Yeah, the question about alarms - which shows how little you know what is actually going on. Simple proof is how in-line systems, which receive alarms just as the older systems of baggage screening did, reduce FTE.

(See my bold above.)

Well, no, you are generally wrong and reflects a government employee understanding of business. Managers of successful companies are not rewarded for cutting costs. They are rewarded for improving profits. They may do this by increasing efficiency, lowering cost or increasing cash flow or income. It may involve cutting costs, but very often costs are increased to get corresponding or higher improvements in sales or efficiency.

You are correct in one aspect. In a dying business, one that is no longer meeting its customer's expectations, one that has a product that no one wants, or one whose innovative staff has taken a permanent hike, the only recourse may be to cut cost. It is among the last steps before closure.

That was not the question to which I was referring in the post you quoted above or even before.

The "question about alarms" has no relevance to what I know or don't know.

Odd, your argument went from these technologies will protect FTE, to TSA wants to protect it's budget.

As there is hard proof that these technologies do reduce FTE what I said is correct.

But do not assume a reduction in FTE means a reduction in budget. These technologies are expensive. Thus, note I never said the budget would be reduced. Government agencies will always protect their budgets

Actually, I spent 20 years in private business, so I am a relatively new government employee. And as you well know cutting cost is one way in which managers increase profit.

So then what question of mine were you responding?

Your post's question -- as I quoted it in what is currently post# 87.

Speaking of the word gullible in your last sentence above, it seems to speak about the first two sentences above.

This is not the place to try to discus me or any other FTer. In response to your words above about "Stop being silly and letting your anger control you", note that it is impossible to "stop" something that never was started or doesn't exist in this context; and in response to your words above about "use a little bit of rational thought for a bit", it's already been done such that your demand/request is irrelevant to the situation at hand.

Your above posts' attempt to mis-characterize me and my position is amusing, but that is amusing in the way that some fiction can be amusing.

Protecting budgets include protecting headcount as much as they can when it comes to the TSA.

Did you leave out the word "may" in the above post? Cutting costs is not always one way in which managers increase profit -- sometimes it results in reduced profits or even greater losses.

If that was the thinking of his previous employer it may partially explain why he is now a government employee.

I want to go back to the discussion of the case itself, since I had more time to carefully read the opinion. I don't see this as anything more than a carefully-crafted opinion to keep a child pornographer in jail. It clearly said that part of the search was legal and part was illegal. It then proceeded to split hairs to try to make a determination that enough was found in the legal part of the search to provide sufficient cause for law enforcement to proceed. I don't see this cases as having much, if any, precedential value because of its narrowness.

As to dicta, what I read on page 23 seems to tell me that this court would not accept the constitionality of the current checkpoint search.

The only "doctrine" I see the court establishing is one that I agree with because I don't see a practical alternative. As I understand this decision, the court ruled that the way you determine whether an administrative search that detected contraband that was not the purpose of the search was legal or not is to apply two tests:

(1) Were the procedures for the administrative seach designed in a way that would restrict the search to the stated purposes?

(2) Was the person doing the search restricting themselves to those procedures?

The district court appeared to be adding a test related to what the searcher was "looking for". The appeals court rejected that test and I think did so properly. Firstly, as they point out, because the materials could have been found by somebody who had the "proper" mindset. But also because it's impossible to determine what was in somebody's mind at any specific point in time.

My view is that nothing too inappropriate was done here and the proper result was obtained. Nobody challenges that some pictures spilled out of the envelope and that they were, at a minimum, very suspicious. As a practical matter, despite being legally able to do so, my guess is that nobody would have looked into the envelope were it not for those pictures being there. I feel that the court finding a way to keep McCarty in jail under those circumstances is emminently reasonable.

I may very well be reasonable that this person is in jail.

It does not make any means to put him there equally reasonable.

Agreed, and I didn't claim that it was. But I think these particuliar means, specifically how the court crafted its ruling, to be reasonable.

I think you are reading more into that dicta than is warranted by the verbiage used by the Court.

How about the TSA inspecting the second non-alerting suitcase belonging to the accused or reading the text of papers in the first suitcase? What about continuing to look at the content of photos once they were discovered (instead of just ascertaining they were photos and not sheet explosives)? I find all of those things inappropriate for the TSA.

Call the airport police once an inappropriate photo was inadvertently viewed and believed to be contraband? Sure. The TSA, however, should never be permitted to turn an administrative search into a law enforcement search.

Perhaps, but I don't see how it can be used to argue that the court would necessarily approve current TSA procedures.

They are, but my point wasn't that they weren't too inappropriate. There was testimony, which I believe, given the descriptions of the pictures in question, that there was concern about the welfare of a child. We don't know TSO's involved had children, but if they did, that might also have been a factor.

Unquestionably. But the fact remains that it's mostly likely the case that calling an LEO when the first pictures spilled out would have been reasonable. Given that, I can't get too excited about who did the looking when, especially when compared to the larger scheme of things. And I think that's basically what the court is saying.

That wasn't an issue before the court so we can't gather either way which way this three-judge panel of the entire 9th Circuit would rule if presented with the issue. Thus far, however, they have upheld what the TSA has done.


That is completely inappropriate from a Constitutional perspective. Whether the TSOs have kids or were concerned about the welfare of children is absolutely irrelevant. They are not permitted to conduct law enforcement searches. Period. All they can do, and all they should have done, was contact the police, who can obtain a warrant and do a law enforcement search. Once the TSA goes beyond a search for weapons and explosives, they are breaking the law.


Actually, the court said no such thing. The court said that TSOs can conduct searches as needed for weapons and explosives, regardless of whether they are also looking for other contraband (e.g., drugs or child porn). The court should not look at the mental intent of the TSA clerk doing the search. As such, the TSO could look through the photos for sheet explosives until the bag is cleared. Anything found during the scope of that search is admissible. Anything else is not.