|
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 13090962)
Its not a threat. And yes, you can travel all over the US with as much as you like. Its when one is traveling outside of the US that the concerns start. One must declare sums of cash equal to or larger than $10,000 with Customs. If you have done so then there is no problem.
So what is the policy du jour? |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 13090962)
Its not a threat. And yes, you can travel all over the US with as much as you like. Its when one is traveling outside of the US that the concerns start. One must declare sums of cash equal to or larger than $10,000 with Customs. If you have done so then there is no problem.
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 13090962)
RB, it is against the law to take $10,000 or more in cash out of the country. Has been for a long time.
You can disagree with my other statement as much as you like, the fact is that I am correct. April 4, 2009 12:53 AM |
Problem?
Originally Posted by Tom M.
(Post 13091021)
But back in April you said this:
|
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 13090962)
Its not a threat. And yes, you can travel all over the US with as much as you like. Its when one is traveling outside of the US that the concerns start. One must declare sums of cash equal to or larger than $10,000 with Customs. If you have done so then there is no problem.
Seems that TSA even agreed with a court to stop looking for cash. It is clear that TSA cannot find WEI yet they continue doing things that improve aviation security one iota. |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 13090857)
People keep saying things like that but I have yet to see any hard data to support it. I suppose there is a report out there somewhere that you can provide a link to? If not I understand.
Seriously ... the only source of data on the efficacy of TSA's use of WBIs is, naturally, going to have to come from the TSA itself. That makes you (slightly) more likely than members of the general public to have access to that data. |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 13090921)
No Phil. No. Intent is the point. I intentionally search for prohibited items, I do not intentionally search for drugs. Drugs are not the TSA’s concern, just as child abuse is not a citizens concern, unless they are mandated to report it if suspected. I am mandated to report the finding of anything I suspect to be an illegal substance.
I'm wondering how far "anything you suspect to be illegal" really goes. Is it really completely at your discretion? Or have you been given specific guidance regarding certain (suspected) illegal items which, if incidentally found, must be reported? If the latter is true, then you are, in a way, intentionally looking for those items --- even if only in the context of a legal administrative search. |
Ron, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're misunderstanding me and not being intentionally obtuse. To clarify: I'm not specifically discussing your game of fetch that comes after one of your associates sees something interesting. I'm talking about the entire search, beginning with one of you opening a bag or looking inside with an X-ray machine, and ending when you -- TSA staff -- stop examining the bag.
When you -- meaning TSA airport passenger- and bag-searching staff -- search someone's bag, you will "intend" to look for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, but while you're doing so, you'll also keep an eye out for any of several other things, including drugs, wads of cash, and evidence of credit card fraud or immigrations violations, right? You'll ignore most everything in those bags, but if you find weapons, explosives, incendiaries, drugs, or any of several other things, then you'll take action, right? When you checkpoint staffers find something that looks to you like illegal drugs, your next step will be exactly the same as it would be if you'd found something that looked like a weapon, right? If while "intending to" search for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, you find weapons, explosives, incendiaries, drugs, or any of several other things, then you'll stop what you're doing and call a supervisor, right? It would take some serious mental gymnastics to consider that what you and your associates do is a search for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, and not a search for drugs, credit card fraud, immigrations violations, and likely a number of other possible indications of wrongdoing. |
Originally Posted by pmocek
(Post 13092126)
Ron, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're misunderstanding me and not being intentionally obtuse. To clarify: I'm not specifically discussing your game of fetch that comes after one of your associates sees something interesting. I'm talking about the entire search, beginning with one of you opening a bag or looking inside with an X-ray machine, and ending when you -- TSA staff -- stop examining the bag.
When you -- meaning TSA airport passenger- and bag-searching staff -- search someone's bag, you will "intend" to look for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, but while you're doing so, you'll also keep an eye out for any of several other things, including drugs, wads of cash, and evidence of credit card fraud or immigrations violations, right? You'll ignore most everything in those bags, but if you find weapons, explosives, incendiaries, drugs, or any of several other things, then you'll take action, right? When you checkpoint staffers find something that looks to you like illegal drugs, your next step will be exactly the same as it would be if you'd found something that looked like a weapon, right? If while "intending to" search for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, you find weapons, explosives, incendiaries, drugs, or any of several other things, then you'll stop what you're doing and call a supervisor, right? It would take some serious mental gymnastics to consider that what you and your associates do is a search for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, and not a search for drugs, credit card fraud, immigrations violations, and likely a number of other possible indications of wrongdoing. |
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 13093701)
Let me interject something here. The search is for the specific threat items, period. There is no search for drugs, cash or anything specific that is not on the prohib list.
Stroud testified that she opened the envelopes to look for contraband evidencing criminal wrongdoing, not to detect prohibited items within the envelopes. |
Originally Posted by halls120
(Post 13093793)
Right. I guess your fellow TSO in Fofana thought otherwise.
|
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 13096332)
Stroud (according to the testimony and articles I have read) was wrong. The search is supposed to be for threat or possible threat items. Only if you find something in the course of trying to clear the threat do you move up the chain to the STSO.
|
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 13096332)
Stroud (according to the testimony and articles I have read) was wrong. The search is supposed to be for threat or possible threat items. Only if you find something in the course of trying to clear the threat do you move up the chain to the STSO.
|
Originally Posted by knotyeagle
(Post 13096355)
And $4700 in cash/checks (in STL) would be which category of weapons/explosives/pyro?
|
Originally Posted by doober
(Post 13096469)
However, how many of your fellow screeners think the way Stroud did - that they are supposed to search for anything and everything? You have to admit that a lot of your screeners are not too terribly swift upstairs and in all likelihood can't discern procedure as it is supposed to be vs. what they think it is (or would like it to be).
|
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 13097824)
I have not read the statements in this case (at least not the statements of the TSO and LEO involved), and will say that the TSOs language and statements were a case of not following correct procedures, however - I only have the publicized account of the person that had the cash. That means I am unable to make an informed statement on the situation. If the money was (as described) in a lockbox and had organic appearance on the Xray, then a clearing of the container for possible threats would be warranted.
And how much of threat is a house phone number that it needs to be divulged? Your brethren lead screener Dominic Grieto at Austin (AUS) was insistent last October 18th that he could not "release me" until I told him my house phone number for an incident report that he wanted to write? He was wrong and I enjoyed him trying. |
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 13097847)
I actually beg to differ about the intelligence factor, some of the smartest people I have worked with are here at TSA (both locally and the blog team).
|
Originally Posted by knotyeagle
(Post 13097882)
Sounds good, which means of course that the screener was immediately corrected by the supervisor before it got out of hand, didn't it? I mean the container is opened, negotiable units (currency and checks) which could perhaps threaten the Obama stimulus package but not the flight to DCA were discovered. I'm curious why your brethren TSA screener elected to detain the passenger.
And how much of threat is a house phone number that it needs to be divulged? Your brethren lead screener Dominic Grieto at Austin (AUS) was insistent last October 18th that he could not "release me" until I told him my house phone number for an incident report that he wanted to write? He was wrong and I enjoyed him trying. We do not have detention capabilities (with the odd exception for safety issues - such as preventing you from going somewhere because something may cause you harm, or if there is a serious threat to the checkpoint area forcing the crowd to evacuate - although those are not detention technically), we only screen and secure. I don't know what the incident report was for, but if there was a problem with getting the needed info, then the LTSO should have contacted an STSO and let them make a determination if this is something that is important enough to require LEO intervention or just send you on your way with the information they already had. |
Originally Posted by red456
(Post 13097893)
:rolleyes:
|
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 13097981)
Based upon procedure, what you describe is what should happen with a container that has organic that turns out to be nothing but money and a TSO is doing something they should not be doing (refusing to clear the item). I have no clue (again, I am not informed on but one side of the situation) what prompted the questioning and everything that went on after the item was cleared for WEI.
We do not have detention capabilities (with the odd exception for safety issues - such as preventing you from going somewhere because something may cause you harm, or if there is a serious threat to the checkpoint area forcing the crowd to evacuate - although those are not detention technically), we only screen and secure. I don't know what the incident report was for, but if there was a problem with getting the needed info, then the LTSO should have contacted an STSO and let them make a determination if this is something that is important enough to require LEO intervention or just send you on your way with the information they already had. And by the way, even in Texas a person is not required to show a driver's license unless operating a motor vehicle on a public highway. I'm sort of sorry Dominic Grieto did not try to get the AUS airport police involved. |
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 13097847)
I will not presume to speak for fellow screeners without their direct input. I actually beg to differ about the intelligence factor, some of the smartest people I have worked with are here at TSA (both locally and the blog team). If there is confusion on what the TSOs are supposed to be looking for, then it is the responsibility of management to clarify and retrain where necessary. I hope that if any of you experience something that is blatantly wrong, you would forward the information to the proper TSA components (local airport staff, GotFeedback, and if it is egregious enough your local political structure). TSA can't fix what it doesn't know is wrong, so forward this type of info for us. I know some of you here have had bad experiences with TSOs, specific airports, and policies and even some with the GotFeedback programs as well. I know that, but I still say to keep forwarding the info, it is the only way for things to get to HQ and management so they can work on things that they are unaware of.
|
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 13098160)
If TSO's are so darn smart then why can't they learn that a Nexus card is acceptable ID?
|
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 13098160)
If TSO's are so darn smart then why can't they learn that a Nexus card is acceptable ID?
|
Originally Posted by knotyeagle
(Post 13098287)
Or a US Passport card, or a current US passport with an expired Venezuelan visa in it?
|
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 13098557)
Both of those are acceptable forms of ID as long as they are current and not tampered with. The Venezuelan visa has no bearing one way or the other for transit in the US, only in Venezuela (sp?).
|
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 13093701)
The search is for the specific threat items, period. There is no search for drugs, cash or anything specific that is not on the prohib list. When the bag is screened, we are searching for prohibs ONLY. When something is noticed on the Xray as a possible threat item, it is further screened with a bag check.
TSO Ron seems to think that if you see something in someone's bag that looks like illegal drugs, you are required to report it to a supervisor. In fact, as I learned last year, TSA's Operational Directive 300-54-2 states: When TSA discovers contraband during the screening process that is not a TSA Prohibited Item, the matter should be referred to the local Law Enforcement Officers as appropriate. An Enforcement Investigative Report should not be initiated. Examples of such contraband include:
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 13093701)
There is no bag check for drugs or money. They are not something that is a specific "look for it" item.
|
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 13098557)
Both of those are acceptable forms of ID as long as they are current and not tampered with. The Venezuelan visa has no bearing one way or the other for transit in the US, only in Venezuela (sp?).
A bit too much for the trained document checkers on what the "rule-du-jour" is or do they just make it up as they go along? |
Originally Posted by pmocek
(Post 13098735)
So if while searching someone's belongings with your X-ray machine, you see something that looks like a bag of plant matter and some rolling papers, a bag of powder along with a scale, razor blade, and a straw, a bag of powder with a syringe and a tourniquet, a big bag of pills, a bong, a fancy glass pipe, a large quantity of cash, a bunch of credit cards, or a bunch of passports, you're going to ignore that thing and move on? I find that hard to believe.
Of course I am not going to pass that up, there is a razor blade in it and razor blades are verboten. The other items (depending on what they look like, some of the stuff you list here would be dense enough to cause a bag check based on a possible threat) would possibly be discovered while looking for the razor blade. IF there is nothing in the bag that looks like a threat or possible threat, then the bag rolls on. Sorry if you don't believe me, but I really don't care. I tell you what I have done in the past and would do now on xray, whether you believe or not is not my problem. TSO Ron seems to think that if you see something in someone's bag that looks like illegal drugs, you are required to report it to a supervisor. In fact, as I learned last year, TSA's Operational Directive 300-54-2 states: I can't speak for Ron, he does a good enough job of that on his own. [/INDENT] West, this is so simple: 1) When you and your associates are searching someone's belongings, and you see something that looks to you like illegal drugs, what do you do? 2) When you and your associates are searching someone's belongings, and you see something that looks to you like a weapon, what do you do? Ron tells us that the next step in each case is the same: get a supervisor involved. Is that correct? If so, how can you say that you are searching for weapons but not for drugs? What you keep trying to make out is that all TSOs go into a bag looking for drugs or money and anything else that would be "the big catch" and it is just not true. Many of the TSOs would rather go through their entire career without finding anything other than the odd pocket knife or soda (it means that they are safer in general AND they don't have to run the chance of testifying in court!). Some TSOs may say they are doing this, and to those I say - Bad idea, it can get you in trouble. Oh yeah, if I find a weapon the correct response is to notify the STSO and let them move forward, so yes the response is exactly the same, but the situations are not. |
Originally Posted by knotyeagle
(Post 13098823)
Gee so I wonder why your trained document checkers have been declining them as acceptable ID then. Or the use of US Military ID at Panama City, St. Petersburg, etc.
A bit too much for the trained document checkers on what the "rule-du-jour" is or do they just make it up as they go along? |
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 13102081)
Again, I cant presume to speak for others, only myself. I hope you don't hold that against me, my soothsaying skills are pretty lame.:cool:
I'm sure you see the behavior at GSO many days/week. I see the behavior at different TSA checkpoints (such as FLL, CLL, AUS, HOU, MCO, MDW, OAK, APW, MKE, DAL, SAT, CAK, etc) weekly. And my solution is to confront the screener directly when he/she is not following the procedure. Eric vin Lynn at Appleton (ATW) on 2 Aug was insistent that my shoes had be on the belt rather than in the bin by themselves. I asked him about the shoes in my carry-on back and he replied logic is not the issue. It did not work out well for him or lead screener Jimmy Bromlee. |
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 13102070)
Fear profits a man nothing.
"Fear profits a man nothing, unless he can land a TSA contract." |
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 13102070)
What you keep trying to make out is that all TSOs go into a bag looking for drugs or money and anything else that would be "the big catch" and it is just not true. Many of the TSOs would rather go through their entire career without finding anything other than the odd pocket knife or soda (it means that they are safer in general AND they don't have to run the chance of testifying in court!). Some TSOs may say they are doing this, and to those I say - Bad idea, it can get you in trouble.
Yeah, I know you state that the screener in Fofana acted incorrectly (as is the case any time a screener gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar). It looks like TSA is throwing these people under the bus for doing what they're supposed to do - the screeners are expendable. And if they are acting on their own and not following procedure correctly, then it shows an endemic problem of poor training because these situations happen all too frequently. |
Originally Posted by Trollkiller
(Post 13102212)
I like your signature but you forgot the rest. It should read
"Fear profits a man nothing, unless he can land a TSA contract." |
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 13102614)
I love that phrase! I wish I could take credit for it, but it actually came from the movie "The Thirteenth Warrior". I don't think fear is necessary for a TSA contract, I think having something the agency needs at a cost the agency will pay is what they base it on. :D
|
Originally Posted by knotyeagle
(Post 13102122)
I don't expect you to speak for others, only the other TSA screeners you have seen in their correct/incorrect behavior. Interestingly enough it appears many of here (and perhaps me as well) have a greater sampling of what is the norm for TSA screener behavior than you have.
I'm sure you see the behavior at GSO many days/week. I see the behavior at different TSA checkpoints (such as FLL, CLL, AUS, HOU, MCO, MDW, OAK, APW, MKE, DAL, SAT, CAK, etc) weekly. And my solution is to confront the screener directly when he/she is not following the procedure. Eric vin Lynn at Appleton (ATW) on 2 Aug was insistent that my shoes had be on the belt rather than in the bin by themselves. I asked him about the shoes in my carry-on back and he replied logic is not the issue. It did not work out well for him or lead screener Jimmy Bromlee. I actually worked 30 days at LAX and can tell you I actually saw pretty much the same as GSO (admittedly, LAX is a zoo and it is incredible that anyone can function in that setting, but - I saw mostly things done by SOP and corrected what I saw differently). I know that there are differences between locations, but if you follow the SOP as it is written, do what you are supposed to and use common sense, there is a lot less confusion and a lot more efficiency in the operation. I truly am sorry that you guys have bad experiences, but I do what I can to help personally and forward info up the chain as I hear it. When you have a bad experience (I am talking about someone doing something wrong or rude, not the fact that you had to surrender 8 ozs of Momma Josines BBQ sauce) follow up on it. The agency can't fix what it doesn't know is wrong. I know that it seems that things may not get addressed at all, but they actually do (at least some of the time). I know we have had comment cards filled out that resulted in discussions and better dissemination/clarification of information. |
Originally Posted by knotyeagle
(Post 13102627)
Whether it works or not is a side issue, like the puffer portals?
|
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 13102664)
I actually worked 30 days at LAX and can tell you I actually saw pretty much the same as GSO (admittedly, LAX is a zoo and it is incredible that anyone can function in that setting, but - I saw mostly things done by SOP and corrected what I saw differently). I know that there are differences between locations, but if you follow the SOP as it is written, do what you are supposed to and use common sense, there is a lot less confusion and a lot more efficiency in the operation. I truly am sorry that you guys have bad experiences, but I do what I can to help personally and forward info up the chain as I hear it. When you have a bad experience (I am talking about someone doing something wrong or rude, not the fact that you had to surrender 8 ozs of Momma Josines BBQ sauce) follow up on it. The agency can't fix what it doesn't know is wrong. I know that it seems that things may not get addressed at all, but they actually do (at least some of the time). I know we have had comment cards filled out that resulted in discussions and better dissemination/clarification of information.
I prefer the direct confrontation with the offending screener, photos/name included so other travelers can be forewarned how they might get treated from that screener. I learned a lesson at FLL when 2 TSA screeners after doing a SSSS boarding pass screening did not use the über secret hole punch on the boarding pass, thus I could not board the Delta flight FLL-SLC. The gate agent had to walk me back to the checkpoint, find a supervisor who could use the über secret hole punch. Supervisor was not willing to say the names of the offending screeners. That pretty will closed the issue for me. Oh and I almost forgot, it is good that you have such confidence that complaint cards, phone calls, emails are actually read and responded to. Unlike unfounded news reports back in 2007 that showed the TSA was underreporting those complaints. http://www.azcentral.com/business/ar...ints20-ON.html |
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 13102713)
It seems to me that the puffers worked great in theory and testing, but not on the floor. They are a fantastic tool, but the maintenance was getting to a point where it was prohibitive. If you had a machine in your office that was fantastic, did everything you wanted it to, but wound up costing you 4 times the base cost in the 2-3 years after it, would it be worth it to you to keep it? Or would you do some research, remove the device and use other methods that did essentially the same tasks for about a 10th of the cost? I think the puffers were the most compelling case for the research facility at HQ. It places the equipment into a setting more along the lines of a real checkpoint to ascertain whether the equipment will hold up under the everyday stresses placed on it in the normal operating enviornment. Currently they are researching the new stuff available and doing cost/yield studies on newer tech to make certain that they don't have that happen again. I for one, am honestly happy to have the facility, so I don't wind up getting a great new tool that breaks every week! As a tax payer, that should make you fairly happy too!
|
Originally Posted by Superguy
(Post 13102318)
West, that'd be a LOT easier to buy if TSA weren't touting as successes finding drug mules, people out on arrest warrants, people with large amounts of cash, etc, etc and also didn't offer rewards for finding such (as has been reported in the past). It trumpets these things as Big Catches® as if it were the very things they're looking for. And of course, you have to wonder about the changes to powders, etc, in light of Fofana restricting searches of items after they've been cleared for WEI.
Yeah, I know you state that the screener in Fofana acted incorrectly (as is the case any time a screener gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar). It looks like TSA is throwing these people under the bus for doing what they're supposed to do - the screeners are expendable. And if they are acting on their own and not following procedure correctly, then it shows an endemic problem of poor training because these situations happen all too frequently. The changes to powders had to do with the fact that it was a security hole that was in the system. Powdered substances weren't checked regularly and it is a threat that has gained more popularity among nefarious groups. Look at the increase in public information on powdered substances and their abilities and a change to policy was a no brainer. By nature, certain types of powders can be an essential part of WEI, and therefore should be screened. TSA publicizes the "Big Catches" because of the following reasons: 1) The items found are illegal 2) The people caught with these items are doing something illegal 3) It shows the agency is not sitting on it's laurels, and they are actually screening the people coming into the checkpoints It is an easy way to let the public know that we are not just standing around waving people through and sending them on their way. I don't agree with the rewards thing, as finding WEI and reporting illegal items discovered while doing that is part of the TSO basic job description. Rewards should be given to people that find a more efficient way to work the processes and procedures, or that correct an ongoing safety issue, or do something outside of the normal scope of their job. I don't just state that the TSO was wrong in that case, if I am informed enough about the case where any TSO has done something wrong, I state it then. The regulations are quite clear, we are not the DEA, FBI, or LEO of any sort, therefore we are not a part of some huge nationwide dragnet for illegal items. It is clear that we are to screen for WEI, and if something illegal (or suspected of being illegal) is found pursuant to that end, then it is to be reported to LEO - end of TSO job. IF TSOs are doing something else, then they need to be corrected. |
"Call to Arms"? Is this for real?
Interesting tone here.
I hear there's a message out on the Web that urges al-Qaeda supporters to rise up and fight these new security measures, like WBI, by bombarding TSA and the airlines with objections claiming they're an "invasion of privacy." Is that what this is all about? |
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 13102614)
I love that phrase! I wish I could take credit for it, but it actually came from the movie "The Thirteenth Warrior". I don't think fear is necessary for a TSA contract, I think having something the agency needs at a cost the agency will pay is what they base it on. :D
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 8:34 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.