SOP discussion
#181
Join Date: Oct 2004
Programs: UA 2P
Posts: 707
However, thanks to the TSA we now know that the screening starts at the point the items are placed on the conveyor belt and/or the point at which you go through the WTMD.
Leaving the line prior to that should not be a problem as the serch has not yet started.
Leaving the line prior to that should not be a problem as the serch has not yet started.
#184
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Half the distance to EWR than PHL.
Programs: UA, AA, B6, BA, Hilton, Hyatt, Marriott, IHG, SPG
Posts: 11,695
#186
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MSP
Programs: Delta Diamond (MM), Hilton Diamond, Avis President's Club
Posts: 873
Pondering "innocent until proven guilty", it seems like a weak argument for probable cause - a mere step away from "I can tell if someone is guilty just by looking at them" just because someone wants to leave a checkpoint. If the subject returns and the screening process is sufficient, it wouldn't matter. I took note the process caught drugs, not a terrorist -the TSAs objective.
Once again, it was nice to read that in print.
#187
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 42,231
I had a chance to read the whole thing cover to cover today. Good God what a boring document. Between it and the Publix sub, I was darn near done for.
Maybe I am dense or maybe it was the carb overload but the only thing I could see in the document worth redacting is possible the examples of the IDs.
Did anyone find anything juicy in it?
Maybe I am dense or maybe it was the carb overload but the only thing I could see in the document worth redacting is possible the examples of the IDs.
Did anyone find anything juicy in it?
This is interesting - I once went to battle with a DCA manager who just about went haywire when I started quoting items from the SOP (back when shoe sole thickness mattered). Now we can all read back specific passages from the TSA's little bible - SSI and all - and it's all out there on the Internet. Leave it to the TSA to lose control of their own *cough* secure intellectual property.
Re the Publix sub - ask the maker to pull out the bread from the inside after slicing to make the roll hollow, and it reduces the carb and calories by a landslide.
#188
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
No, you didn't.
You wrote:
I responded:
Your entire response read:
You never said what crime the police officer would be accusing the passenger of having committed when your TSA bullying proves insufficient and you call in the airport police to do some more authoritative bullying, and the police officer threatens the person with arrest for emphasis. Arresting on what grounds? It's not illegal to refuse to comply with a TSA bag examiner's search.
I don't doubt that a cop simply asking, for instance, "do you want to be arrested?" convinces many people to give up their rights and comply with just about anything, because many people nowadays are ignorant of their rights and act as if we live in a police state. But I want to know if you think that in a cases such as those to which you referred, this is an empty threat, if there's actually a crime about to be committed (and thus sensible for the cop to say, "if you ____ then I will arrest you and charge you with ____"), or if you think the officer would likely just use one of the the catch-all, "refusing to kiss the feet of a police officer" charges like "obstruction".
I don't think they're ever required to arrest anyone, so I'm not sure what you meant by "occasions they have had to arrest a pax". You described a situation in which you'd summon a police officer for assistance, and you said that you think in some cases, that officer would threaten the person you were trying to search with arrest. I want to know what you think the reasoning behind that threat would be, and what, if any, suspicion of wrongdoing would likely have led to it.
What would that probable cause be? What wrongdoing would the cop suspect the person of having committed that would justify a warrantless search of his belongings?
You wrote:
It's very rare. Only when the pax has become so disruptive to the screening process and causes a disturbance at the checkpoint. Most often what I have seen, and been a TSO involved in, the pax ask for a STSO, still refuses screening of their property, a LEO is summoned, and the LEO basically says (my words now) screening will continue, TSA will finish their procedures, then you can leave. The LEO stays and watches, but that's about it.
I don't doubt that a cop simply asking, for instance, "do you want to be arrested?" convinces many people to give up their rights and comply with just about anything, because many people nowadays are ignorant of their rights and act as if we live in a police state. But I want to know if you think that in a cases such as those to which you referred, this is an empty threat, if there's actually a crime about to be committed (and thus sensible for the cop to say, "if you ____ then I will arrest you and charge you with ____"), or if you think the officer would likely just use one of the the catch-all, "refusing to kiss the feet of a police officer" charges like "obstruction".
You can rest assured the LEOs do not consult me when on the very few occasions they have had to arrest a pax.
As to your second question, I have yet to see anyone refuse the police, and at that point they actually can't refuse. If the police take over and do the search it is no longer a 4th amendment search. At this point I believe the police have probable cause.
#189
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: AA Gold AAdvantage Elite, Rapids Reward
Posts: 38,335
DO you really think some of those countries Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, Yemen or Algeria will be result to be denied entry into USA. Because this is prohibited some of few countries are not allowed to entry into USA. Its does not have any legalized rights to become USA citizen. It cannot to be proved from Immigrations will forced to kick them out of USA. It will sent it back where its belongs there in the another countries. If you seen any common problems from another countries are not permitted to entry into American and they will eventually to force to sent it back in the home country. It could be violations any rights to denying entry into USA with visa waivers. It will be automatically to sent the passengers right way back on the aircraft without any incident.
Last edited by N830MH; Dec 8, 2009 at 12:26 am
#190
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 221
SUPER SSI
SATTSO:
PLEASE spare us the tired "that SOP is outdated." Document was implemented on June 30, 2008...not much changes in 17 months for airport screening. The TSA should promote you after they stole and used your mantra for their response to U.S. News & World Report.
EVERYONE should find very disturbing the Explosives Trace Detection information blasted around the planet. The 40/40/20 blurb...HOLY CRAP!
A question begs to be asked, why is the TSA redacting portions of a document ALREADY ENTIRELY labeled SSI???
Has the TSA pulled out of its arss a new bogus "hiding embarrassing information" label called "SUPER SSI?"
This story is growing legs...
PLEASE spare us the tired "that SOP is outdated." Document was implemented on June 30, 2008...not much changes in 17 months for airport screening. The TSA should promote you after they stole and used your mantra for their response to U.S. News & World Report.
EVERYONE should find very disturbing the Explosives Trace Detection information blasted around the planet. The 40/40/20 blurb...HOLY CRAP!
A question begs to be asked, why is the TSA redacting portions of a document ALREADY ENTIRELY labeled SSI???
Has the TSA pulled out of its arss a new bogus "hiding embarrassing information" label called "SUPER SSI?"
This story is growing legs...
#191
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MSP
Programs: Delta Diamond (MM), Hilton Diamond, Avis President's Club
Posts: 873
Up on a local Fox website:
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/tsa-...nternet-120709
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/tsa-...nternet-120709
#192
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
SATTSO:
PLEASE spare us the tired "that SOP is outdated." Document was implemented on June 30, 2008...not much changes in 17 months for airport screening. The TSA should promote you after they stole and used your mantra for their response to U.S. News & World Report.
EVERYONE should find very disturbing the Explosives Trace Detection information blasted around the planet. The 40/40/20 blurb...HOLY CRAP!
A question begs to be asked, why is the TSA redacting portions of a document ALREADY ENTIRELY labeled SSI???
Has the TSA pulled out of its arss a new bogus "hiding embarrassing information" label called "SUPER SSI?"
This story is growing legs...
PLEASE spare us the tired "that SOP is outdated." Document was implemented on June 30, 2008...not much changes in 17 months for airport screening. The TSA should promote you after they stole and used your mantra for their response to U.S. News & World Report.
EVERYONE should find very disturbing the Explosives Trace Detection information blasted around the planet. The 40/40/20 blurb...HOLY CRAP!
A question begs to be asked, why is the TSA redacting portions of a document ALREADY ENTIRELY labeled SSI???
Has the TSA pulled out of its arss a new bogus "hiding embarrassing information" label called "SUPER SSI?"
This story is growing legs...
In reality they had two screw ups on this document.
#193
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,130
#195
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
So, either the TSA acquisition executive is an incompetent fool or the TSA spokeshole is lying -- or both.