Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Gate patdowns and detainment at DEN

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Nov 20, 2011 | 8:22 am
  #31  
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,431
Originally Posted by Wally Bird
Judging by past performance, I'd say that's a reasonable assumption.

Once again some (no doubt secret) statistics would be instructive. How many times has contraband[sic] been discovered during a gate search?
Personally, I prefer the term "prohibited items" to contraband. Contraband can include those items which are illegal but are not covered by TSA's mandate, such as drugs and stolen property. If TSA happens to accidentally discover such things during the course of their searches for WEI, then certainly, they should report such discoveries to LEOs, but those discoveries should not be touted as wins or accomplishments by TSA, since that's not what they're supposed to be looking for.

The real question is, how many times has TSA discovered the stuff they're actually supposed to be looking for during gate screenings? And additionally, when they do discover prohibited items during a gate screening, how do they explain how those items were smuggled through the primary screening at the checkpoint?
WillCAD is offline  
Old Nov 20, 2011 | 8:55 am
  #32  
3M100 Countries Visited15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Western PA
Programs: ExPlAAt; United 1K
Posts: 486
Originally Posted by ScatterX
That's the primary question. Ron, care to give the answer a shot?
I know: That's SSI!
jackonferry is offline  
Old Nov 20, 2011 | 3:31 pm
  #33  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 959
Originally Posted by WillCAD
Personally, I prefer the term "prohibited items" to contraband. Contraband can include those items which are illegal but are not covered by TSA's mandate, such as drugs and stolen property. If TSA happens to accidentally discover such things during the course of their searches for WEI, then certainly, they should report such discoveries to LEOs, but those discoveries should not be touted as wins or accomplishments by TSA, since that's not what they're supposed to be looking for.

The real question is, how many times has TSA discovered the stuff they're actually supposed to be looking for during gate screenings? And additionally, when they do discover prohibited items during a gate screening, how do they explain how those items were smuggled through the primary screening at the checkpoint?
Well, they will OBVIOUSLY discover prohibited items at the gate since liquids are readily available inside the so-called "sterile area."

I bet that the reason they do these horific gate rapes (I'm talking about full-body pat-downs) is that they heard someone somewhere criticize their lax secutity on the tarmac and at the employee entrances. To mitigate that threat, they have to harrass and punish the passengers at the gate. (Again, "stinkin' thinkin'" at it's best!)
DeafBlonde is offline  
Old Nov 21, 2011 | 6:35 pm
  #34  
1M
40 Countries Visited
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: on the path to perdition
Programs: Delta, United
Posts: 5,018
I previously posted this information: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/17396467-post483.html


This link might help folks:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...1.3.5.9.2.10.4


Title 49: Transportation

PART 1540—CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY: GENERAL RULES


1540.107 Submission to screening and inspection.

(a) No individual may enter a sterile area or board an aircraft without submitting to the screening and inspection of his or her person and accessible property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access to that area or aircraft under this subchapter.

A strict reading of this CFR means one can be screened/inspected when entering the sterile area or when boarding the aircraft. There is no language stating that one is subject to screening/inspection while in the sterile area.


HOWEVER:

1540.105 Security responsibilities of employees and other persons.

(a) No person may:

(2) Enter, or be present within, a secured area, AOA, SIDA or sterile area without complying with the systems, measures, or procedures being applied to control access to, or presence or movement in, such areas.

(b) The provisions of paragraph (a) of this section do not apply to conducting inspections or tests to determine compliance with this part or 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII authorized by:

(1) TSA, or

(2) The airport operator, aircraft operator, or foreign air carrier, when acting in accordance with the procedures described in a security program approved by TSA.


I would read PAX to be "other persons," and "measures, or procedures" to possibly include random searches. That said I am not sure how to interpret 1540.105(b).


From the above TSA can deny entrance to a sterile area or board an aircraft. So gate searches after passing into the sterile area are legit. (Whether they do anything is another discussion).

ScatterX I am trying to understand a couple of points. You said the plane was 10 minutes from leaving but people were being prevented from boarding after their inspection and where held in an inspection pen? Hmm, if they submitted to the search they should be free to board. So IMHO illegal detention.
FlyingUnderTheRadar is offline  
Old Nov 21, 2011 | 7:33 pm
  #35  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by FlyingUnderTheRadar
That said I am not sure how to interpret 1540.105(b).
I think it means that if you're a "Red Team" and you figured out a way to sneak into the sterile area without inspection, you haven't broken the law.
RichardKenner is offline  
Old Nov 21, 2011 | 7:54 pm
  #36  
Original Poster
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: LAS
Posts: 1,279
Originally Posted by FlyingUnderTheRadar
ScatterX I am trying to understand a couple of points. You said the plane was 10 minutes from leaving but people were being prevented from boarding after their inspection and where held in an inspection pen? Hmm, if they submitted to the search they should be free to board. So IMHO illegal detention.
People had cued for a flight, but boarding had not yet commenced. TSA, being the uber-efficient government agency they are, started a little early. They randomly pulled people out of the cue for a pat-down. They WERE NOT searching carry-ons, just doing pat-downs. They had an area set up for this that was right next to the gate.

After each person got their security massage, they had to stay in the little pen. The first folks to get the treatment had to wait about 10 minutes until boarding began. I was close enough to hear two people who wanted to get back in the cue. The TSA clerk refused to let them leave.
ScatterX is offline  
Old Nov 21, 2011 | 8:24 pm
  #37  
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DCA / WAS
Programs: DL 2+ million/PM, YX, Marriott Plt, *wood gold, HHonors, CO Plt, UA, AA EXP, WN, AGR
Posts: 9,386
Originally Posted by ScatterX
People had cued for a flight, but boarding had not yet commenced. TSA, being the uber-efficient government agency they are, started a little early. They randomly pulled people out of the cue for a pat-down. They WERE NOT searching carry-ons, just doing pat-downs. They had an area set up for this that was right next to the gate.

After each person got their security massage, they had to stay in the little pen. The first folks to get the treatment had to wait about 10 minutes until boarding began. I was close enough to hear two people who wanted to get back in the cue. The TSA clerk refused to let them leave.
The words "you are keeping me from the restroom. Do you want me to pee on the floor right here?" ought to get their attention. It would be absolutely true for someone I travel with, who always makes one last stop before getting on the plane.
Global_Hi_Flyer is offline  
Old Nov 21, 2011 | 9:59 pm
  #38  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by FlyingUnderTheRadar
I previously posted this information: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/17396467-post483.html


..So gate searches after passing into the sterile area are legit. (Whether they do anything is another discussion).
.
They are as illegitimate as the strip searches and privates groping done at the checkpoint. only now, there is no option to evade them. These people are beyond crass.
nachtnebel is offline  
Old Nov 22, 2011 | 8:29 am
  #39  
1M
40 Countries Visited
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: on the path to perdition
Programs: Delta, United
Posts: 5,018
Originally Posted by ScatterX
People had cued for a flight, but boarding had not yet commenced. TSA, being the uber-efficient government agency they are, started a little early. They randomly pulled people out of the cue for a pat-down. They WERE NOT searching carry-ons, just doing pat-downs. They had an area set up for this that was right next to the gate.

After each person got their security massage, they had to stay in the little pen. The first folks to get the treatment had to wait about 10 minutes until boarding began. I was close enough to hear two people who wanted to get back in the cue. The TSA clerk refused to let them leave.
Now it obvious, people were lining up 10 minutes before boarding started so they were being gate lice. I bet some unhappy GA/PAX did a see something say something and reported the lice. The TSA responded with their lice checking crew. So it would seem to me that for once the TSA is doing something useful and delicing the boarding area. I mean it should be obvious because the TSA was not doing bag checks just pat downs. So obviously they were checking the PAX for lice.


More seriously and as mentioned, sounds like someone got the bright idea to check before boarding so as not to delay pax from getting on the plane once boarding started. Nice try but illegal detention IMHO.
FlyingUnderTheRadar is offline  
Old Nov 22, 2011 | 8:33 am
  #40  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
10 Countries Visited20 Countries Visited30 Countries Visited15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Somewhere between here and there...
Programs: WWF, Appalachian Mountain Club
Posts: 11,595
Originally Posted by nachtnebel
They are as illegitimate as the strip searches and privates groping done at the checkpoint. only now, there is no option to evade them. These people are beyond crass.
Which is to say they're the law of the land until either Congress or the courts strike them down.
tkey75 is offline  
Old Nov 22, 2011 | 11:03 am
  #41  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by tkey75
Which is to say they're the law of the land until either Congress or the courts strike them down.
They are bad law and should not be followed nor allowed to proceed with impunity. civil disobedience at the least is called for.
nachtnebel is offline  
Old Nov 22, 2011 | 3:35 pm
  #42  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Up in the air far too often.
Programs: Star Gold
Posts: 354
Originally Posted by TheRoadie
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.
Exactly. The annoying thing is the threat of a terminal dump can actually work - I want to object but forcing a huge amount of people to miss work and seeing loved ones, etc., is not worth it. Kind of like if he said "I will rip up this original Monet if you leave the area." Unfortunately, I might pause.

One day somebody should call the bluff though.
cardiomd is offline  
Old Nov 22, 2011 | 4:12 pm
  #43  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by cardiomd
Exactly. The annoying thing is the threat of a terminal dump can actually work - I want to object but forcing a huge amount of people to miss work and seeing loved ones, etc., is not worth it. Kind of like if he said "I will rip up this original Monet if you leave the area." Unfortunately, I might pause.

One day somebody should call the bluff though.
Meeting our schedules is more important than stopping sexual abuse of innocent men, women, and children?
nachtnebel is offline  
Old Nov 22, 2011 | 4:39 pm
  #44  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Up in the air far too often.
Programs: Star Gold
Posts: 354
Originally Posted by nachtnebel
Meeting our schedules is more important than stopping sexual abuse of innocent men, women, and children?
That's a false choice and you know it. If I thought it would actually stop the sexual abuse then I'd consider it, or even if I thought it would get a good amount of publicity and help sway public opinion. Otherwise it is a waste of a huge amount of time and money.

I'm sometimes on my way to do a surgery on a 5AM flight. I would be angry if somebody decides to make a needless terminal dump scene at that very time. I'm sure my patient would be too. Sometimes you have to pick your battles and look at things in context.
cardiomd is offline  
Old Nov 22, 2011 | 4:41 pm
  #45  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Runway 22 @ KROC
Posts: 706
So have the boys in blue ever found anything worth while with thier gate-gropes? Howabout the drink inspections?
United_727 is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.