Actually, fraudulent document training is mandatory for all Homeland Security employees whose duties include handling such items.
Ha, find me a TSA screener who has had fraudulent document training...I want to see them pass a test. 80%+ of the time, they can't even find a bomb - how are they going to find a fraudulent document? Maybe if "ACME Fraudulent Document Shoppe" is stenciled on it.
See the above post. Actually, it's CBP that handles inspections at borders or their functional equivalents.
The acronym doesn't matter to me - the bottom line is securing the border is the responsibility of another group that is trained and employed for that purpose.
I don't expect someone from ICE or CBP is going to find a bomb in a bag and I don't expect someone from the TSA is going to find a fraudulent passport (or even a bomb in a bag).
Nice try. Anyone with teenagers knows even the best parents can't prevent kids from making stupid decisions.
Frankly, I don't care. I am still not giving up my rights or privacy because other people can't control themselves.
That would fall under the open fields doctrine. If a law enforcement officer has a legal right to be where they are, any contraband discovered can be seized and used as evidence. The caveat to that is a person may withdraw from screening at any point prior to such an item being found. This policy is truly in keeping with a consent search.
Wrongo - no passenger may withdraw from the screening process once that process has commenced, regardless of whether or not something has been found. At that point, the search becomes mandatory and the 4th Amendment should apply. It is an error in the applicability of the law that it does not apply now - and that the consent for the search is not yet narrowly focused by the courts.
The courts have routinely held that public safety overrides 4th Amendment concerns in certain cases. People entering public buildings and D.U.I. checkpoints are other examples.
Not routinely, but in some specific cases. However, I can choose not to enter a public building and I can also choose to refuse to allow my bag to be searched at a public building and leave. I don't have that right at an airport. A DUI checkpoint has a narrow focus - a search to determine whether or not the driver is impaired. I am under no obligation to permit the police to search my car without a warrant even at these checkpoints. In fact, the DUI checkpoint case laws prove my point in a way - they grant consent for a narrow search for a single purpose, while ensuring Constitutional protection for anything outside that very narrow target.