers. We are not peace officers. We are not police officers. Instead, we are federal security officers whose specific task is to screen people and property on public transportation. Currently, we are limited to commerical airlines at some 450 airports throughout the nation.

With respect to consensual searches: like it or not, you are subject to federal laws. Don't have to agree with the law, but you do have to follow the law. You cannot pick and choose which laws you will obey and which ones you will ignore. You may challenge the law in court, but that's another matter. You may petition your legislators to change the law, and that again is another matter.

US Code Title 49, section 44901 specifies that:

US Code Title 49 section 44902 addresses the consensual issue:

Airport security screening is nothing new. It's been around for a very long time. Eastern Airlines was the first to implement metal detector screening in 1969 in response to the flurry of hijackings of airliners to Cuba. It wasn't until 1973 that the FAA made it mandatory for all airlines to screen passengers and their carry-on baggage. It wasn't until after the 1988 Lockerbie bombing that US airports began efforts to screen checked baggage and implemented procedures to match passengers with their baggage.

My point here is that it should be no surprise to anyone in this country or even this planet that when you go to an airport, there will be a security checkpoint. And when you place your carry-on property on a conveyor belt to the x-ray machine, that machine is going to use radiation beam technology to allow the operator to view the contents inside of your bag. No one is forcing you to place the bag on the conveyor belt; you certainly have the right to refuse to submit it for x-ray inspection but then you will not be permitted to go to the gate. This has been upheld by various court decisions as a valid and legal security principle. You can always avoid this scrutiny by simply choosing not to fly on a commercial airliner. You may not like it, but the courts have ruled that you do not have a constitutionally guaranteed right to fly. "A rich man can choose to drive a limousine; a poor man may have to walk. The poor man's lack of choice in his mode of travel may be unfortunate, but it is not unconstitutional."

As for this specific situation:

Screeners look for basically three types of items.

1) Dual-use "weapons." These are items that may not be specifically designed as menacing weapons but can potentially be used as such. Until 9/11, box cutters were regarded as nothing more than utility tools. You don't have to agree with the TSA's prohibited items list of dual-use weapons, but I think there's agreement that these are the items we commonly encounter at security checkpoints.

2) Obvious weapons. Talking about guns, bombs, grenades and other items specifically designed and specifically intended as weapons.

3) Hazardous materials. This is relatively new and was implemented in 1996 by the FAA after two airline crashes involved explosions resulting from hazardous materials being transported.

When a screener locates a prohibited item, like a pair of scissors or leatherman tool, the passenger is given the option to either dispose of the item or surrender the item to TSA screeners who will then dispose of it. When a screener discovers hazardous material, that item is confiscated unless the owner can dispose of it by having it removed from the airport. This is typically done when non-flying companions of the passenger are still at the airport lobby and agree to remove the item. Otherwise, it is confiscated by the airlines. In practice, we confiscate these items and then turn them over to the airlines. If we were to stick to the letter of the law in this instance, then you would be delayed until an airline ground security coordinator could be located and respond to the call. With the amount of hazmat we encounter every day, this would be impractical and frustrating for both passengers and screeners.

When a screener detects an obvious weapon, the airport police take over. This is when all the 4th Amendment principles apply. Keep in mind, though, that there is a very fine line here. The carry-on has been offered for a security search; the screener has detected a suspicious item that goes beyond his authority; the item is turned over to the law enforcement officer who has the authority to determine whether or not a crime has been committed; the burden is then on the police officer to conduct the search in accordance with the law. You can argue the various scenarios that result from this sequence, but the point here is that nothing has been done to violate the owner's constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. When the owner presented the carry-on for screening, he assumed a risk that any illegal item inside the bag or bags was going to be discovered. It's that simple.

Is there anything illegal about having large amounts of cash? Not at all. However, screeners are trained to identify suspicious discoveries. And not everyone carries huge amount of cash, so yes, stacks of bills tucked inside of a carry-on bag is a suspicious discovery. The matter is usually turned over to the airport police to handle. IF the passenger is flying internationally, then the passenger needs to declare any cash over $10,000. Do any of you expect a screener to actually count the cash? I would certainly hope not. I don't want my screeners put in a position where they may be accused of stealing that money. I've experienced situations when what looked like a lot of money, possibly over $10,000 turned out to be only $3,000 or $4,000 in cash. Again, hard to tell when all you see are stacks of $20 bills wrapped in rubber bands. I've seen situations when a person just finished a business deal and prefered to carry the cash on his person because he didn't trust electronic transfers. Nothing criminal about that, and nothing was done to this person. We reported it to the airport LEO, and he made the determination that there was nothing illegal about that unusual situation. Again, it's the LEO's job to determine if a crime has been committed not TSA's. All we do is report what we are trained to report to the airport LEO.

Originally Posted by bocastephen
A good result yielded from a bad process does not mean we should praise the process. The role of the TSA screener must be focused only on preventing the introduction of restricted items onto aircraft or sterile areas of the airport. Period. It should not be widened to include searches for drugs, cash, illegal aliens, wanted felons, etc...we do not want out airports turned into virtual borders.

We don't look for drugs, cash, illegal aliens, wanted felons, etc. We look for the things I mentioned above. However, when we encounter a situation that appears suspicious, we turn the matter over to the airport law enforcement officer who has the training and authority to determine if a crime has been, is being or is going to be committed.

Speaking in generalities here to address the news story. I think it's great that two criminals were caught. I don't necessarily agree with giving TSA the credit; however, I don't see it as a good result yielded from a bad process. I see it as a lucky coincidence. Nothing more. Nothing less.