Prosecute someone in a federal court for a case of simple theft?

Should we shoot those who J-Walk?

I thought that was legal under US law. But if someone abuses their position of trust as a Federal employee then surely they should be prosecuted under Federal law

"Why ask why? Bud Dry!"

BD, I dont have an answer for that one. Not sure I want an answer. I know what the legallities of moving large amounts of cash are but not why its a concern.

Delay and call a supervisor for further interrogation for carrying legal US tender?

Ok. So, let me try and rephrase to see if I understand you correctly.

You have a list of items which, if you happen to discover them in the context of a legal administrative search for WEI, you are required to report to a supervisor. This list includes drugs and child pornography, but does not include possible violations of copyright law. Is this correct?

If so ... somewhere along the way, someone has made the determination that some potential violations of federal law are worth pursuing at a checkpoint, while others are not. Clearly it's not your decision to make. But the fact that you're not seeking any violation of any federal law in the context of your search creates an interesting question: how did the powers that be decide what to look for and what not to look for? That decision is what, in my completely uninformed and probably idiotic opinion, makes it look like TSA is searching for drugs and such.

(And I'm not sure I buy the "we can't determine the legality of a DVD in a bag search environment" argument. Unless you've got a chemical laboratory hanging out at the checkpoint, there's no way for a LEO to determine whether a large bag of white powder is, or isn't, a legal substance. Heck, if you find suspected child pornography, there's no way for a LEO on the spot to determine whether or not the individuals depicted were of legal age.)

Practical question. If I present a random bag to you as the X-ray operator, how hard is it for you find an arbitrary yet legal reason to call for a hand search? I'm thinking of the parallel situation in law enforcement where a patrol officer who suspects greater wrongdoing can pull over a driver for a relatively minor offense (broken taillight, rolling stop at a stop sign, etc.), and use that as a pretense to conduct the "real" search.

In short: how easy would it be for a TSO to find a perfectly legal reason to call for a secondary search, if they suspected that there was a secondary item (e.g. drugs) that could be found?

I seem to recall that the directive to refer large quantities of cash was supposedly changed recently ... at least, I read it here, so it must be true, right? Have your instructions changed in this regard?

Since when is >$10,000 in cash illegal?

The issue of large amounts of cash and TSA getting involved really bother me. It is not a function of TSA to monitor movement of cash or cash instruments.

For those who are carrying large amounts of these items the point of declaration is often after a person has cleared security.

Seems to me a total waste of manpower for TSA to spend one second on asking about cash but heck what is new there?

When you work for an incompetent agency you get incompetent screening.

This focus on things that have no impact on the safety of commercial aviation is a dangerous distraction. We know the SOP on suspected drugs, but what about cash?

I agree completely, that is what I was indicating with the balance between socially acceptable and effective. We *could* implement those types of rules, but it would take about 35 minutes for air commerce to cease completely. I want to be as efficient and prevent as much as I can within the framework given to us as an agency.

I am a big fan or proactivity, it means you have a fluid workforce that adapts to changes quickly and you are implementing things that are aimed at preventing new threats before they are used.

I am not certain on some of the federal and state codes, but if that is what the statutes state, then by all means, lets get it on.

It is not really a focus, it is a "if found" situation. Even if something is found in the bag (like suspected drugs), the bag is still cleared for WEI before being released. This is just something that they add in, as opposed to being a focus of the job.

Not sure I understood your comment.

It is clear that you are working for the federal government. TSA screening is a function of government regulation. Any wrong doing while in that capacity should be resolved in federal courts.

Doing time in a federal prison is pretty much day for day. It is often considered easier time than state prisons but a person will serve a complete sentence.

Nothing but knee-jerk nonsense and panic - truth that no one in DHS or TSA knows what the hell they're doing. Pure, utter incompetence. Perhaps it escaped the TSA's knowledge that many people wear a unique device called a 'watch.' By using a simple formula based on changing variables of distance, speed and time, one can easily estimate their position relative to known variables (elapsed time, likely groundspeed, historical route of flight) - they don't need a moving map display to pull it off.

I've been out of the discussion fray about this incident because I was on the road when it happened and offline, but the chatter about it follows the same formula as usual:

1. TV news is run by idiots and liars
2. Politicians are idiots and liars
3. Peter King and Lieberman are both egotistical, opportunistic, gasbag idiots and liars
4. TV news talking head pundits know nothing except how to earn money from the sound of their own voice
5. Ma and Pa Kettle can always be called upon to agree to anything when someone waves a new bogeyman in their face

This incident had nothing to do with aviation security - it was all about the federal government, yet again, failing to identify a threat, recognize a risk and take pre-emptive action. They were called by the guy's father. He was already on a list. They failed to take action to revoke his visa and/or place him on a real no-fly list. Simple as that.

All of this chatter about airport security and WBIs and patdowns and banning this and that are pure nonsense when every single issue we've had in this country, from Oklahoma City through the WTC bombings through 9/11 through Reid and now the underwear bomber we're been waiting for can be traced to a failure on the part of the government to take available evidence and intelligence and act on it. Simple as that.

And again, we're going to suffer for their incompetence - and again, nothing will change. Meanwhile, the only thing the TSA can pick its lazy a$$ up off the ground to do is coerce two people into handing over their laptops so they can figure out who released a so-called 'super secret' security directive that only listed out the obvious.

Pathetic.

What I am referring to is if the TSO/TSA employee is involved in something away from duty, it could possibly fall under state codes. There are certain situations that may call for the state to take lead or the feds may relinquish prosecution to the state for their own reasons. I am (again, I am beginning to sound rather slow this week) sadly ignorant of the specific codes/regulations covering this.

When I worked as an MP in the Army, and we had some cases that were moved to local or state courts because the federal prosecutor (JAG) felt that local courts had a better chance of obtaining a conviction. Something of that nature may come into play in a case involving an employee.

So, rather than just outright agree with you, I would have to see what the federal prosecutor does on a case by case basis.