The lawyer did not but even if they did I doubt it would have gotten very far as the appeal courts tend not to question technical aspects as they are looking at procedural aspects. Besides there really is such thing as sheet explosives.

I agree with you, but "bad cases make bad law" and I can understand why the courts would be reluctant to do so in too firm a manner on a kiddy porn case.

This is absolutely true, and why I was worried about this one being taken up.

IANAL, so I can't make too many judgments about this particular case, but I agree. It's too sensitive an issue - nothing (except terrorism, ironically) gets people riled up as much as child porn.

What does worry me, though, is if there is any distinction between a bag checker finding what is definitely illegal vs. what could be illegal. In other words, I worry that this might empower and encourage TSOs to hand people to LEOs for things like carrying a lot of cash, which they were previously enjoined from doing.

Can't remember the airport, but a few months back, TSOs summoned LEOs at the checkpoint. IIRC, the woman had several consecutively numbered personal checks in a pocket. The TSOs found the checks and decided she was cleaning out the joint bank accounts and running away from her husband.

I'm not sure how that related to aviation security. The LEOs were summoned. The LEOs did not ask what this had to do with TSA's alleged mission, aviation security. The LEOs attempted to reach her husband, it turned out that everything was completely above board.

(No one ever explained why it was a TSA or LEO matter. After all, in the absence of court judgments, if the woman hasn't forged the checks (and what reason was there to suspect that had happened), I don't think it's illegal to clean out a joint account anyway.)

And you should read up on Bierfeldt. IIRC, according to one of our resident (real or alleged) TSOs, they are still allowed/required to report large amounts of currency, particularly if the pax won't tell them how much money there is. Also, the BDO at BUF who got busted for escorting drug dealers around security was apparently doing so not because they were carrying drugs, but because they were carrying large sums of cash (and I think fake IDs, too, although those seem unlikely to look suspicious on an x-ray).

Even if the drug dealers were carrying more than $10k, if they were travelling domestically, there should have been no reason for concern, because it is supposedly not illegal to carry large sums of cash in the US. However, the BDO clearly knew that if the sums were discovered, there would be follow up - otherwise, she wouldn't have taken the risk of openly escorting these guys and their cash around security.

Kathy Parker at PHL. Googling "Kathy Parker TSA" will bring up the article. Unfortunately there is no followup. I emailed the reporter a while back asking him to follow up and never received a reply.

I agree that bad facts make bad law. Unfortunately, I think that law has been made here which is virtually indistinguishable from the "personal" search (unless I am hired to represent someone, in which case I reserve the right to realize that I was wrong with what I wrote here).

Sheet explosives are a poor excuse to examine paper (including photo paper) content for images and/or copy (writing/type). ETD swabbing is a less intrusive means that can be used to rule out a variety of explosives without the TSA hiding behind a claim about "sheet explosives" concern resulting in TSA examination of paper content for images and/or writing/type.

It's a completely fraudulent, BS excuse.

The proper procedure, the ONLY safe procedure, if one genuinely suspects that there may be a explosive materials in a bag, is to call the freakin' bomb squad, because IT MIGHT BE A BOMB!

Hand searching the bag or handling its contents is criminally negligent - because the explosives could kill anyone within the blast radius. The fact that the resultant explosion would also most likely kill the TSO performing the inspection merely deserves a Darwin Award.

Any suspicion low enough NOT to warrant calling the bomb squad is, IMHO, grossly insufficient to warrant any detailed inspection of a bag or its contents.

IANAL. But I have stayed at Holiday Inn Expresses on a number of occasions.

I can agree with this. And while I know explosives are generally not allowed on planes, and perhaps I'm underthinking it, wouldn't a lack of a detonator, etc. tend to rule out any real concerns? [Similar to that 'massive' 1/2 ounce that the military fellow tried to take home and show off.]

Hate defending the truly bad folks out there, but unfortunately, if you don't defend them - you're giving up your rights at the same time.

No, because (among other reasons) you could make the exact same argument about explosives without a detonator! Detonators are fairly small and far harder to spot than explosives. If you give the latter a "free pass", you make it far too easy to have just two people conspire to bring in a bomb.

I disagree that the threshold for further search and for calling the bomb squad are the same. As another post pointed out, explosives alone aren't that dangerous. If you have a significant suspicion that a bag contains a full bomb, then calling the bomb squad is indeed the right approach, but a mild suspicion that it might contain bomb parts is cause for further investigation but not calling the bomb squad.

Over the last 2 years, I have been told by more than a few FT members that as a triggering device and a power source wasn't an "explosive", it shouldn't concern TSA, that we should stick to looking for explosives. In fact, such comments have often ridiculed TSA policy for looking for potential power sources and triggering devices. And lets not ignore the possibility that those items can be carried independently in different bags by different people and assembled on the sterile side.

As noted in the court decision, Hilo used the CTX 5500, which I have had years of experience working on while at SAT. Have you ever seen stacks, even small stacks, of photographs displayed on the CTX 5500? Not to be rude, but from your comment, I doubt it. Dark masses is exactly how such pictures - thicker and heavier than paper - would appear on the CTX 5500. In fact, get a large enough stack of such photos and it throws off the entire scan, meaning a hand search of the bag, as the density of the pictures will cause the scan to fail.

I will add that what should be common sense is when you have an "alarm" on a CTX you look at the image of where the items are BEFORE you begin the search. It will tell you if the item is near the top of the bag, at the bottom, or by the wheels, or the pull handle, etc.

So we can know that the screener knew the general location of the items she needed to check. She knew the "black mass" was near the opening. I would suggest the black mass was near the opening, and when she saw the pictures, knowing how they look on the CTX screen, it actually makes sense to someone that she could accurately guess those were the items that caused the alarm. Similar situations have happened to me. They have happened to anyone who has worked on CTX, or L3s, given enough time.

But I do understand that this would not make sense to someone who has no experience with this topic.

Wow, that's way over the top. I can't see how it is TSA's place to make that determination.

Yes, they are, most likely because large sums of cash in carry-on bags could be the proceeds of criminal activity.

You are correct. Currently, there are no laws regulating the transportation of any amount of any currency within USA borders. However, it is mighty suspicious to be carrying large sums (say over $10,000) of cash through an airport. These days, people use plastic for almost everything. For large deposits like on vehicles and homes, most people use cashier's checks. Why would somebody need to carry that much cash in bank notes? It is very suspicious.

Also, according to a 2009 study by Dr. Yuegang Zuo, Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of Massachusetts--Dartmouth, on average 90% of the U.S. paper currency in circulation is contaminated with cocaine residue. I suppose that if one were carrying enough paper currency, it might be detectable by canine units and/or sensors.

In fact, Dr. Zuo's study found that 100% percent of the sampled bills from the following cities contained cocaine traces: Detroit; Boston; Orlando; Miami; Los Angeles.

Wow!! 100%!