Originally Posted by bocastephen (Post 13135494)

You need to presume something about the substance before calling the police - absent expertise or testing equipment, you're suspicions are just that - baseless suspicion.

The police are being called without any clear evidence that wrongdoing is afoot - therefore your actions are illegal and the courts should be quashing this evidence if/when it gets to court.

You are trained to identify a gun - you are not trained to identify or verify the contents of a bag containing white powder or a grassy substance.

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 13135308)

The stuff we are told to report if found are things that an average person finding them on the street would report to a LEO on their own (or at least that is my personal opinion based on what we are to report).

Originally Posted by pmocek (Post 13135112)

West, you didn't answer a single question I asked. Responding to your latest post:



We're not comparing those two things. We're comparing 1) "actively searching" for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries while passively searching for drugs and other possible indicators of wrongdoing, and while ignoring most other possible indicators of wrongdoing, and 2) actively searching for weapons, explosives, incendiaries, drugs, and other possible indicators of wrongdoing, while ignoring most other possible indicators of wrongdoing. I think they're the same. Could you tell me how they differ?

TSOs actively search all bags for possible threats. When manning the xray, if you have an image that indicates a possible threat, then it is referred for additional screening. The TSO takes said bag, searches the bag for the
item(s) that are designated as a possible threat. That is the objective of the search, the threat item(s). When the TSO goes into the bag, if something like illegal drugs is found, it is reported to the STSO. This is not actively searching for drugs, it is reporting something that is found incidental to the reason for the search. You keep implying (and in some cases outright stating) that TSOs go into the bag with the express purpose of finding illegal drugs, and that is wrong.

How so? Are you saying that possession of marijuana (or heroin; not sure what you meant by "dope") is a bigger deal than theft? One has a victim. The other does not. One has been considered wrong since before we had any concept of laws, the other has been used by people to make them feel better for thousands of years, then has been illegal for the past 40.

No, as I stated to JKHuggins earlier, the case of dope (a personal catchall term for any illicit drugs), kiddie porn or some of the other things that have to be reported can be resolved at the location with the addition of LEO. Theft or the possibility of theft requires resources I simply can not draw on at the checkpoint, the same with the copyrighted materials, I do not have the resources to deal with that type of possible illegality on the spot. If there is a bag of dope found while trying to clear the bag of threats, it is referred to the STSO. If I find a stack of pictures of you taking an item from a closed store, I have no recourse to resolve it (and quite frankly if I were to refer this to an LEO, they would probably laugh me out of the checkpoint), furthermore the agency does not advise me to report that.

It doesn't matter what you say you're looking for. As you and Ron have told us, if you see something that looks like an indication of certain crimes you report it, and if you see something that looks like an indication of other crimes, you ignore it.

I guess you could distill that down to this statement, but as many people here like to point out, we are not law enforcement, therefore we have certain things that are to be reported, the others are not. This is a simple matter of cooperation with the DEA and local LEOs, not "use a TSO as an investigator day". The items we refer on, are resolvable at the checkpoint, some of the ones listed here are not.

Would you please, PLEASE, tell me what difference it makes if you're "looking for possible threats" or looking for potatoes, when you're going to take the same action if you find weapons, explosives, incendiaries, drugs, or a number of other things?

I will point out to you that I am a frontliner, and my job consists of clearing threat items, and reporting suspected illegal items to the STSO/LEOs. The actions I take are clearly defined for me and I follow that, the actions after my part are different, but for my responsibilities, the response is the same regardless of whther an illegal item, or a threat item are found.

It seems that your concern is also to keep drugs off planes. If you see something that looks like indication of possession of illegal drugs, you call a supervisor, right? If you see something that looks like indication of possession of stolen cameras, you move on, right?

My concern is just what I said earlier, keeping people and items that would harm the plane or the people on them off of the planes. If something is discovered incidental to doing that, then I report it as I am told. Again, I am not law enforcement, I follow the TSOs SOP and what it indicates is what we do.

Do you feel it's acceptable for you to use your search for WEI as a chance to find drugs, credit card fraud, immigrations violations, and other indications of wrongdoing that have ABSOLUTELY no affect on airline security?

Originally Posted by greentips (Post 13134771)

RE: no 2. Except for one thing. You are an agent of the United States Government. Once you open my private bag/briefcase for any purpose, it constitutes a search. "Clearing a threat" constitutes a search. The Supreme Court has said in no uncertain terms it is a search. You are only permitted a "limited administrative search" for the specific purposes at hand. Cash, contraband or other items not a direct threat to the safety of an airliner used in commercial air carriage held out for hire are beyond the scope of the permitted search. You argue that you are to report presumed contraband to the cops, thus triggering a probable cause provision and allowing a plain view seizure. The courts have disagreed with this.

No one wants to keep drugs off the streets more than I do. But we are (or were) a country of laws with strong protections against just what you advocate. The founding fathers wrote strong protections against you, the government, from looking willie nillie into my stuff without permission. That permission is granted, either from you asking me politely and I give it to you or you go find a judge and ask the judge for permission, giving a darn good reason for him to give it to you. Anything else beyond your very, very limited administrative search lacks probable cause.

You, as a government agent, are required to presume that the traveler in front of you is innocent of any wrong doing. This is not optional. It is the law that governs you, your attitudes and your behaviors. If you find an unlabeled bag of white powder in my backpack while you are clearing your WEI question, you are required to presume, by law, that that bag is legitimate and that my purposes for carrying it are innocent. The only thing you may test it for is that which is within your very limited scope: explosives and incendiaries. Beyond that is beyond your scope and requires a warrant.

I've seen the damage that drugs on the street, illegal and legal alike can do. They destroy people and I support anything within the law to get them off the street. I cannot support illegal and out-of-scope searches that hinder American Citizens as they go about their private business. You suspect a bag of white powder is heroin, write up a report and have the cops go get a search warrant to search that person's home, but in-transit, it's none of your business in your official capacity.

Of course, if the airlines were to take over security once again, and eliminate the TSA, then they could report suspicious substances. They are not government agents, but private actors. Big difference.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 13135316)

Are you claiming it is SSI and cannot state if you receive illegal drug identification training provided by TSA?

Originally Posted by bocastephen (Post 13135494)

You need to presume something about the substance before calling the police - absent expertise or testing equipment, you're suspicions are just that - baseless suspicion.

The police are being called without any clear evidence that wrongdoing is afoot - therefore your actions are illegal and the courts should be quashing this evidence if/when it gets to court.

You are trained to identify a gun - you are not trained to identify or verify the contents of a bag containing white powder or a grassy substance.

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 13135958)

I am stating that the training specifics of TSOs are not something I care to publicly disseminate past what is on the TSA.gov website, and there is no specific mention of that on the site... think....cya maybe? Most of what I put on here is opinion or directly from a TSA operated site, therefore when I am asked a specific question that I can't find reference to, I tend to decline answering on the grounds that I like my job and want to keep it. :D

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 13135920)

I think that if we find something that the SOP says we are to report, then we report it. There are several cases that indicate limits to the scope of the searches, as long as we stick to the search as defined by SOP, and report what we are supposed to, then we are doing what we as TSOs are required to. If the public/judiciary reach a point where they think that this is a violation of legal statutes or constitutionally incorrect, it will change. I am merely giving you my opinions, and what I do as a frontline employee. I do not make policy, I merely enforce it. You and I will be opposed on many things, I am certain that there are many things we will agree on. On this issue we are opposed (this is actually a good thing, without dissenting opinions, none of us would ever make progress), and I don't think either of us is going to change the others opinion.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 13135316)

Are you claiming it is SSI and cannot state if you receive illegal drug identification training provided by TSA?

Originally Posted by pmocek (Post 13136077)

Ron, you fell silent. Care to continue the conversation you started? You've made some bold claims, then when challenged to explain yourself, failed to say another word.

Originally Posted by doober (Post 13136159)

On June 4, 2008, oneofthosepeopleyoulovetohate wrote in response to this question: What documented training do you have in regards to illicit drugs and such?

Absolutely none

This particular poster has not been heard from in 11 months. :D

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 13136301)

Are you suggesting that adverse action was taken against them for making that statement?

I wouldn't put it pass the Galestapo.

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 13135958)

I am stating that the training specifics of TSOs are not something I care to publicly disseminate past what is on the TSA.gov website, and there is no specific mention of that on the site... think....cya maybe? Most of what I put on here is opinion or directly from a TSA operated site, therefore when I am asked a specific question that I can't find reference to, I tend to decline answering on the grounds that I like my job and want to keep it. :D

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 13107436)

I absolutely love it when someone tries putting words in my mouth.

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 13079093)

Actually we dont. We dont stop a bag because it may have drugs in it, drugs just happen to often appear as an organic substance, just like many explosives do. But if we go into a bag looking for your toothpaste and find your stash of dope then of course we notify a LEO. What the LEO does with the situation from there is up to them.

And thats how the vast majority of drugs are found in TSA workplaces. We are searching a bag for a suspected prohibited item and we find the stash. Its not intentional but we cannot ignore it.

Originally Posted by pmocek (Post 13080643)

Wrong. You can ignore it, just like you ignore a number of other things which might indicate wrongdoing, might not indicate wrongdoing, and almost certainly do not present a danger to anyone if they are carried into the airport or onto an airplane.

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 13081366)

No, not according to SOP I cant. I like my job, I’d like to keep it for a while.

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 13090921)

No difference, I will call a supervisor in either case. By weapon I mean a firearm, knives and such I have the authority to deal with on my own, unless its larger than 3inches.

Originally Posted by pmocek (Post 13136077)

...and you dodged every question again. These are mostly simple yes/no questions about your stated and implied opinions, and about the job you do as a public servant. Why won't you answer?

1. Do you agree that when you look in a bag and ignore everything except for certain things, that amounts to a search for those things?
   
2. Do you treat things that appear to be illegal drugs the same as things that look like weapons when searching people and their belongings, alerting a supervisor in each case?
   
3. What difference does it make if you're "looking for possible threats" or looking for potatoes, when you're going to take the same action in either case if you find weapons, explosives, incendiaries, drugs, or a number of other things?
   
4. How do these two differ? 1) "actively searching" for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries while passively searching for drugs and other possible indicators of wrongdoing, and while ignoring most other possible indicators of wrongdoing, and 2) actively searching for weapons, explosives, incendiaries, drugs, and other possible indicators of wrongdoing, while ignoring most other possible indicators of wrongdoing.
   
5. You wrote, "IF there is nothing in the bag that looks like a threat or possible threat, then the bag rolls on," then in the same post, wrote, "When I am searching and see something that looks like illegal drugs, I refer to a supervisor, period." How do you reconcile these contradictory statements about your duties?
   
6. What would you do if were hand-searching someone's bag and you saw three cameras along with photographs of that person smashing a store window, crawling through the hole, and leaving with a bag of cameras?
   
7. Do you think that possession of small amounts of marijuana by adults is a bigger deal -- more cause for investigation and punishment -- than stealing things from other people is?
   
8. Do you acknowledge that TSA proudly announces the fact that it finds evidence of identity theft, credit card fraud, passport fraud, immigrations violations, and possession of controlled substances, when "searching for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries"?
   
9. Do you feel it's appropriate for you to use your search for WEI as a chance to find drugs, credit card fraud, immigrations violations, and other indications of wrongdoing that have ABSOLUTELY no affect on airline security?
   
10. Do you suppose we could find even more evidence of wrongdoing than we do now if we allowed our government agents to stop everyone who passes other places -- highway entrance ramps, for instance -- and search them for evidence of wrongdoing?
    
11. Do you acknowledge that our courts have ruled that fishing expeditions such as they hypothetical TSA highway entrance ramp "screening checkpoint" described above are unconstitutional, and that in this nation, we aren't supposed to stop all the good people just to look for the few bad people?

Ron, you fell silent. Care to continue the conversation you started? You've made some bold claims, then when challenged to explain yourself, failed to say another word.