Gate patdowns and detainment at DEN
Nov 19, 2011, 4:11 pm
#16
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
There is a "logical" reason for doing this but we have to put on our TSO brain for a moment. It may hurt a bit, but it will not last long.
If they have screened passengers and found them clear, then if they are allowed to mix with unscreened passengers that may still be subject to screening, and one of them is an accomplice that has contraband that he does not want detected, it can be passed to the previously screened passenger and the contraband will not be detected.
See, easy.
All you have to assume is that there are indeed multiple nefarious folks on the flight, that your random checks will pick both of them, that you first pick the one that is clean and then pick the one that has the contraband. The combined probability of all of this occurring is close to infinitesimally small, but it could happen, so under the dubious excuse of an administrative search, they initiate what may be an illegal detainment just to prevent the possibility of something that is so remotely impossible that it can not be measured.
That is why you need a TSO brain to discern the reasoning.
If they have screened passengers and found them clear, then if they are allowed to mix with unscreened passengers that may still be subject to screening, and one of them is an accomplice that has contraband that he does not want detected, it can be passed to the previously screened passenger and the contraband will not be detected.
See, easy.
All you have to assume is that there are indeed multiple nefarious folks on the flight, that your random checks will pick both of them, that you first pick the one that is clean and then pick the one that has the contraband. The combined probability of all of this occurring is close to infinitesimally small, but it could happen, so under the dubious excuse of an administrative search, they initiate what may be an illegal detainment just to prevent the possibility of something that is so remotely impossible that it can not be measured.
That is why you need a TSO brain to discern the reasoning.
Nov 19, 2011, 4:17 pm
#18
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5
Go to page 26 in the .pdf below for answers regarding access to the Sterile Area. This particular manual is from 2008, I should be able to post an updated one relatively soon.
http://www.airsafe.com/issues/securi...t-redacted.pdf
http://www.airsafe.com/issues/securi...t-redacted.pdf
Nov 19, 2011, 4:24 pm
#19
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,082
There is a "logical" reason for doing this but we have to put on our TSO brain for a moment. It may hurt a bit, but it will not last long.
If they have screened passengers and found them clear, then if they are allowed to mix with unscreened passengers that may still be subject to screening, and one of them is an accomplice that has contraband that he does not want detected, it can be passed to the previously screened passenger and the contraband will not be detected.
See, easy.
All you have to assume is that there are indeed multiple nefarious folks on the flight, that your random checks will pick both of them, that you first pick the one that is clean and then pick the one that has the contraband. The combined probability of all of this occurring is close to infinitesimally small, but it could happen, so under the dubious excuse of an administrative search, they initiate what may be an illegal detainment just to prevent the possibility of something that is so remotely impossible that it can not be measured.
That is why you need a TSO brain to discern the reasoning.
If they have screened passengers and found them clear, then if they are allowed to mix with unscreened passengers that may still be subject to screening, and one of them is an accomplice that has contraband that he does not want detected, it can be passed to the previously screened passenger and the contraband will not be detected.
See, easy.
All you have to assume is that there are indeed multiple nefarious folks on the flight, that your random checks will pick both of them, that you first pick the one that is clean and then pick the one that has the contraband. The combined probability of all of this occurring is close to infinitesimally small, but it could happen, so under the dubious excuse of an administrative search, they initiate what may be an illegal detainment just to prevent the possibility of something that is so remotely impossible that it can not be measured.
That is why you need a TSO brain to discern the reasoning.
Of all the stupid things TSA does gate screening has to rank up near the top of stupid.
Nov 19, 2011, 4:26 pm
#20
Join Date: Apr 2010
Programs: HGP/SPG: Apprentice Kettle; UA/AA/DL: Journeyman Kettle
Posts: 866
The standard TSO does not have the authority to deny access to the sterile area, only a supervisor or manager and above can do that. And of course LEO's, Airport Security Managers, etc.
"Gate Checks" rarely involve a supervisor, so to have someone escorted from the sterile area (for whatever reason) either an STSO (unlikely, they have checkpoints to run) or a LEO must be involved.
TSORon
"Gate Checks" rarely involve a supervisor, so to have someone escorted from the sterile area (for whatever reason) either an STSO (unlikely, they have checkpoints to run) or a LEO must be involved.
TSORon
Nov 19, 2011, 6:29 pm
#21
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,723
To make an effective stink would require a large group of passengers to refuse to play the game beyond the numbers the TSOs could track or re-screen. Unless they're putting up fences, it's not like US gates are set up as holding areas (unlike many overseas airports where each gate has one entrance/exit).
Nov 19, 2011, 6:58 pm
#22
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: LAS
Posts: 1,279
Yes. This thread is about the illegal detainment by the TSA. You chose to focus on a single unrelated detail (who can refuse entry into the secure area), while completely missing the topic at hand.
Therefore, the reference that you missed the forest for the trees.
That's the primary question. Ron, care to give the answer a shot?
Therefore, the reference that you missed the forest for the trees.
That's the primary question. Ron, care to give the answer a shot?
Nov 19, 2011, 7:08 pm
#23
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: LAS
Posts: 1,279
There is a "logical" reason for doing this but we have to put on our TSO brain for a moment. It may hurt a bit, but it will not last long.
If they have screened passengers and found them clear, then if they are allowed to mix with unscreened passengers that may still be subject to screening, and one of them is an accomplice that has contraband that he does not want detected, it can be passed to the previously screened passenger and the contraband will not be detected.
See, easy.
All you have to assume is that there are indeed multiple nefarious folks on the flight, that your random checks will pick both of them, that you first pick the one that is clean and then pick the one that has the contraband. The combined probability of all of this occurring is close to infinitesimally small, but it could happen, so under the dubious excuse of an administrative search, they initiate what may be an illegal detainment just to prevent the possibility of something that is so remotely impossible that it can not be measured.
That is why you need a TSO brain to discern the reasoning.
If they have screened passengers and found them clear, then if they are allowed to mix with unscreened passengers that may still be subject to screening, and one of them is an accomplice that has contraband that he does not want detected, it can be passed to the previously screened passenger and the contraband will not be detected.
See, easy.
All you have to assume is that there are indeed multiple nefarious folks on the flight, that your random checks will pick both of them, that you first pick the one that is clean and then pick the one that has the contraband. The combined probability of all of this occurring is close to infinitesimally small, but it could happen, so under the dubious excuse of an administrative search, they initiate what may be an illegal detainment just to prevent the possibility of something that is so remotely impossible that it can not be measured.
That is why you need a TSO brain to discern the reasoning.
Your explanation is at least possible for carry-ons (albeit still a stupid thing to do for an infinitesimally small risk), but not for pat-downs. I really don't think the lady is going to give her bra to another passenger. She might burn it after the TSA rubs all over it, but not swapping. If the contraband is easily moved, it could be left anywhere or with anyone. If the TSA really thought this was a real threat, they would screen people and their baggage and then make them immediately get on the plane.
Maybe TSA is trying to encourage bra swapping in the gate area?
Nov 19, 2011, 7:43 pm
#24
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
Nov 19, 2011, 7:59 pm
#25
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
I was flying from DEN recently...
TSA came along for the gate checks. This gate had an area that was segregated for inspections. In this case, they were pulling people out of line for thorough pat-downs.
After the pat-downs, they forced people to stay within this segregated area. One person tried to leave and was coerced by TSA to stay withing the inspection area. Since the flight wasn't ready to leave (about 10 min.), these people, IMO, were being detained unlawfully by TSA. FWIW, there was no LEO in sight.
Has anyone else seen this?
Do any of our resident legal beagles have thoughts on the legality of this approach?
TSA came along for the gate checks. This gate had an area that was segregated for inspections. In this case, they were pulling people out of line for thorough pat-downs.
After the pat-downs, they forced people to stay within this segregated area. One person tried to leave and was coerced by TSA to stay withing the inspection area. Since the flight wasn't ready to leave (about 10 min.), these people, IMO, were being detained unlawfully by TSA. FWIW, there was no LEO in sight. Has anyone else seen this?
Do any of our resident legal beagles have thoughts on the legality of this approach?
It is clear that things are being ratcheted up. Insufficient pushback from passengers means encouragement to do more of this crap. SATTSO, is is the stuff you were looking forward to?
Nobody should be cooperating with this. Doing so will merely earn you more of the same and worse in the not-so-distant future.
The TSA has heard the objections from members of Congress, from Senators, and from the public, and this is their response. Two thumbs in the eye. They need to be taken down and hard.
Nov 19, 2011, 10:57 pm
#27
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 959
There is a "logical" reason for doing this but we have to put on our TSO brain for a moment. It may hurt a bit, but it will not last long.
If they have screened passengers and found them clear, then if they are allowed to mix with unscreened passengers that may still be subject to screening, and one of them is an accomplice that has contraband that he does not want detected, it can be passed to the previously screened passenger and the contraband will not be detected.
See, easy.
All you have to assume is that there are indeed multiple nefarious folks on the flight, that your random checks will pick both of them, that you first pick the one that is clean and then pick the one that has the contraband. The combined probability of all of this occurring is close to infinitesimally small, but it could happen, so under the dubious excuse of an administrative search, they initiate what may be an illegal detainment just to prevent the possibility of something that is so remotely impossible that it can not be measured.
That is why you need a TSO brain to discern the reasoning.
If they have screened passengers and found them clear, then if they are allowed to mix with unscreened passengers that may still be subject to screening, and one of them is an accomplice that has contraband that he does not want detected, it can be passed to the previously screened passenger and the contraband will not be detected.
See, easy.
All you have to assume is that there are indeed multiple nefarious folks on the flight, that your random checks will pick both of them, that you first pick the one that is clean and then pick the one that has the contraband. The combined probability of all of this occurring is close to infinitesimally small, but it could happen, so under the dubious excuse of an administrative search, they initiate what may be an illegal detainment just to prevent the possibility of something that is so remotely impossible that it can not be measured.
That is why you need a TSO brain to discern the reasoning.
I would call it "stinkin' thinkin'"...just sayin'! 
Nov 20, 2011, 6:58 am
#28
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,331
Yes. This thread is about the illegal detainment by the TSA. You chose to focus on a single unrelated detail (who can refuse entry into the secure area), while completely missing the topic at hand.
Therefore, the reference that you missed the forest for the trees.
That's the primary question. Ron, care to give the answer a shot?
Therefore, the reference that you missed the forest for the trees.
That's the primary question. Ron, care to give the answer a shot?
I'd like to see the TSA's response if a traveler is selected for a gate screening and flat out refuses, stating, "No, I will not submit. I was screened thoroughly at the checkpoint. I am not carrying any prohibited items and have no evil intent, and those facts were confirmed by your own co-workers when I was screened at the checkpoint on entry to the sterile area. If you want confirmation, go talk to the TSOs who conducted my screening at the checkpoint."
Of course, they will deny boarding to anyone who tries that, but I'd love to see Blogger Bob's convoluted explanation of how TSA is assuming that it's screening has failed on a large enough scale to require repeat screening at the gate.
Nov 20, 2011, 8:13 am
#29
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
Once again some (no doubt secret) statistics would be instructive. How many times has contraband[sic] been discovered during a gate search?
Nov 20, 2011, 8:19 am
#30
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Programs: DL MM Gold
Posts: 1,676
Most aggressive TSA response would probably be a terminal dump, since an obvious terrorist is attempting to evade them. Constitutional objectors being indistinguishable from terrorists in their world view.