Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 13133655)

You know, I wrote this huge well reasoned and thought out response to this, but it timed me out, so I am going to distill it a bit.

1) You can twist what I write all you want, there is a difference between actively searching for something, and reporting something discovered while trying to clear a threat or possible threat from a bag.

2) I will not argue the semantics on drugs with you. They are a sticking point for you, not for me - what the law states where I am is what I go by. The law here says drugs are illegal.

3) Pictures of a "possible" possession of stolen goods is a far cry from suspected kiddie porn and a suspected bag of dope.

4)Again, the checkpoints are not a dragnet or fishing expedition, they are used to clear people and items to get on the airplanes. We are looking for WEI, and if you have something illegal that is discovered while trying to do that job, it will be reported to the STSO/LEO whichever is required.

5) We do not go into a bag looking for anything other than possible threats, period. If something illegal is found, then it is reported to the STSO/LEO whichever is called for.

6) The items you list above that TSA announces are found, are found while searching for WEI, or at the TDC where we check ID.

7) There could be discovery of many things that are wrongdoing with a couple of laws being passed. That is not my concern, my concern is to keep WEI and people that would use them to harm the airplane or people on it, off the planes. That is my focus everyday, and I do a pretty bagn up job of it if I do say so myself.

8) The best advice I can give to a passenger worrying about illegal items in their bag at the checkpoint - DON'T have illegal items in your bags to start with. We do not search for illegal items specifically, but if they are discovered while trying to clear a bag of threat items, it will be reported.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 13133849)

What specific training does TSA provide its employees so they can make a reasonable determination that a substance is an illegal drug?

Originally Posted by IslandBased (Post 13134745)

Don't forget the syringe of creme de cassis to go with it. :p

Originally Posted by doober (Post 13134795)

I don't know what gsoltso's answer will be, but other screeners have told us they get no training in identifying drugs, so basically it's all a matter of what they think it might be.

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 13133655)

there is a difference between actively searching for something, and reporting something discovered while trying to clear a threat or possible threat from a bag.

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 13133655)

Pictures of a "possible" possession of stolen goods is a far cry from suspected kiddie porn and a suspected bag of dope.

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 13133655)

We are looking for WEI, and if you have something illegal that is discovered while trying to do that job, it will be reported to the STSO/LEO whichever is required.

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 13133655)

We do not go into a bag looking for anything other than possible threats, period. If something illegal is found, then it is reported to the STSO/LEO whichever is called for.

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 13133655)

my concern is to keep WEI and people that would use them to harm the airplane or people on it, off the planes.

Originally Posted by pmocek

I shouldn't have included the razor blade in my example. I was just trying to emphasize the idea that you'd be seeing something that you were likely to suspect to be cocaine.

Okay, so when you're doing the search with an X-ray, you'll ignore anything that looks like drugs or drug paraphernalia, and stick to looking for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries. Great! That's what I and many other people think you should do. None of that other stuff is any of your business. Congress would not have authorized warrantless searches for arbitrary indications of possible wrongdoing; they authorized you to search for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries. Searching everyone who passes to look for any indication of wrongdoing is unamerican and unconstitutional, no matter how much crime it would allow you to detect. Your job is not to detect crime; it's to keep dangerous items off airplanes.

Originally Posted by pmocek

Wait a minute -- that directly contradicts what you just wrote. Now, you're saying that when you search a bag, if you see weapons, explosives, incendiaries, or drugs, you refer to a supervisor. Call it what you like; that's as much a search for drugs as it is a search for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries. Why do you suppose you've been trained to take the same action when you find something that looks like it might be and illegal drug as you've been trained to take when you find somethign that looks like it might be a weapon? Why do you suppose you've been indoctrinated with the idea that it's a search specifically for weopons, explosives, and incendiaries, when in reality, a number of other things are treated exactly the same in the course of your searches?

Originally Posted by pmocek

And what you don't seem to understand is that even if you call it a search for potatoes, and you really think you're looking for potatoes, if you have a list of other things that you're supposed to watch out for, then you're really searching for those other things. There's just no way around it. You look in a bag, and you ignore everything except for certain things. That's a search for those things.

Originally Posted by pmocek

Okay, so you do treat illegal drugs the same as weapons when searching people and their belongings. Again, call it a search for potatoes if you want, but it's clear that you're searching for weapons, explosives, incendiaries, drugs, and likely a few other things. There is a nearly-nearly infinite number of things you are not searching for, but according to you, Ron, and the TSA operational directive I quoted above, drugs are not on that list. They're on the same list as the dangerous items.

Originally Posted by pmocek

If you 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, you'd probably ignore it and move on, right? It would look like an indication of transporting stolen goods, but it's not on the list of things you're told to look out for, right? You could do the same thing when you see something that looks to you like illegal drugs, but you do not, because those are on the list of things you're told to look out for, right?

Originally Posted by pmocek

Even the TSA staff who perform the searches admit that they'll stop and take further action when they see, for instance, something that looks like it might be drugs that are illegal for some people to possess in some places, while they're searching our belongings. 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".

Originally Posted by pmocek

We could surely find even more evidence of such wrongdoing 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.

Originally Posted by pmocek

However, our courts have ruled that such fishing expeditions are unconstitutional. In this nation, we aren't supposed to stop all the good people just to look for the few bad people.

Originally Posted by greentips (Post 13134771)

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.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 13133849)

What specific training does TSA provide its employees so they can make a reasonable determination that a substance is an illegal drug?

Originally Posted by bocastephen (Post 13133871)

Which should be sufficient grounds to block any such evidence from ever seeing the inside of a courtroom.

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 13135229)

Any determination as to what the substance actually is, comes at the hands of the local LEO.

Originally Posted by jkhuggins (Post 13134093)

But clearly TSOs aren't report everything that they discover that might be illegal. I've made this argument before. If my carry-on bag contains a large collection of really poorly, amateurly labeled DVDs, and you've decided to search it for other (legitimate) reasons and find my DVDs, I've given you some evidence that I may be breaking copyright law. But I'd be terribly surprised if you used that as a basis to call over a STSO/LEO. On the other hand, if instead of my pile of DVDs you find a large bag of white powder, you're almost certainly going to call an STSO/LEO.

The point is this: as I understand it, TSOs have been directed to report certain types of suspected illegal activity to an STSO/LEO for further action, but not others. This leaves TSA (the agency) open to charges that it is, at some level, actually looking for particular forms of illegal activity outside the scope of a search for WEI.

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 13135217)

I am not sure what I can say about that. There are SSI rules that cover all forms of training, or lack thereof, so i am not going to be able to give you a direct answer on that one, sorry.:(

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 13135229)

Any determination as to what the substance actually is, comes at the hands of the local LEO.

Originally Posted by pmocek (Post 13135177)

Prohibition and the black market that it creates do those things. Marijuana has never killed anyone. People kill themselves with alcohol and other dangerous drugs, but people are no longer shooting each other over alcohol sales territory since we made it legal, destroying the black market, and people aren't dieing from poorly-made bathtub gin since we made it legal and began regulating it.

I agree strongly with your statements about scope of searches and thank you for taking the time to add to the discussion.

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.

Originally Posted by ND Sol (Post 13136821)

What does the question about whether TSO's are trained in identifying illegal drugs have to do with the mission of the TSA? It doesn't. As such, the TSA can not hide behind the SSI rubric to refuse to answer that question.

Truth is, TSO's have no training from the TSA in identification of illegal drugs. Why? Because if they did, each arrest related to a screening checkpoint find of illegal drugs by a TSO would be thrown out. And though TSO's say they are required to report illegal drugs, what are the consequences to them if they don't? Absolutely none. How can you hold a TSO responsible for not reporting something that they are not trained to identify? You can't. As such, TSO's shouldn't be generally reporting their suspicions other than those related to WEI.

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 TSORon (Post 13152704)

Took a few days off Phil. Tis the season ya know. I'll get back to it pretty soon, tomorrow maybe.

Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 13135934)

I have to go, but I wanted to give you a little something that I found interesting. It is pretty good summary and there are some links to other sites with even more information. Just some fun reading before I leave for the night. I will talk to ya'll later this weekend.

http://forums.tccoa.com/showthread.php?t=126579&page=2

Originally Posted by jkhuggins (Post 13117515)

That isn't quite what I was trying to ask; the identity of the owner of the bag isn't where I'm heading with this. Let me rephrase.

Suppose you're on the X-ray and you see what appears to be a stash of drugs in a bag. As I understand your procedures, you're not allowed to call for a bag check just because you suspect there are drugs in the bag. How hard would it be for you to find another, defensible reason to call for a bag check on that bag? Something along the lines of "gee, that looks like a screwdriver that's under seven inches, but maybe we should pull the bag anyways to check how long it really is" ... and now you've created an excuse to find the drugs.

Basically, I'm wondering if an overzealous TSA could find a way to conduct primary searches for things outside of TSA's official scope, yet justify them on the basis of permitted actions.

Originally Posted by windwalker (Post 13117860)

Reaallllly now, define kiddie porn and further what makes that ANY of the TSA's business?

Originally Posted by windwalker (Post 13117860)

It is NONE(and what part of NONE is not understood?) of the TSA's business how much cash we may choose to carry. And once again outside the defined scope of ya'lls responsibilities.

repeat after us-weapons and\or explosives ONLY

Originally Posted by pmocek (Post 13117873)

Ron, could you please define "go looking for"? It seems to me that it means very little, since you're clearly on the lookout for other things as well.

Originally Posted by pmocek (Post 13117873)

Can you find weapons, explosives, or incendiaries without going looking for them? It seems that based on what you've explained to us, we'd be just as safe from WEI on airplanes if you "went looking for" tennis balls, then contacted a supervisor if you found weapons, explosives, or incendiaries. Regardless of what you go looking for, you're going to ignore everything you find except things that look like weapons, explosives, incendiaries, drugs, large quantities of cash, and a few other things, aren't you?

Originally Posted by pmocek (Post 13117873)

Seriously: Please explain how your actions would be different if you went looking for tennis balls, 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? If so, of what significance is the fact that you went looking for tennis balls, went looking for WEI, or went looking for nothing? In any case, you're going to take action when you see something that looks like any one of several things. I'd consider this a search for those things. You're welcome to call it a search for tennis balls.

Originally Posted by pmocek (Post 13118023)

Hey, I agree with you, there. It's highly unlikely that you can tell the difference between a bag of cocaine and a bag of flour or powdered sugar. There's no way you could tell by sight whether someone is legally authorized to have the marijuana in his possession or not. And could you possibly know whether some pills in a bottle are melatonin or MDMA? Not likely.

Originally Posted by pmocek (Post 13118023)

Sort of. It's only his or her call after you refer something, right? It's always you bag checkers who decide what to ignore and what to report, right? And you very specifically ignore things that seem like they might be indication of some crimes, but report things that seem like they might be indication of other crimes, right?

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 13157190)

If you cant figure that out for yourself, then there is nothing I can do to assist you in this forum.



It IS the business of the federal government where ITS currency goes, specially if it is outside of the country. Now, guess who I work for?

I’m not going to go looking for your cash stash. Nope, just not going to do it. I have no interest in that. But if you happen to have a large brick of $100 bills in the carry on that I am searching, I am going to report it to a supervisor. Its just that simple. Like it or not, there are laws about transporting cash outside of the country. The TSA happens to be in a good position to detect large amounts of cash in bags going outside of the country, but it is not our concern if it is declared or not! Nor do we have the ability to determine if it has been declared or not, which is why we refer it to someone who can. If it is, then there is no problem and off you go to wherever you plan. If its not, well then you have a problem, but in either case its not my problem.

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 13157150)

Could an overzealous TSO find a way to conduct a search on each and every bag that comes through his / her Xray? Sure we can.