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?

Fair enough (your comment, not the fines or ability to levy them). Until I have the time to research things for myself I'll take what you've said at face value.

Quite possibly. This has been a topic of debate regarding non-LEOs (IE security guards, etc) for quite some time now.

Wow! An exposition on American constitutional law from an Australian ambulance driver. I'm impressed. Miranda applies to stoolies in a prison who are working with the government. See People v. Perkins, 531 N.E.2d 141 (Ill. App. 1988) and Uhlmann v. Wilson, 106 S.Ct. 2616 (1986).. Why wouldn't it apply to clearly inferior people like TSOs? Possibly because the stoolie is a more effective interrogator than a BDO/TSO?

Of course, the bar is set pretty low in that comparison...

This happens quite often at my post office. If there is a long line, someone will go through and see what each person wants, and inform them if they have the wrong customs form or something. Usually at least a few people will be told that they don't need to wait in line because their task can be completed at the vending machine. Sometimes there is small talk, especially for repeat visitors that the staff recognize. This is called good customer service, and it is not "ridiculous" at all.

Anything a TSO does will appear to be sinister to certain people on here. If he was more interested in talking than listening to you, then in all likelihood he was not a BDO, but rather just a bored employee looking to kill some time.

The administrative fines are for refusal to complete the screening process, i.e., go through the metal detector, AIT or patdown, etc. You cannot be fined for refusal to answer questions, although if you refuse to answer questions, are selected for a patdown, and refuse, then I guess you could be fined.

BTW, Miranda applies to all government workers, however only for criminal matters. It is based on the 5th amendment, which says that you cannot be deprived of "life or limb" without due process. Therefore, Miranda would not come into play unless the government attempted to prosecute you for something you said at the checkpoint. If the consequence is denial of entry to the checkpoint, there is no Miranda issue.

Exactly! Some have to travel to clean up some sort of company 'mess' or worse.

You're showing your ignorance and personal biases (as you have in other threads) Doc. I'm a US citizen with a degree in criminal justice issued by an American institution and I'm a Paramedic Practitioner (among other things) so I don't drive ambulances. If anything I work in the back of them.

That's most likely because some people see any person who'll accept a paycheck for molesting passengers, or working shoulder-to-shoulder with thieves, thugs, and perverts, as "sinister."

OK, so this references back to my original post. If he was "bored" and "looking to kill some time" then clearly he was surplus to requirements at a cost that is picked up by the US taxpayer. Doesn't this trouble you?

I did consider this scenario and wasn't sure about it either way, hence my original posting. I didn't really think the line was long enough to warrant this though.