Originally Posted by Dovster
Bart, clergy, lawyers, doctors, and spouses are specifically authorized not to report criminal activity to law enforcement. The logic behind this is that the damage caused by removing this right would be greater than the benefit of having some additional crimes reported.
I feel that the same is true with the TSA inspections. The argument is that we give implied approval for the TSA to search our luggage, but that approval is for searches which fall into the TSA's jurisdiction -- keeping air travel safe.
By allowing (indeed, requiring) the TSA to report evidence of other kinds of misbehavior we have gone beyong the travel safety question and allowed searches for criminal activity in violation of the Bill of Rights.
You cited exceptions to a rule. The reason behind lawyers and clergy is because it would serve as a double jeapardy against a defendant to confide in them only to have that information used against them in a court of law. However, I don't think you're entirely correct about doctors and spouses. I think the legal exception only applies to lawyers and clergy, but I could be mistaken.
I'll clarify the search rule for you. As long as we're searching for prohibited items and other security-related items, we are performing our jobs as you perceive it. However, the moment we come across something that is not security related, we cannot continue the search. Instead, we have to notify the supervisor who may decide to notify the police if we are unable to complete the search and clear the bag.
I'll throw another twist. If I see what appears to be a bong on the x-ray, I cannot call a bag search. It is not our job to detect drugs or drug-related paraphernalia. However, if I see a pair of scissors or a knife or other prohibited item, I am performing my job. If during the search for the scissors, knife, etc., a screener comes across what appears to be a drug-related item, then he notifies the supervisor; supervisor notifies the LEO, and the LEO makes a determination of whether or not is it evidence or indications of a drug-related crime. It is the LEO's decision to make not ours.
This works the other way around, too. Had a young lady who did have a pipe and baggie with what appeared to be some residue of some sort of weed or possible drug. We followed procedure and the LEO let her go. Now this young lady was quite attractive, wore a miniskirt, had a low-cut blouse that showed off a lot of cleavage, and was waving those twins in front of the police officer every chance she got. Some of my screeners thought that perhaps this was the reason he didn't file charges. The more practical explanation is that residue is not enough to convict; it won't even make it to the charge sheet; it would have been a waste of time to even pursue it. The officer probably enjoyed the show she provided, but I'm confident that he was looking at it from a matter of prosecutability instead of getting any cheap thrills from the impromptu T&A show. What I told my screeners is that once we hand the matter over to the LEO, it's his call. We don't have any jurisdiction or legal interest in the matter.