Well, yeah. I thought the quotes were enough indication I was being sarcastic.

Truly.

If someone hands over their wallet because they are being threatened if they refuse to give up any cash, do we call that a donation? Of course not, it's a robbery. Likewise, conflating an assault performed under duress and without information with consentual sex is absolutely bizarre.

Sorry, sometimes my meter is miscalibrated.

So does the TSA. See "VIPR."

From the article cited earlier:

So, theoretically, if I'm not carrying any luggage that goes through the X-ray and I step through a NoS instead of a WTMD, I haven't waived my right to be free of warrantless searches. Someone should try that out.

So you assume that the people whose job includes cleaning bathrooms took those jobs because they enjoy the odor?

A sheriff's deputy who is often on-call for incidents at smaller California airport told me they are generally encouraged to keep their distance from the TSA unless explicitly summoned due to past incidents where their presence seemed to encourage unwarranted escalations by the TSA where they felt there was nothing appropriate they could do but turn around and walk away. They also fear deputies witnessing activity at the checkpoint requiring them to arrest on-duty uniformed TSA and having done that once for an outstanding warrant and the ensuing shitstorm from TSA management he said ignorance is bliss. The checkpoint is federal territory and they want as little to do with it as possible.

A few comments:

(1) From multiple personal experiences, watching checkpoints, and what I've repeatedly read here, the "pat down" that occurs after an AIT anomaly (the "yellow boxes") is normally quite brief (2-4 seconds) and isolated to the area of the box. So a request for a full pat-down in such a situation is unusual. We do know multiple anomalies can either indicate a problem with the machine or does require a full pat-down, but have been told that those details are SSI. I've never seen it happen, though, so it's certainly uncommon.

(2) Tearing up or surrendering a boarding pass proves nothing about intent to fly. They are not "accountable documents" and you can trivially get as many copies of it as you want.

(3) Akuai (sp?), which is the 9th Circuit decision mentioned, is almost certainly not relevant in this situation for two reasons. One, as stated, is that it talks about a very different type of search. Second, it only addresses the issue of the exclusionary rule, where any evidence found in a subsequent search for while verbal consent was not given is admissible. It does not at all address the issue of whether somebody can be physically compelled to be searched. In Akuai, the person, while verbally not consenting to the search, physically permitted it (he had drugs in aluminum foil in his socks).

(4) TSA management knows about (3) and does not want to see a precedent come down against them, so does not actually try to view refusal to complete screening as something they'll fine.

(5) It is not clear that "making a u turn in front of a checkpoint" is probable cause or reasonable suspicion of anything. The case that establishes the legality of DUI checkpoints (Michigan Department of State v. Sitz, 496 US 444) seems to imply the opposite. Certainly, no probable cause or reasonable suspicion can legally follow from somebody exercising their 5th or 5th Amendment rights.

Completely off topic, but the growing incidence of "no refusal" DWI (at least in Texas) is quite disturbing in this regard. The idea that a judge will rubber stamp a "warrant" - based on nothing more than the recommendation of a traffic cop - to violate your your body and draw blood against against your will is extremely disturbing to me and seems to pervert the entire premise of the 4th Amendment in order to violate an individual's 5th Amendment rights.

Judges are supposed to be neutral arbiters of the law - i.e. to neutrally evaluate the evidence that a search warrant is necessary - and instead they have very much become nothing more than defenders of the existing power structure and status quo. Politicians and prosecutors like to say that they're "tough on crime" and the abuse of DWI laws in this regard is out of control.

The logical result of this mentality would be to allow TSA to do anything they want, without limit, to "resolve" an alleged alarm.

Pat down forced in a private room, yes. (this happens routinely)
Removal of pants and/or other clothes, yes. (there have been multiple reports of this)
Strip search, yes. (there have been a few reports of this)
Cavity search, yes.
Exploratory surgery to look for body bombs, yes.
Heck, take it all the way to outright rape, under this mentality they can do it.

I would hope that a court would rule differently on a search of one's person than on of one's bag. You pretty much obviously consent to arbitrary searching of your bag, though I personally think reading papers and examining wallet contents goes way over the line.

But the vast majority of passengers are not making an informed "implied consent" to a sexual assault in a private room with the door closed when they enter the checkpoint. Let alone the other stuff. Unless TSA publishes the limits of what they will do, I don't see how they can get away in the courts with refusing to let you leave in lieu of a search to which you did not make (informed) consent.

You seem to be implying that like people cleaning bathrooms, TSO's only have their jobs because they're desperate for work. Seems appropriate.

So, let me get this straight. The people who are supposed to be protecting us aren't going to do it because another government agency might have a hissy fit if they do? Classy.

I've said it before... the "feeding your family" argument doesn't carry much weight with me when it's a despicable job that requires infringing on the rights of your fellow citizens. And in that regard, I have a lot more respect for a janitor or a garbage man than I do a TSO. For the most part, this is why TSO's tend to be from lower socioeconomic classes: they are more comfortable following orders - any orders - for a paycheck, don't seem to question the effectiveness of what they do, and don't seem to grasp or care about the principles involved.

And on the last paragraph, I think your interpretation is a bit off. An unfortunate condition of our country today is that what is properly *federal* in nature has now become *national*, meaning that local LEO's are rightfully worried about the consequences of crossing an all-powerful federal agency with unlimited resources to get its own way. By design, the local LEO should have jurisdiction in the airport, but he would just as soon stay out of the situation rather than bring trouble on himself. I don't think fear of a "hissy fit" is the main problem, it's much bigger consequences that could come down on him and his local department if he crosses the federal agency.

Again, blame the problem on oversized big government that is too big to be responsible to anyone but itself.

I was basing my interpretation on this:
he said ignorance is bliss.

To me, that's unconscionable.

As noted, in most (possibly all) States a citizen's arrest is allowable under specific circumstances; to wit (eg. Nev)Some states also include misdemeanors.

IANAL but a violation of administrative law, which is all the TSA has, is neither a criminal offense nor misdemeanor and thus does not meet any of the criteria. I think.

You're free to go, if they physically try to stop you then you can arrest them for assault/battery. Their SOP (posted above) supposedly prevents them from trying but since many of them don't know or ignore it, it wouldn't be too much of a surprise if one or more did so.

I'll contribute to the defense fund .

Most states condition the issuance of a driver license on your consent to submit to a blood test. This, to me, is reasonable (as compared to the "consent" at the checkpoint). The extent of the search is very clear at the time of consent, the search is tailored to the purpose it serves, and the search is effective in improving the safety of the travelling public. All three of these points are doubtful when applied to TSA searches.

As far as "forcing" a blood draw... That does seem kind of silly. Why not just make refusing a blood draw a crime that carries the same punishment as a DWI? The only time I could see a forced blood draw as neccesary is in the case of a more serious crime resulting from the DWI (vehicular manslaughter, etc).