Originally Posted by cbn42 (Post 26209414)

Yes, I was referring to the original topic of this thread. Which clause in the 4th and 5th Amendments would this violate? Can you cite a court ruling to support this? I cannot think of anything. There is no prohibition on government officials questioning anyone, even if they have color of authority. They are not required to read Miranda rights unless the subject is in custody.

Originally Posted by WillCAD (Post 26215874)

Asking questions is fine, in casual conversation.

Asking questions while being detained, under implied threat of denial of freedom or arrest, is not simply asking questions, it's interrogation.

The most troubling issue in this case it that TSOs, who are not law enforcement, are engaging in illegal investigatory procedures such as interrogations.

Yes, a TSO is free to ask me anything they want in casual, consensual conversation. However, if they ask me a question while detaining me at the c/p, that's neither a casual nor a consensual conversation - it's a required interaction while I am being detained under implied threats of denial of movement, or arrest.

Yes, I know TSOs can't arrest me and can't legally "detain" me, nor are they The Boss Of the police. However, in practical application, a) they're preventing you from boarding a plane, which severely restricts your freedom of movement (a form of detention), b) at certain points during the screening, they're holding your possessions hostage (also a form of detention), c) they're wearing a deliberately misleading government-issued uniform and badge meant to intimidate and coerce the public (hence the color of authority and implied threats), and d) they have the option of calling the police at any time and making a complaint that can cause you to miss your flight or even be arrested (they've often made that threat explicitly rather than implicitly).

Detainment or restrictions, along with implied or explicit threats of custody, arrest, or confiscation of property, raise these "simply questions" from the level of casual conversation to the level of interrogation by uniformed government actors.

Originally Posted by ubernostrum (Post 26223826)

TSA checkpoints operate an administrative search to prevent certain dangerous items from being carried into the sterile area or onboard aircraft. U.S. v Davis laid out the relevant criteria that opened the door for the TSA and its predecessor airport-security programs to exist, and required that these searches be "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly".

Originally Posted by ubernostrum (Post 26223826)

This is important because Congress does not have the power to authorize a general-purpose search for criminal behavior of every single person or piece of property passing through a location -- that's where the Fourth Amendment comes in, with its pesky requirement of warrants and probable cause for that kind of thing, and that's why TSA in theory has to walk a very fine line constitutionally in order to stay within the scope of its administrative search powers.

Searching for trafficking/abduction victims under implicit threat of detention for non-cooperation with the search is far beyond that scope and in an ideal world would result in action against the TSA, against the TSO, and against everyone who ever trained or encouraged the TSO to do this.

Originally Posted by cbn42 (Post 26224508)

You would have a valid point, if TSA admitted that they were searching for trafficking/abduction victims. Since there are many plausible reasons to ask a passenger to state their name, that argument fails.

Originally Posted by cbn42 (Post 26224508)

U.S. v. Davis was a ninth circuit case and therefore would not be applicable at IAD.

Originally Posted by tanja (Post 26227956)

So what do they do with non english speaking kids?Like my grand kids.

Originally Posted by GUWonder (Post 26224614)

DHS (including TSA) has admitted that TSA has been searching for human trafficking "victims"/victims.

Originally Posted by ubernostrum (Post 26226184)

So do you think the TSA should have one set of rules for operating in airports in the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction (which includes some pretty big airports) and then try to argue for a completely different set of rules everywhere else? Because that probably wouldn't fly anywhere.

Originally Posted by ubernostrum (Post 26226184)

And meanwhile, despite being "just" a 9th Circuit case, Davis is pretty widely cited as the foundation of how administrative searches in airports are supposed to work, and I know of no other circuit which has ruled inconsistently with the framework Davis laid out. So in the absence of SCOTUS ruling on it, Davis is where we should turn for guidance.

Originally Posted by NoMoreFlying (Post 26228007)

TSA clerk raises their voices, of course. ;)

Originally Posted by cbn42 (Post 26228029)

Have they actually said this, or have they simply been boasting about the "victims" that they happened to find? I can't recall hearing this, do you have a link?

Originally Posted by petaluma1 (Post 26228141)

Originally Posted by petaluma1 (Post 26228141)

http://www.dawsonassociates.com/juri...or-dec-8-rule/ Thi.s seems nationwide to me

Originally Posted by cbn42 (Post 26228203)

That act was never passed. It was approved by the House and then died in the Senate. But in any case, I asked whether TSA has ever admitted to looking for human trafficking victims, so pointing to a bill proposed in Congress is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by cbn42 (Post 26224508)

Since there are many plausible reasons to ask a passenger to state their name, that argument fails.

Originally Posted by WillCAD (Post 26215874)

Yes, I know TSOs can't arrest me and can't legally "detain" me, nor are they The Boss Of the police. However, in practical application, a) they're preventing you from boarding a plane, which severely restricts your freedom of movement (a form of detention), b) at certain points during the screening, they're holding your possessions hostage (also a form of detention), c) they're wearing a deliberately misleading government-issued uniform and badge meant to intimidate and coerce the public (hence the color of authority and implied threats), and d) they have the option of calling the police at any time and making a complaint that can cause you to miss your flight or even be arrested (they've often made that threat explicitly rather than implicitly).

Originally Posted by cbn42 (Post 26224508)

Since there are many plausible reasons to ask a passenger to state their name

Originally Posted by petaluma1 (Post 26228254)

"TSA will also continue to work with our federal partners to end human trafficking and smuggling alongside the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Blue Campaign, a program that combats these crimes against humanity.”

http://www.wokv.com/news/news/local/...ople-us/nZwrM/

Originally Posted by FredAnderssen (Post 26232313)

Like what? I've traveled in Europe extensively and never been required to state my name. As far as I'm aware, airplanes aren't falling out of the sky because of this.

Originally Posted by BSBD (Post 26232806)

There are? Since there are many, can you list four or five? I'm at a loss to think of more than one, and that one would only be plausible if I couldn't produce a photo ID.