Racial Profiling at BOS
Aug 30, 2012, 10:11 am
#61
Join Date: May 2005
Location: FL
Programs: DL/PM SM/AMEX/Plat HH/Gold Marriott/Plat Starwood/Plat
Posts: 140
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.
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.
I can't contradict what is said here either. We are simply told we are to report them to local authorities to deal with.
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.
Aug 30, 2012, 1:16 pm
#62
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
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.
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.
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.
Aug 30, 2012, 3:03 pm
#63
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
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?
Aug 30, 2012, 3:12 pm
#64
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
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.
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.
Aug 30, 2012, 4:36 pm
#65
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
So ... does being a TSO rise to that level? Clearly, the SOP says it does. Should it? Opinions will obviously vary.
Aug 30, 2012, 7:17 pm
#67
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
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.
Aug 30, 2012, 7:37 pm
#68
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: boca raton, florida
Posts: 621
What exactly is taught during recurrent training but somehow comes up again & again & again? Were those screeners on coffee break during the recurrent training?
Aug 31, 2012, 5:19 am
#69
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,777
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.
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.
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.
Aug 31, 2012, 5:58 am
#70
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,424
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.
Aug 31, 2012, 6:24 am
#71
Join Date: Dec 2007
Programs: DL, WN, US, Avis, AA
Posts: 662
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.
Aug 31, 2012, 7:04 am
#72
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,725
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."
Aug 31, 2012, 7:14 am
#73
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 555
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.
So ... does being a TSO rise to that level? Clearly, the SOP says it does. Should it? Opinions will obviously vary.
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
Aug 31, 2012, 7:55 am
#74
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: in the sky
Posts: 490
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."
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."
Seriously, the entire concept of meeting quotas is to my mind, one of the most troubling aspects of this whole lousy story.
Thank you studentff.
Aug 31, 2012, 8:27 am
#75
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,090
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.