How do you decide whether the bag of white powder in a carry on is cocaine or a legal substance?

Opinions vary Phil, and I don�t believe that anything I can say will change yours.

We can should we choose to, and be fully within both the law and the SOP. But I honestly cannot think of any way in which a pill can be used as a weapon, therefore I am not concerned about them.

Powders OTOH can be an explosive, and even if it is not depending on how it is packaged could be a suspect item.

I don't, LEO's do, which is why we call them.

I think that reviewing the law might be helpful.

First, in your prior example the TSO was working in his official capacity as an agent of the government. The other two were not. So that is another reason for your analogy to fail.

Second, the plain view doctrine has its limits as well. The officer in the first instance does not have the right to start searching closets looking for drugs and doesn't have the right in the second instance to even enter the house since it is very unlikely a stolen car would be there.

Third, in both of your scenarios the officer was legally entitled to be where he is based on specific (not implied) consent or by an order of the court. An administrative search is not on the same level.

Fourth, the LEO is trained to recognize drugs. You are not.

P.S. You may want to try a new spell check program -- "dosent", "see's" and "warrent."

You didn't answer my question. Do you call a LEO every time you encounter a white powder substance in a carry on?

How can cash be used as a weapon?

How can marijuana be used as a weapon?

If you are worried about a powder being an explosive, why call a regular LEO? What is he going to do? Shouldn't you call a bomb expert?

Just like a newspaper - light it on fire.

Darn, now your gonna have TSA screeners confiscating newspapers.

I'm not an explosives expert, nor a pharmacist, but ... what about nitroglycerin pills? Seems like nitroglycerin is an explosive, which is within your area of concern. Are you trained to recognized an unlabeled nitroglycerin pill? Shouldn't you be?

your answers are actually both yes and no as the "in plain sight" issue is still a very grey area and it all depends upon how the officer entered, with a warrant/without a warrant and how specific the warrant is and how the judge will interpret both atty's arguments as to the seizure and arrest

first off, i did read your post but you apparently didn't read all of mine as directly above my "steeling" comment was in fact a response to your post but in case you missed it....

now as to my "steeling" reference, yes, my bad as i forgot a "" but think back to your reference to me as "gman" where i thought you were inferring that i worked for the g but in fact you were shortening my name. a little humor dished out also needs to be a little humor taken, right?

I didn't ask for your opinion or for you to change mine. Could you please just answer the question or explicitly state that you refuse to answer?

I want to know what would be different about your actions when searching passengers if we called what you do a search for tennis balls and we declared weapons, explosives, and incendiaries incidental to the search as you presently designate drugs. Would your actions be any different? If not, then what's the difference between what you're doing now and performing a search for weapons, explosives, incendiaries, and drugs?

This is simply and blatantly not true. A citizen, in fact, can possess, quite legally, cocaine, which is a Schedule II drug under the Controlled Substances Act. In your state or any other. Many people are legally authorized to obtain and possess cocaine in your state. Unless, of course you live in Kazakhstan, which from your understanding of the government's role and your role within that may be possible.

Concerning cash, and your post, here:
This is highly inaccurate. Where my cash goes or does not go is none of the business of the federal government. It has no right to track cash that I or anyone else spends or hides away, once I have paid taxes due on earnings. The only government interest in my cash is: Did I pay the appropriate tax on any income that I made? If the answer is yes, the government's interest in my cash ends. Whether I spend it on peanut butter or rare diamonds. The government may like to know where my cash came from but it is none of its business, as long as it was properly declared and I have paid the appropriate income tax on it.

Al Capone wasn't busted for running rum and tobacco. He was busted for not declaring and paying income tax on his earnings. Had he declared his earnings, he would not have gone to jail.

I hope I am the one you "catch" with $20k in cash on a trip. When you do and you detain me, I shall use some or all of that cash to ensure that you get your chance to use your logic to explain to a judge why you overstepped your administrative authority....oh wait! The ACLU has already given you that opportunity.

I contacted ND's senators and representative right after Trollkiller made his first post on the 27th. I've yet to hear anything from any of the three. While I understand Dorgan is a bit busy contemplating his retirement, that still doesn't explain why the other two have been silent to my response.

Has anyone heard anything from their elected officials?

No. Never has one of them addressed my concerns.