Potential criminal matters. It applies when somebody has a "reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer" (Ohio v. Reiner). In other words, if there were an articulable reason that a truthful answer to the question could put one in danger of a criminal prosecution, one may assert the privilege, whether or not one is guilty of any crime.

Good to see that some here still enjoy lying! ^

I dont think anyone who post here on FT has ever claimed that, excpt you and a few other critics of TSA.

Absolutely agree. TSA is getting NO love from anyone these days, a butt of jokes and derision from all quarters, ever since they started looking at pax naked and handling pax' family jewels. Everywhere you look there's criticism of TSA. Not just FT by a LOOOONG shot.

Thanks for the clarification. The TSA has a two zone clearance, VIP and FAMs bypass the WTMD, everyone else is assumed to be OBLv2.0 until told to put their shoes and belts on and released into the sterile area. Since TSO clerks will call LEOs over for "failure to respect my authori-tay", this only supports my belief than any and all interactions with the TSOs are "pre criminal charges" in nature. They are not trying to clear me; they are trying to find a reason to bust me. They all act like Jr. FBI wannabees looking for the Big Catch™.

Every TSO encounter thus meets the "reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer" test. The only answer to a clerk violating your Fourth Amendment rights is to say nothing to preserve your Fifth Amendment rights.

Yes I know saying nothing risks ticking off clerks on a power trip. The worst PR for this type is the "Cops" type reality TV shows. Every time a person talks to the cops and trys to "explain" they only dig themselves a bigger hole. OTOH those that say "I'll take the Right to Remain silent and a lawyer" are slammed by the vigilantee cops with a "He must be guilty, he LAWYERED UP and did not confess." :td: The idea that a citizen is both innocent and more knowledgeable about his constitutional rights than the local beat cop or one striper TSO clerk is not considered an option. :td:

The big question, however, is: can their screeners speak and comprehend English at a fifth grade level.

I'm quite sure that half of the TSO rookies, when taking their oath, responded to "I, state your name" with "I state your name" just like in Blazing Saddles.

Thanks to 18 USC 1001, the less said to government agents the better.

I'm glad to see that you're finally acknowledging universal acceptance of how wretched the organization you work for actually is.

From a practical point of view, yes, but from a legal point of view, it's just a little murkier. The 5th Amendment can only be invoked if a truthful answer would subject you to danger. But the only way 18 USC 1001 can be violated is if what you said wasn't true. So to be able to assert the privilege, you need to be able to argue that there was an articulable danger that a true statement would be perceived to be false. That's a little harder than claiming it for other reasons.

In the case of someone with a rather distinctive last name, providing a truthful answer aloud could subject them to danger...

I'm thinking along the lines of burglary while they're out of town, brought on by a TSO providing information to others for possible targets. It's not too far-fetched, as I recall there was already one similar operation that TSA discovered which was doing this very thing.

So what do all these mean for interaction at the checkpoint going forward? It's beginning to sound more and more like TSA might have the authority to compel one to interact with agents of the government before flying - and that's a scary thought. This would be another example of how law-abiding airline passengers are treated with fewer rights than convicted murderers and sexual predators.

I would argue, because there is no law prohibiting you from pronouncing your name however you wish, that there is no right (truthful) or wrong (not truthful) answer to this interrogation question.

I wish the artist formerly and currently known as 'Prince' still had the symbol for his name. (Don't know if he ever changed it legally).

I don't think anyone ever knew how to pronounce it.

At one point, Prince was the #1 frequent flyer in terms of annual mileage on NW. It could have gotten interesting.

Mike

Wrong kind of danger! The 5th Amendment relates to "danger of criminal prosecution".

Sure there is: the only truthful way to pronounce it is the way you normally pronounce it.

But, there's no law stating that I can't change the way I normally pronounce it every few minutes or even every time someone asks me my name. There isn't even a law defining "normal."

And the burden to prove how the name is pronounced falls to whom?

My first name has a number of acceptable pronunciations and common mispronunciations (it's not the same as my username). And despite straightforward spelling, people butcher my last name in a number of creative ways. What if I say my name the way someone who would butcher it would say it?

No, but in the highly unlikely event somebody were to persue this and they brought six witnesses into court and all said that you had pronounced your name to them the same way and it was different from the way you pronounced it to the TDC, I think it would be hard to find a jury that agreed with your theory above.

These are the few times that I oh so wished my name were John Doe, or Joe Smith...

If a case like this was ever brought to a US Attorney for prosecution, I would hope that he/she would laugh in TSA's face. We have far more pressing needs facing federal law enforcement than to squander valuable court time for the sole purpose of assuaging TSA's hurt feelings.

Apparently my home airport has been chosen to have the honor of being the test subject for this colossal waste of tax money.

http://www.boston.com/Boston/busines...hOP/index.html

As a Boston-area resident, I feel equally honored. Or embarrassed.

Just be sure you don't sweat or fail to make eye contact. That's very suspicious.

I'm in and out of there really, really often. They are already doing this -- they suddenly started about two months ago. It was a distinct and annoying new security "feature."

Basically the guy comes up to you and keeps on asking you dumb questions aggressively. OF COURSE you want to ignore the dude. It is infinitely stupid. The questions they ask reflect a collossal lack of intelligence, that any sentient person would roll their eyes, a reaction I'm not convinced is different from a truly suspicious person. The guy asks me if I was on vacation when I'm dressed in a business suit. :rolleyes: Is this to "throw me off guard???" :rolleyes:

Here is a description of one of my encounters a week or so ago:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...l#post16803029

...until my Public Defender reminded the court and jury that there is no law requiring me to pronounce my name the way it's spelled or even to be consistent. The civil suit I would file would be fun.

Fellow citizens from Boston: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE video-record several of these interrogations! Do it for your country!

Was your interrogator actually licking his chops or did you just intuitively pick up on his excitement?

Unfortunately, that'd be illegal in MA.

I'm really bummed this is happening at my home airport. On the other hand, I look forward to ignoring many a TSAer.

This application by cops of the Massachusetts wiretapping laws is currently being challenged in court --

http://www.universalhub.com/2011/cou...-you-have-righ

BOS *always* seems to be the guinea pig for whatever terrible pilot program TSA thinks of, and it seems that every pilot program "succeeds" and ends up getting widespread deployment.

BOS was the pilot of the first behavior detection program. And the "enhanced" patdowns were going on there long before Oct/Nov 2010. And now this. :mad:

It disgusts me to see the city that was the cradle of liberty abused this way.

And I hope that idiotic wiretapping law (or interpretation thereof) eventually gets struck down or repealed. Public officials should have no expectation of privacy when performing their duties in a public place, and should have no expectation of privacy against the owner of a house or a car they are in. If most LEOs were truly honest and decent, they would embrace citizen recordings for providing a record.

I believe the Glik case hinges in regard to the purported "secretive" nature of the cellphone recording; if you have your cameraphone obviously recording at the checkpoint (and are not 'interfering' with the screening process :rolleyes:) you are all right even in MA.

It might be fun to record the people in front of you as they are chatted up by the BDO. It will pretty much guarantee you the patdown though in my experience. I have been selected 100% for cancer box at BOS in past 3 months. It gives me a nice conversation starter, "did you hear about the cancer cluster that was seen in your airport's TSA agents?"

Do you suppose Pistole is a Yankees fan? :)

That's why the example I gave had as testimony a number of people saying what answer you gave them when you're asked your name. If you give a different answer to a governmental agent, that's "materially false".

Just out of curiosity: What do you mean by "questions similar to the ones passengers answer when checking in for international flights in Europe" - every year I take number of international flights in Europe and I'm never asked everything..

Classic is Niki check-in (or baggage drop-off) at VIE:
Me: Hello.
(I present my BP and ID to counter agent)
After 1 minute:
Agent: English or Deutsch?
Me: English
Agent: This is your gate, please, be there at this time.
Me: Sure, bye

And that's it:D:D:D

So let me get this straight. The TSA is publicly announcing that they're rolling out a new (highly annoying) system designed to find terrorists and they publicly announce the one airport it's being used. :confused:

Big deal. Even if they hadn't announced it, all the FT members at BOS would've reported on it soon enough.

And, as a scientist, I see nothing wrong with the concept of a one-airport test ("pilot") program. Far better to test it at one airport first, and make an honest assessment as to whether or not it makes sense to deploy nationwide.


(Insert your own snide remark about "honest assessment" here.)

But it's supposed to find a one in a billion terrorist by... talking to him.. at a pre announced airport... to see if it works. :confused:

Is this not the most idiotic idea EVER, even by the TSA?

I'm well versed in science, this is not it.

I won't even go as far as a remark about assessment. They don't have an assessment for their test, they're going to implement it regardless. Test is just a word they add to give the appearance of propriety.

Which is why it's best to say nothing. Other than a casual hello if I think the clerk is a decent human being, I refuse to engage in any conversation with TSA clerks. So far I've never been pressured into playing their games.