Ron, you never answered.

Please explain how your actions as a TSA passenger- and bag-searcher would be different than they are now if you "went looking for" tennis balls (instead of "going looking for" WEI), but still contacted a supervisor when you found things that looked like weapons, explosives, incendiaries, drugs, pictures of naked 17.5-year-olds, stolen credit cards, fraudulent passports, or evidence of immigrations violations. Wouldn't your actions be exactly the same, regardless of whether you purported to go looking for tennis balls or for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries? If so, of what significance is the fact that you went looking for tennis balls, went looking for WEI, or went looking for nothing at all?

And once again proving that the TSA screeners see their mission as something much larger.

No surprise that they want the strip-search machines, too.

That’s where the LEO comes in, they have access to the necessary tools to make that determination. Which is why we refer these situations to them. Its their call.

Honestly, its not that hard a concept to comprehend, what’s the problem?

I think the case that folks are trying to make is that you, as a TSO, are making a preliminary determination that a substance merits further examination.

Just to be ridiculous about it ... if you open a checked bag and see a polo shirt, you don't typically call a LEO over because you suspect that the shirt is, in fact, a cleverly designed stash of drugs. You look at the shirt, you say "gee, that's a shirt", and you move on to find the item that caused the alarm in the first place.

On the other hand, if you open a checked bag and you see a large sealed bag of white powder, you make a judgment that the item might be worth having a LEO look at, and you make the referral to a LEO.

You're not making the final judgment as to whether or not the item might be something whose possession violates state or federal law. But you are making a judgment as to what items to refer to a STSO or LEO. And, one is naturally curious as to how you make that judgment, since that's the first link in a long chain of events that can lead to difficulties for a passenger.

A way to hash this out is to pack a carry on with a few shirts, no electronics or wires, no metal and a baggie of powdered coffee creamer and a baggie of oregano or such and see how many calls for a bag check it gets.
Then if a check is called see where that leads. Would not take long to know what TSA is really looking for.

you are correct that it is the business of the federal gov't where currency goes-and especially when it comes to going into and/or out of the u.s. and there are laws to enforce just that but...

you are 100% incorrect when it comes to reporting any amount of currency to anyone as it is the job of cbp to enforce that law and not that of the tsa. the tsa has absolutely no authority to do what you described. period and end of story.

btw, there is no such thing as "a large brick" of $100's. it is either a brick or it is not....

strap =100 bills
brick = 10 straps

and you can take al of the above to the fed and have them tell me that i am wrong and that the myriad of certifications i have rec'd from them are now null and void

So, to take your analogy a bit further, if a citizen see’s someone tossing a flaming object into a trash can then he has no authority to detain the individual, because he is not a fireman or a police officer? Or lets say an Air Traffic Controller see’s someone who may be steeling something in a shop at the airport. He cannot contact law enforcement because he has no authority to do so?

Sorry, your logic fails pretty quickly.

As a TSO the actual terminology concerning the packaging of currency is not within the prevue of the job. Nor would I actually care about it to be honest.

But here is an observation for you, take it or leave it. When I correct someone’s inaccurate representation of a situation or an intentional misstatement about equipment or procedure (or about anything pretty much), the in’juns rally round and sharpen their scalping knives. Even if I am 100% correct in my response. Yet when someone corrects me about something I admittedly know little about I accept the criticism and move on. Can you explain to me and the others who read here why that may be? [sarcasm]Certainly not because anyone around here has an unreasonable prejudice against TSO’s like myself who don’t kowtow to the party line around here, right? Please, tell me that aint so![/sarcasm]

There is a major difference with your analogy. In your analogy, the person is seeing items without the need for an administrative search. For a TSO, the only reason he is seeing the currency, drugs, etc. is because of an exception to the Fourth Amendment.

"Sorry, your logic fails pretty quickly."

witnessing someone stealing (your example) is against the law and should be reported but transporting "large amounts of currency" may or may not be against the law as you do not (n.b. do not) know if a law has been violated as you do not (n.b. do not) know if said transporter of currency has or has not completed any required paperwork and as such, you as an individual may or may not be held liable for any damages incurred by the person you reported

also, please do me a favor, please use spell check (above bolding mine) as i don't know anyone who has been arrested for steeling

And your analogy fails, Ron.

Throwing a flaming object into a trash can would be one of three things: an immediate threat to public safety if it's in a well populated area (for example, in a building or crowded area) or illegal (arson) if it's next to a building. Throwing a flaming object into a burn barrel on my property may well not be illegal. In the first two cases it is perfectly fine to notify authorities as it is either an immediate threat to the public or illegal. Whether or not detention is allowed is subject to state/local/federal laws (in other words, it may be illegal to detain the person).

Money doesn't present an immediate threat to public safety nor illegal.

IF someone is stealing from an airport shop. That's illegal. Notifying police is expected.

Ron, how would your actions as a TSA passenger- and bag-searcher (not just you on your "Where's the weapon? Where is it? Go get the weapon!" hunts, but the entire search from when a passenger puts his bag on the belt until he gets it back from you) be different than they are now if you "went looking for" tennis balls (instead of "going looking for" WEI), but still contacted a supervisor when you found things that looked like weapons, explosives, incendiaries, drugs, pictures of naked 17.5-year-olds, stolen credit cards, fraudulent passports, or evidence of immigrations violations? Wouldn't your actions be exactly the same, regardless of whether you purported to go looking for tennis balls or to go looking for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries? If so, of what significance is the fact that you went looking for tennis balls, went looking for WEI, or went looking for nothing at all?

I still contend that your TSA search of passengers' bags is as much for drugs as it is for weapons, and you have yet to provide any thoughtful refutation of this.

So do you refer every bag of white powder to a law enforcement officer? Every pill in an unmarked bottle or baggie?

Not according to the law it dosent.

But to further the point. An officer is allowed into a home for some reason (nothing specific) and see's 5 pounds or even a single ounce of marijuana sitting on a table. He arrests the homeowner / resident. Has he violated the homeowner / residents constitutional rights? No. Better yet, the officer has a warrent for a search for a stolen car, but when he opens the garage he discovers a meth lab. He arrests the homeowner / resident. Has he violated the homeowner / residents constitutional rights? No.

It does not matter if it is a search, a casual encounter, or an administrative search, they all fall into the plain sight rule, the same thing applies to the administrative search that the TSA performs. If we find it during a legal search then it is fair game.

I do, and this is one of those words that spell check just is not going to pick up. Stop complaining about spelling and read the posts. :rolleyes:

Both you and goalie got stuck on the “what if”’s and failed to read what was written. Reading something into what is written is a bad habit.

Tossing a burning object into a trash can may or may not be a violation of the law. Depends on the laws of the jurisdiction. Interesting that you made that assumption though, in an attempt to prove me wrong.

A gun in a carryon bag does not present an immediate threat to the public safety either, not without someone to pull the trigger. Same with knives, uncombined binary explosives, or propane canisters. Yet all of these items are prohibited on the checkpoint and will most likely get one arrested for their possession, yet are legal elsewhere.

You and goalie both missed the same word. Interesting. And you both are wrong. I said “may” be stealing (or steeling, but I caught the spelling error this time and my spell checker still didn’t), not that they were. We don’t know if that is the case, only what we see. There are many ways to interpret the events, which is why I said “may”.