How does that work? I dropped my boarding pass once at a checkpoint and was accused of interfering with the screening process.

"Interfering with the screening process" is to a TSO what "disorderly conduct" is to a cop.

Got it in one! :D

You may note that #17 was not hit first post. Do a search on his name and posts. He has some very interesting posts, even if I don’t agree with much of what he has to say.

I'm curious as to what qualifies you to make this (incorrect) statement?

California State Bar No. 160552. Feel free to look me up on the California State Bar website and give me a call.

Hey Ron, I found him, not to hard.:)

Uh-oh. Stalked already. ;)

This is the problem. Everyone wanting to fly is not wanting to cause a problem or commit a crime. There is no reason to attempt to trick anyone into a reason for anymore attention UNLESS you think they are wanting to do something wrong.

Just like the state your name game. There is no reason to want you to state your name when it matches the boarding pass and the ID and your face. Unless you are accusing me of being a criminal

And same first names:D

In case you are not used to TSORon's modus operandi on FT:

- Attempt to develop credibility through the estabishment of credibility and pass yourself off as a "professional".

- Use a minimum of coherent text after the initial attempt at establishing credibility

- Attempt to destroy the credibility of any detractors and dissenters by calling into question their credentials or professional qualifications, either in a direct [is not a lawyer] or indirect [if you were what you say you are, then you would know].

- Continue to politely erode everybody else's credibility, because at the end of the day, the topic has been derailed which is the primary goal anyway.

All harmless fun, until one persons falls into the trap and goes away thinking that the TSA is actually making them safe. Oh well. Let's continue the banter.

Most here know that TSA and safety are not related.

Most here know that TSA employees are for the most part the leftovers from every other job field out there.

Most here know that engaging certain posters is a complete waste of time.

%s/Most/All/g

FTFY. HTH. HAND.

It's worse than that. You forgot about the claims that cannot be backed up, and are then dropped down the memory hole, such as the one referenced here:

Absolutely nothing --- as I made clear in my disclaimer, which you omitted.

I would be happy to be corrected, of course, if you're better qualified than I to comment on this topic.

Need an attorney? ;)

I am so glad to hear you say that. If you were a LEO, lawyer or judge I would have been very concerned.

Regarding your "disclaimer", I didn't see it so my appologies. However, the way you wrote your comments as what appeared to be a statement of fact, rather than opinion, led me to believe that you were insinuating that you had a degree of expertise in the subject. My interpertation, I guess.

What you wrote is a common misconception among lay people but has several errors in it.

A LEO does not have to inform you that you are a suspect in a criminal proceeding. If this were the case then undercover work would not happen. Can you imagine a UC cop saying "I suspect you of being a drug dealer"?

A LEO also does not have to advise you of your rights automatically. The rights you speak of were granted under a Supreme Court decision (Miranda vs Arizona, 1966) and generally only have to be delivered to a person when there is a custodial interrogation that is about to occur. For example, if the person is not in custody (IE not under arrest or detention or being interviewed over the phone, etc) the person does not need to be "Mirandized".

As far as I can recall (and I may be a bit off on this one, it's been a long time since I studied this stuff) there is also no requirement to say how the information gained is to be used. The court ruling did not specify the exact wording to be used and it varies from place to place, but they did provide a recommendation and I believe that it said "anything the person says WILL be used against that person in court" but some jurisdictions say "can and will" while others say "may be", etc.

It's also important to note that, although rarely done, a LEO does NOT have to Mirandize you prior to questioning, even when in custody but if they chose not to the information gained can't be used against YOU.

Should a person opt to envoke their Miranda rights, the interaction does not have to stop but questioning usually does due to the inadmissibility of their statements.

Regardless of whether a person has been Mirandized or not and regardless of whether they have envoked these rights any spontaneous statement made by the person can still be used against them.

I hope this clears things up. If not you may want to Google "Miranda vs Arizona (1966)"

And your expertise in the subject?

Well, no.

It caused Bubbaloop and others to provide some interesting information about chemistry in the other thread, and in this thread it caused Bubbaloop to link to that "Nature" article. Engaging some posters may not elicit any useful or intelligent response from those posters, and may not inform those posters, but it can certainly inform other readers of the thread, who may be more receptive to information.

That is about right, actually. The key is whether the subject of the interrogation perceives that he is free to leave.

No, but I might need someone good with a hockey stick. :)

A degree in criminal justice and 6.5 years as a LEO (18 months big city and 5 years low level Fed) although I've been out of the job for over 15 years now.

As others have said, none is a violation of rights. That doesn't make the process okay, however.

I don't have a problem with #1 if it's asked in a genuine, helpful way (and not the attitude that any problem at the checkpoint is because passengers are stupid.) At worst, it's redundant; most people with questions figure out they can ask someone in the relevant uniform.

(#1 also assumes that the person answering questions has the same understanding of the process as the screener further up the line. No point asking "do I need to remove my iPad" if everyone isn't on the same page.)

#2 is an unnecessary invasion of privacy. Whether I'm going to Disneyland has no bearing on a check of my person and baggage for WEI. Perhaps the passenger is traveling to a funeral and is just barely holding their emotions in check. It's none of TSA's d@mn business where or why I'm traveling.

#3 is an unnecessary waste of time. I'm not his Facebook friend; I'm not his bartender; we're not building a relationship here. I don't really care that he has children, much less what they do.

To see how ridiculous this is, imagine this scenario at other places where the public interacts with the gov't.

You walk into the post office and there's a long line. An employee (instead of serving customers) stands inside the door talking to people as they join the line.
1. "Do you have any questions about the post office today?"
2. "Who is that letter addressed to? What did you say? Is that package a birthday present? Who is it for?" *
3. "My son has a shirt just like yours. He works in New York. He's getting married in August. I'm going to go visit him next week..."

* Note that the person at the counter has a legitimate requirement to know the name and address on the envelope or package, and may need to know what's in the package. But not the time-waster at the door.

Or the DMV. There's a long line. But an extraneous employee is talking to the people lined up.
1. "Do you have any questions about the DMV today?"
2. "What kind of car do you drive? What color is it? Does it get good mileage?"
3. "My sister just bought a new car. She likes blueberry pie. Do you like blueberry pie? I remember once when she was younger she ate a whole blueberry pie and then she was sick for a week. ... "

* Note that the person at the counter may have a legitimate requirement to know the make/model of my car for some transactions. But not the time-waster at the door.

Game on and got your back ^ (and goalies do have bigger sticks ;))

Wow, and wow!

Just checked back in on this thread for the first time since my initial post and find that what I took to be an innocuous and potentially helpful approach from a TSO now appears to be much more sinister. As a conversationalist the officer in question was pleasant, if not a sparkling must-have dinner guest, but if he was trying detect abnormal behaviour on my part then I've got to say that he was about as effective as a chocolate teapot! He didn't look me in the eye and seemed more interested in talking to me than listening to what I had to say.

I'm not one of those who will necessarily stand up for my rights at all costs (and by that I mean that I'd rather tell the TSO I'm headed home/to Disneyland than possibly subject myself to a private interview, strip search and delayed journey) but I will now think twice before answering questions from these under-skilled nincompoops in the future.

All-in-all, I'm glad I started this.

And, as I tried to say up-thread ... for an ordinary passenger, there's no way to know the difference. It's sad when we have to treat every interaction with strangers as suspicious, but the TSA has defined the rules of engagement in that way.

What a wonderful way to treat the "19th layer of security". :(

Ahh, but did you call him? That is indeed the test.

That’s pretty much how TSA is viewed in this venue. Nothing we can do is right, and everything we do is wrong. And anything that goes wrong at an airport is automatically TSA’s fault until proven otherwise. They ignore the most basic of precepts of criminal law in that everyone, no exceptions, is innocent until proven guilty. Something they demand from us, but are unwilling to acknowledge as our rights as well. Basic, and no amount of prior actions can or will change that, but not something the TSA and its employees are afforded here.

Tell the TSO/BDO what you like, they are not really giving much attention to your word but instead are doing their jobs and watching your actions and reactions.

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microexpression) is a bit on the basic concepts of the BDO’s training. Its not exhaustive, but it is informative for the lay person.

Ron, he want's you to call him not me.....I don't think you'll do it.

Question 1: legitimate

Question 2 and Comment 3: If these are sneaky BDO-wannabe gambits, they are both time-wasters (no one else behind the pax in line? does the pax have the time to engage in small talk?) Is it a documented requirement that pax engage in small talk with a TSO just because the TSO wants to chat?

^ Excellent post.

No one involved in any dialogue or 'exception' situation with a TSO is ever 'free to leave' (ask Rand Paul).

In theory, TSA has no authority to detain anyone. In practice, between the LEOs who answer to TSA and the physical set up of the checkpoints (and the over-arching fear of being put on the No-fly list as retaliation), TSA has unlimited abilty to detain and has successfully established this many times.

Miranda v Arizona does not apply to TSOs because they are not LEOs.

So what is your opinion (not challenging, just trying to understand) - does a pax have a legal right to decline to answer TSA questions?

I don't mean a secret 'SSI' SOP that varies with the time of day and the mood of the TSO - and can't be verified one way or the other, even in a court of law.

We've seen reports of TSA using police as sort of proxy agents. Pax refuses to submit ID to TSA for copying. TSA summons police, police demand ID, pax surrenders ID to LEO and LEO hands ID to TSA for copying and registry in federal government databases as a trouble-maker. I could, I'm guessing, decline to answer questions to an LEO - can I legally decline to answer a TSO's questions? If so, am I then legally subject to administrative fines?

TSA can (and will) share any information I give them with law enforcement - they may share the answers to questions that I would decline to answer if asked by an LEO without an attorney present.

All good questions. Keeping in mind that I was a LEO, not a lawyer, and it was in the 1990s long before the TSA was even thought of, I'll answer what I can.

From what I understand, a TSO can ask you literally anything and you don't have to answer anything. This may be incorrect with regards to your identity, I'm not sure.

When you speak of "administrative fines" are you talking about money? IE can they write you a ticket if you refuse to answer their questions? If so the answer, again to my knowledge, is no.

In some places it is a crime to fail to identify yourself to a LEO and most (all?) of the time a LEO can detain you for the purpose of determining your identity should you refuse to identify yourself to them. This usually involves running your fingerprints through NCIC or similar. Keep in mind that TSOs are not LEOs and, as stated, I don't know what their powers (if any) are to demand that you identify yourself to them.

Once a LEO requests your identity documents and you provide them to the LEO, does s/he then have the legal right to hand those documents over to the TSO for data entry purposes? I'm not sure.

That's what some (n.b. some) TSO's think ;)

First of all, "innocent until proven guilty," is a misstatement of the legal standard, which is, "the state bears the burden of proving guilt." It does not mean someone is innocent until proven guilty, but that, before they can be deprived of life, liberty or property in the context of a criminal action, the state must meet its burden of proof.

TSA is not on trial. TSA is a government agency that, time and again, has demonstrated incompetence, corruption, scientific and technolgoical ignorance, and contempt for the Constitution of the United States. TSA has wasted billions of dollars and contributed virtually nothing to the safety of commercial aviation. The three known terrorist attacks against US aviation since 9/11 were not detected, much less contravened, by TSA.

So, please -- spare me, "innocent until proven guilty." As I said, TSA is not on trial.

TSA should be on trial!

The 'administrative fines' can run as high as $11k, IIRC. They are administered by TSA - based on statements made about John Tyner ("don't touch my junk"), the fines can be levied weeks or months after the incident in question (probably just after any relevant tapes have been 'lost'). I believe there may be a single appeals opportunity, but not in a court of law.

No idea what happens if you don't pay the fine (like when an unpaid library fine gets turned over to LEOs) or if being fined automatically earns you a spot on the 'watch list'.

Someone has posted the actual list of fines - keep in mind, anything you do at the checkpoint can be labelled 'interfering with the screening process', even politely asking a question or bending down to pick up something you've dropped.

(duplicate post!)

An excellent reason to stop issuing them the LEO costumes, don't you think?