IMO, possibly another reason to privatize.

TSOs consider themselves 'federal officers' (and in many cases, the local police do their bidding, sometimes under pressure from their own management to 'cooperate', sometimes probably because they are bored and in a mood to escalate and bully - Yuki Miyamae, for example).

Would this still apply to privatized TSOs? Are they 'federal officers' in any sense of the word? Are security guards allowed to conduct the type of 'administrative searches' that TSA currently conducts? Or would there (possibly) be more protections for the public? Would privatized security still have the leverage over local airport police that TSA does?

(I'm pessimistic about the outcome, but I still can't believe a private security guard could stick his hands in my pants and between my legs with impunity. I'm probably wrong.)

This article is linked at the top of Drudge at the moment, along with this one.

A couple of words in one line from the USA Today piece jump out at me:

This is actually good news, because it may lead to a wider examination of TSA vastly exceeding the scope of their authority.

As others have noted, TSA has no business looking for drugs, outstanding arrest warrants, or immigration problems unless it has serious reason to believe that the person involved poses a serious threat to air safety.

I can't wait for the next time TSA tries this crap on me.

?? Hasn't TSA already addressed these issues? Including an alleged TSO who used to post frequently on this forum?

They do not 'look' for drugs or porn or suspicious documents or large sums of money, but they may 'stumble' across evidence of same during the course of their duties, at which time they summon LE.

Once LE has been summoned, LE will check for arrest warrants, immigration violations, etc. LE's mandate, of course, is not limited to air safety.

My reaction to all of this...

Last summer: Yay! Profiling! Look for threats, not weapons! :D

Last week: Oh man, mission creep. Not that kind of profiling. Who cares if someone has drugs? That's not aviation security. :confused:

This week: Crap, here comes the blowback and now we're back to "everybody's a threat." :mad:

FWIW, not sure if it's been mentioned, but Terminal A is also the only terminal where there's a Precheck lane. So now I'm really playing the lottery when I go through there.

This is a great point and something I've pondered: how is it legal for TSA - a government agent - to search your stuff and then use against you any evidence that they ostensibly aren't looking for and would have no other power to search?

Private security searching you voluntarily is just that: private. An agent of the government is a whole other can of worms.

"Consent search" either way.

Airport screeners "profiling" for terrorists is voodoo "security" and nothing but a fishing expedition for no good reason.

Here is the TSA's "solution" to the media coverage about its racist profiling activities: more online "education" and "tests". :rolleyes:

http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/...s/?hpt=hp_bn13

They need somebody to be a fall guy for a case that the ACLU can take to the Supreme Court. This is how they won precedential cases in the past but they appear to be sleeping at the wheel.

I have never been issued a quota like they indicate in the articles, and I have never gone into a bag looking for anything other than possible threat items. IF something illegal is found during that process, per SOP we report it to the local LEOs.

I know that I am picking nits, but there is no such thing as "reverse discrimination". Any form of discrimination is at it's very core, simply discrimination.

Strange how I said exactly the same thing to a coworker this morning while were discussing past speeding tickets.

I don't consider it picking nits; I consider it a fundamental difference in attitude. It's all just as repugnant, no matter who does it to whom.

^

This is where my problem lies and where I think there is a conflict with existing 4th Amendment jurisprudence. The carve-out for "administrative" searches has nothing to do with finding "something illegal". Period. That carve-out was written 40 years ago (with a couple of tweaks over the years) based on metal detectors and bag x-rays looking for explosives and weapons.

Unless it's a weapon or some other explicitly defined item that is prohibited for air travel, it's none of TSA's business. Or at least it shouldn't be.

I think the real problem here is that TSA employees, as public employees, are obligated to report when they suspect a crime is being committed --- even if that crime is unrelated to their duties. This isn't without precedent in other sectors of public life. For example, my pastor told me about a member of his former congregation who, as a firefighter, couldn't attend any service where open candles were being lit, because in that jurisdiction, open candles technically violated the fire code. And, in general, having public servants turning a blind eye to crimes being committed presents its own problems.

On the whole, I agree that administrative searches tend to look like warrantless searches for contraband --- or, at least, have the same effect. I'm just not sure how you navigate between those two alternatives, neither of which is ideal.

Another issue is that many of them are too stupid to understand what is a crime, and what is not.

Like traveling with $10,000 in cash. At least one TSA employee was rather insistent that it was a crime...

Yeah, that's the problem and why it's not necessarily a "consensual search" if it's required to travel on a plane and it's being administered by a federal employee. Either they shouldn't be obligated to report anything except guns and explosives or federal employees shouldn't be the ones doing the searches.

I think a fairly bright line could be drawn if the government weren't on such a power trip.

IMO screeners should look for WEI as they are mandated to do. And I have no problem with them reporting "obvious" crimes--e.g., the "severed human head in carry on" used so often as an example--or "obvious" non-WEI threats to the airport/aircraft--e.g., a bag full of live snakes. But they should report such crimes using the same channels and the same authority and having the same credibility that a private citizen would in contacting the police. And if the alleged threat item turns out to be non-existent or not a threat, they should be penalized as individuals for filing false reports to the police.

Anything else they should butt out if it's an administrative "implied consent" search. To my knowledge, as a private citizen I am under no obligation to report "possible" crimes like large amounts of cash, bags of white powder that could be flour, multiple IDs, etc., that I might see in plain sight as I go about my day or that I might see someone attempting to "artfully conceal" on their person. That TSA insists on doing so is a power trip and an excuse to justify their bureaucracy.

To be fair, it's entirely understandable that they would do so. Without the bureaucracy, they'd all be unemployed.

I can understand that point of view, and it has merit, but currently the regulations given to TSOs contradict that by indicating we are to report the other illegal items we find incidental to the original search item.

I can't contradict what is said here either. We are simply told we are to report them to local authorities to deal with.

Again, understand and see the merit in your statements. This is a policy question that none of the front line employees (like me) are going to be able to change.

The distinction in your position is that we are instructed to do this as part of our training. I understand the point that many of the folks here make that it is not a part of WEI it shouldn't be reported, but at this time, the SOP says we are to report it.

So your training curriculum includes stuff like, how to: look out for cash > $10,000, spot drugs etc..

To put it more plainly, how does a TSO know what is or is not an "illegal item?"

TSOs are not cops. They have no police powers, but they also have no specialized training in the interpretation or enforcement of the law. The vast majority of them have no degrees in law, criminology, or forensics, and they don't attend 3-6 month academies teaching them these things like police do.

In essence, a TSO's understanding of what is or is not an "illegal item" is no greater than the average person's, yet they're instructed to initiate a law enforcement investigation based on their flawed hunches and incomplete understanding of the law.

Weapons.

Explosives.

Incendiaries.

NOTHING else is their business. NOTHING else should be their focus.

But without the regular "good catch!" of various drugs, everything from someone with 10 kilos of high-grade cocaine to the poor schlub with a doobie tucked into his waistband, how are the sheep going to see that the TSA is "protecting" them?

It's interesting -- I've been in public service for most of my professional life dating back to 1976. I have never once been told that I'm obligated to report crimes or evidence of a crime with one exception: espionage.

It's not uncommon in other public-sector positions. A good friend of mine is a public school teacher. They're required by law to report suspected child abuse, with serious criminal consequences if they fail to do so. This mandatory reporting requirement applies 24/7; if they suspect abuse happening in their apartment complex, or at church, or in public, they have to report it there, too.

So ... does being a TSO rise to that level? Clearly, the SOP says it does. Should it? Opinions will obviously vary.

The "real" SOP, or the one in writing that nobody (apparently, including TSA employees) is allowed to view?

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. :)

Seriously ... of course, all we have to go on is what we've told by TSOs and TSA spokespeople. As to how much of that is accurate ... well, any answer to that question probably reveals more about the person answering than the TSA.

Heck how about $4700 in cash/checks made out to Ron Paul (R-Texas)? Or photography at the checkpoint?

What exactly is taught during recurrent training but somehow comes up again & again & again? Were those screeners on coffee break during the recurrent training?

And there's the problem. Your management believes, and teaches you, that their regulations, policy, SOP, instructions, training override the 4th Amendment.

The problem with that is the consent search and administrative angle on the consititutionality -which will most likely wind up being settled in a Supreme Court ruling in the future if those policies do not change. There are many arguments (many of them have been presented here) that the consent given at a checkpoint is not an informed consent due to the nature of the regulations and SSI and such - I can see that argument and understand the point made by it. Currently, policy disagrees with that argument, and until there is a change in policy making, or a court ruling that forces a change in either the disclosure of the rules, or a change in policy, we are sadly at an impasse. Both sides of the debate have large audiences and supporters, and both are equally convinced they are in the right, so this will most likely play out in court.

I would argue that no consent is given at the checkpoint at all. Instead, the government compells me to undergo a search before it allows me to exercise my constitutional right to travel freely throughout the nation. I do not consent to the search in any meaning of the word; at best I comply. To use the word "consent" in this context is not much better than saying I consent to handing over my wallet to a robber in order to avoid having him hit me over the head.

It seems more serious than even that. The story out of BOS suggests that the BDOs were expected to meet some minimum quota of criminal referrals. There's no practical way to meet that quota by referring terrorists or people with ill intent toward a commercial aircraft; after all in over a decade TSA has never intercepted *one* of these people, and the number who exist is so infinitesimally small it might as well be zero.

So the report out of BOS suggests that BDOs were sent out to specifically seek threats not related to aviation security. That's a whole lot worse than being told to report stuff seen as part of a search, or even training TSOs on identifying "contraband."

As a public health official and EMT, I'm also a "required reporter" of child abuse, in any context, by statute. However, I'm in no way legally required to report a bank robbery or shop lifting or any criminal act. (What one does as a good citizen is, of course, another thing.)

The difference is: when I report child abuse, I'm a government actor acting as required by law. A screener who reports the odd doobie in a carry-on is a government actor acting as required by policy.


~~ Irish

Well, if the Bee-dee-ohs made zero referrals for additional screening of suspicious persons exhibiting micro-expressions revealing possible evil intent, the entire BDO program might be questioned as a waste of resources, perhaps even eliminated! <gasp!>

Seriously, the entire concept of meeting quotas is to my mind, one of the most troubling aspects of this whole lousy story. :mad: Thank you studentff.

The TSA Administrative Search is limited to searching for WEI, nothing more. When it goes outside of that limitation then TSA and its employees are abusing the United States Constitution and their Oath.

I understand that position and you are not alone in that position. There are also people on the flip side of that statement that believe that you submit to screening by purchasing the ticket, because it is part of the contract - that you must undergo screening to get to the aircraft for the trip. As I said before, there are many people on each side of this debate, and I honestly think both sides have a point. The argument for many is a Contitutional one, that has no easy answer because we have a history of protection regulations for the greater good". Again, I think that this will wind up coming down to a change of vision on the part of senior policy makers, or a court ruling compelling change or affirming the process as is.

Don't you know you are supposed to throw your wallet at aq robber and run when they go for it? ;)

I am a BDO, and have never been given a quota, or even a hint of a quota of any nature. The program (in my experience) does not work the way indicated in the articles. We are specifically told and taught "Referrals are based on specific observed behaviors only, not on one's appearance, race, ethnicity or religion." We are also taught to not look specifically for contraband, only to report it if discovered while looking for WEI. Anything that is published contrary to that is either misinformation, or someone doing something wrong - I do not know what is going on in BOS, but if the reported stories are correct, then many of the things I have read are not being done according to SOP. I have also read that TSA has initiated an investigation into the situation, so hopefully they will get to the bottom of it and make the proper disciplinary decisions - if there is a call for it.


I have also heard dissenting opinions on that from individuals much more familiar with constitutional law than either one of us, so again, barring a change in vision by senior management or a court ruling, it appears we are at an impasse.

It's more than a consent issue, though, and one of the cases that the government lost in an excusionary hearing (I think it was the one relating to kiddy porn) raised the issue. TSOs are being told "you're only supposed to look for WEI, but if you see something else illegal, you're required to report it". Is this a "distinction without a difference"? Is there really that much of a difference between "look for" and "see"? This is especially true if there's any kind of a "reward" for making the report, including just "a pat on the back".

To me, this is likely to be the larger issue in court than the consent one. Is requiring (or even encouraging) TSOs to report things that they "see" that are not within the bounds to "look for" in the administrative search causing them to effectively "look" for them and hence overstepping the bounds of the administrative search? If so, then consent is irrelevant.

I recognize that it is a fine line between the two, and I can speak for no other person than myself. I have not gone into a bag looking for things past WEI, and only reported things found in the course of doing that. That is what the SOP calls for, and it is what I adhere to. I have not recieved an award for finding contraband, so I have not been placed in a situation where I profited from it. I would also like to see any type of reward program for finding things like contraband removed from the system, although I do not recall personally seeing it happen before.

Are there such reward programs in TSA?

So TSA senior management are constitutional experts?

What I see from TSA is attempts to push the limits until someone (courts) pulls them back, yet legislation makes it almost impossible to take legal action against TSA.

I don't think our founders would approve of this situation or of TSA and I feel sorry that supposedly good citizens can somehow justify working for this agency.