Making false statements to a federal officer is a felony. First of all, I don't know if a TSO is even considered a federal officer. As I've explained to you, TSOs are not LEOs. Regardless, as with any other putative violation of TSA's CFRs or federal statutes, TSOs cannot detain or arrest you. Period. All they can do is call a LEO over and ask the LEO to enforce the putatively-violated law. Sometimes LEOs will do it on a TSO's sayso. Quite often they will not.

Don't be so sure of that. Filing a false police report is also a felony.

No. I believe the TSO is conducting an administrative search and is subject to the limitations on such a search. I am aware of no case law that addresses the questions asked by TSOs under the new program, and I can think of a number of compelling reasons why they should not be answered. All the opinions that have addressed airport security procedures always way the amount of intrusion and violation of privacy against the potential gain in safety and security. There is no precedent, pun intended, for having to disclose such information as the reason for travel, employer, job position, etc. to exercise any constitutionally-secured right.

It won't subject me to legal expenses. You're fairly new to this discussion. I'm a lawyer (a number of us post on FT), and I am more than prepared to go to court when I encounter the right circumstances. In a post a few years ago, I detailed my encounter with an immigration officer (who is a LEO) when I was trying to return home from Canada. That guy's blatant constitutional violation brought him with in inches of a lawsuit -- he finally relented but, if he hadn't, he and his agency would have quickly learned under what circumstances they can demand information from passengers flying internationally.

The fact that you, a lawyer with a particular interest in this area, don't know is indicative of the bureaucratic smokescreen with which we're confronted.

Appalling! :td:

Well, it's not so much a TSA thing as the fact that I've never looked at this particular law which is not unique to TSA. If I get some time tomorrow, I'll look.

Thank you for reinforcing my point. The very fact that you, a lawyer with a particular interest in this area, has to look it up is indicative of what we all face. :rolleyes:

It seems the times are such that I'd have to hire a lawyer to research whether I'm legally required to answer the inane questions posed by a person wearing a blue shirt and an ersatz badge in order to board a plane, except that you've kindly volunteered to research it pro bono. ;)

Your reading of the law as applying to lying to TSOs is wrong.

Telling a TSO "I am here in Boston on business" when you are really there to screw your mistress is lying to a TSO; it is not, however, a violation of the statute you cite because it is not "material". (Read the caselaw on what constitutes a material fact before trying to justify your position further-- I do not have time to cite chapter and verse right now).

It depends on the statement made and how "material" the information is.

Mods, can you change the title of this thread to something like "Discussion of the constitutionality of new BDO program" ?

That way, when someone does have an experience to report, he/she will feel open to the idea of starting an actual experiences thread, without interrupting the (admittedly interesting) legal debate?

I second that suggestion. ^

I don't see changing the title. I think they have kept it. Why there is no such things new security questions in BOS. I don't like it at all. TSA is violated of the constitutional rights. They won't answer anymore security questions. None of the business. It not right thing to do. They have kept private things and not ask anymore about personal things from those passengers' privacy.

Hmmm...if SPOKnik'ed, name, rank, serial number and that's all they'll get.

I'll probably have to memorize the 49 CFR § 1540.107(b)(2) part too, but anything else is none of the government's God damned business.

And the smokescreen is there for that very reason - to screen the legality or otherwise of what is done at checkpoints from public scrutiny. It also seems effective with the courts too; some of them.

The actual (as opposed to administrative) law is clear; - you must provide name, DOB and gender/sex to be admitted to the secure area, in fact to be pre-admitted since the scan/frisk has yet to be done. Nowhere is a verbal provision required by law; the TSA just made that up.

Whether or not TSA airport workers are considered federal agents, I'd think 18 CFR 1036 would be more applicable, as 'false pretences' would seem to be a lot easier to allege than concealment of material facts.

The law is not clear. The CFR provision that you probably relying upon is only applicable to providing that info to the airlines for purposes of Secure Flight. The TSA has no right under the CFR's to require that directly from you (except if you want to use Francine's tortured reasoning that requires the use of Google for a definition that is already contained in the CFR).

You would think, if the SPOTNik interrogations had any basis in law at all, that Pissy would be all over it and declare that you had to truthfully answer a SPOTNik's questions "under penalty of law" and cite chapter & verse.

Of course he can't cite chapter & verse.

What's not clear ? We're saying the same thing - TSA requiring pronunciation of names is not a stated legal requirement of 49 CFR 1540.107.

BUTSo if the sterile area to which passengers are admitted qualifies (and I don't see how it wouldn't), and verbal confirmation of name is defined somewhere as one of the 'systems, measures or procedures' then it does have a basis in law of some kind. A very vague administrative law; which is exactly how the TSA likes it.

Allow me to state what should be the obvious:

If the "systems, measures or procedures" referenced by these regulations (they are not laws) are unconstitutional, you do not violate the regulations by failing to undertake the systems, measures or procedures.

True, but you likely don't get to fly.

If I had the money (I certainly have both the time and the inclination), I'd be willing to challenge the TSA in court. I have no doubt I would lose though or at the very least the TSA would make the case 'go away'. The TSA rides roughshod over the law and the Constitution with the acquiescence of the courts and the majority of the population; until one or both of those attitudes change that will continue.