Then what would a LEO arrest me for if the TSA told him to?

I'm not sure about consenting to the blood test, but you do consent to the breathalyzer when you get your driver's license, hence the automatic suspension if you refuse.

That said, the ACLU indeed makes the argument that the blood test is unnecessary if the goal is actually to "get drunk drivers off the road" as it's often justified. If they're at a point where the breathalyzer has been refused, the driver is already going to be off the road, by virtue of the process described in the paragraph above.

What's really happening is that politicians and prosecutors want to point to convictions and they're not as assured of getting one if the drunk guy sleeps it off in the jail and there's no actual objective evidence of intoxication from either the breathalyzer or blood test. Funnily enough, I don't blame the executive branch for this - they're just doing the job they've been elected to do. However, the limit to this behavior is supposed to be the judicial branch, which is no longer the case.

Again, this doesn't really have anything to do with the TSA except for what I see as an overall erosion of constitutional rights in our society in the name of "public safety".

In California, potentially tresspassing (see Penal Code 602(v)). SJC has this statute posted at several points as you walk through the queue to the checkpoint.

In reading the law, it appears intended to apply to those trying to sneak into the sterile area. I haven't heard of this statute being applied to someone who withdraws consent, but the way it's worded could(?) cover such a situation. I get the feeling that the placement and number of signs is intended as FUD in order to encourage compliance. I'd be an interesting court case if an arrest is ever made.

"Don't touch my junk guy" wasn't arrested on this, but I'm not sure if SAN has the required signage.

Disturbing the peace, mainly, by causing a stink and bringing attention to yourself, or trespassing in the secure area without permission or clearance. Also, if the LEO backed up TSA and told you to complete screening and you walked away, then you could also be arrested for not following a lawful order from a peace officer (whether it was lawful or not in the first place wouldn't get decided until you went to court).

If you did have contraband, the LEO could also arrest you for that, as well, provided you violated local laws, which is usually the case with locally owned airports.

Basically, a cop can arrest you for any reason he wants, and if he's sympathetic to TSA (or just scared of them), he'll make up a reason and then let the judge sort it out. It's all about intimidation, both with TSA and the cops.

Show me someone who's cleaning a bathroom against the will of the bathroom's owner, and I'll support that argument.

. Well played.

Nah, happens ever day here. Read more.

Glad to hear that. If it’s better for the passengers then it’s better for the TSA, now I can look forward to it coming to my airport.

“Yellow box” tells me it was an ATR system. One of the millimeter wave systems and not backscatter. Sounds to me like the supervisor was giving you a reason that you would understand (not necessarily accept) because he/she didn’t definitively know why the system alarmed there. I hear that happens a lot. It does not meant that it was a “false positive”, it means he/she didn’t know what set it off.

Procedure. Not the answer you want, but that’s the reason. As for time frame, you are correct. Enhanced pat-downs take normally about 30 seconds. Resolution pat-downs take a bit longer. You said “mostly under my arms”, there were alarm areas in other places? There is a threshold number that will trigger a resolution pat-down rather than an enhanced pat-down, and from what you said is sounds like you may have gotten the resolution one.

Threatened? TSO’s don’t have arrest powers, so it was not the TSA threatening you. The very most TSA could have done was to refuse you access to the sterile area. Calling a LEO is somewhere in the middle of the options available. Now a LEO has arrest powers, maybe they were the one’s threatening to arrest you. You could have said “NO!”, and refused the pat-down, and have the pleasure of dealing with the consequences of your choice. All choices have consequences, no exceptions. The consequences can be either good or bad, depending on the choice being made. I’m fairly sure that the consequences were either explained to you or were evident without explanation. Blaming the TSA for the decision you make is not rational.

Nothing, the LEO would have to establish his own reason for an arrest, and TSA plays no part in that.

I suspect that TSORon is ignorant of the fact that many TSA screeners do, in fact, threaten to have passengers arrested.

TSORon is certainly correct, in theory, that TSA would not threaten arrest. However, in practice, it happens all the time.

Have you ever actually gone through a checkpoint? Maybe you're just the world's greatest TSO in the world's greatest airport, but TSOs absolutely do detain people at the checkpoint unlawfully. Case in point: my father, who is about the least threatening man on the planet, had a false positive on MMW/ATD in JAX. The screener who was going to do his patdown took his sweet time moseying over, and after about five minutes of waiting, my dad asked if he could go back out the way he came, use the restroom, then get back into line. The TSO standing next to him said, "If you leave this spot, you're going to jail."

Now, did the TSO specifically say that they would arrest him? No, but the message was very clear, and to the average person who sees blue shirt and badge and thinks "cop", the jump in logic wasn't very far.

I see what you did there.

There were several under my arms and one one my knee. According to the supervisor, anything over four gets the full grope. Still not sure why it would take over four minutes, and involve my genitals. Still also not sure what they were expecting to find. If they honestly thought "bomb", well, they're delusional.

Exactly.

Look, I'm not the average traveler. I have more of a clue as to the limitation's of TSO's (not enough, apparently, but more than average). And it's still a frightening experience to be told you can't leave and must have your labia stroked or he's going to call the cops over and you're going to jail.

But it seems like in TSORon's opinion, a woman consents to rape if she agrees to have sex with him because she doesn't want the gun he's pointing at her head to go off. I sincerely hope most Americans have a better grasp of "consent under duress" than this.

If ever asked to consent during a patdown my answer is, "I do not consent, but I will not resist."

I thought a resolution pat-down was if there is an anomaly, and an enhanced pat-down is for opt outs. Can you clarify this?

I know this question was asked of TSOron, but I believe I know the answer, so I'll give it. I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong.

The terms "enhanced" and "standard" pat-downs describe the same thing. They are used either in the case of an opt-out or in the normal case of an anomaly. Usually, in the case of a single anomaly, the pat-down is restricted to the area of the anomaly and very fast (a few seconds).

If the anomalies have a certain pattern (whose details are apparently SSI), relating to both position and number, then a resolution pat-down is required.