Originally Posted by
NY-FLA
Thanks, well aware of this and the case law it summarizes. However, IMHO, this ruling was always focused to ensure conviction in the case at hand. It certainly can't be read to heretofore and henceforth give TSO's the power to detain/ prevent intending criminals (oops, I mean pax) from leaving the check-point, particularly if they choose to head back to the non-sterile area.. The practical aspects of how TSO's would/could cause an intending pax to not be free to leave, would seem to be insurmountable, unless TSO's are given LEO authority.
U.S. v. Aukai (9th Circuit Ruling)
Aukai wanted to leave the checkpoint after he had already initiated screening. Although his bags did not indicate anything suspicious, nor did he set off the walk-through metal-detector, he was subject to secondary screening because he did not have an ID (TSA policy). They felt a bulge in his pocket. He asked to leave the sterile area and was refused (by TSA) until LEO's arrival. Subsequent search found a felony amount of drugs. The 9th Circuit upheld the conviction, citing that if TSA/LEOs simply let people go after initiating the screening process, then anyone could test the system to find weaknesses.