Great to get a definitive response on this. I was threatened with DYWFT when I refused to say my name at SFO recently.

A minor correction to the above, however. It's only the 5th Amendment that protects people against self-incrimination and therefore guarantees a right to remain silent. Miranda v. Arizona merely established that a confession or other evidence given by a suspect under interrogation could only be used to convict that suspect if it was given freely and voluntarily after the suspect was warned of his right to remain silent and have an attorney present and then he or she subsequently waived that right. What the movies call "Miranda Rights" are more accurately described as the "Miranda Warning."

Anyone citing Miranda v. Arizona as a Supreme Court precedent that applies when not in police custody will probably get a chuckle from any LEO or lawyer. And since the 5th Amendment and the TSA's own rules are on your side here, there's no need to bluff.

I believe this is correct. While we all know that they can't ultimately stop you from flying unless they find WEI on you, they damn sure can inconvenience you and hassle you unless you give the TSO's 100% subservience. The TDC at the airport may be a lower class uneducated peon in pants that are about to split, but as far as you're concerned she's judge Dredd.

This is what he is saying: "No, we don't have any legal requirement to make you do most of the things we do, but we have ways of making you wish you had and will hide behind the canard of 'security' when we do."

I was thinking the same thing. He has a short shelf life with TSA.

I know what a TSM and an FSD is... what's an FSM?

Beat me to it! It is really important to recognize good TSA behavior on those rare occasions when it manifests itself, like this one. Such recognition should always be accompanied by a recommendation that the employee seek work someplace where his talents would be appreciated. TSA is obviously not such a place.

Bruce

Clearly should have been TSM.

Bruce

An artifact of the automatic filtering software. Letters 3-5 of the abbreviation you named are the culprit ...

@:-)

So this is really just like the new Behavior Detection voodoo practitioner program being rolled out; nobody has to speak to a TSA employee. They can get upset, call their supervisor, do a retaliatory secondary, etc. But in the end, once you and your belongings are screened for weapons, explosives and incendiaries, you will be allowed to transit the checkpoint without talking.

I don't think so. IIRC, statements about the Boston roll-out specifically mention that if you don't answer/smart off/neglect to kiss TDC arse, you will be referred to a secondary consisting of 'questions, bag search and 'patdown', and, if necessary, the involvement of the State Police.

I think it's pretty clear that if you don't satisfy the TDC, you'll bet bumped to secondary. If you still if you don't (or can't) talk, I think LEOs will be immediately summoned. What happens then is anybody's guess. I think an intelligent LEO who doesn't take orders from the TSO might ask if there's any reason to suspect the pax is a threat, might run some kind of check to confirm no outstanding warrants, etc (not that this should matter), and the pax will be free to go miss his flight.

Much more likely, I suspect, is that the LEOs will be told that the pax is un-cooperative, the screening process can't be satisfied. If the pax is can and does talk to the LEO, the LEO probably will side with TSA - the pax will be viewed as a trouble-maker and will be treated accordingly.

Based on the statements, I think they are prepared to summon LEOs much more frequently, just to ensure total pax compliance. And if this proves a burden to the local police forces, there will be support for Pistole developing his own internal armed TSA-LEO rubber-stamp force.

A TSA-LEO rubber-stamp force will remove any possible chance of pax appeal (already slim). If TSO-LEOs are brought in to 'resolve' a situation, the fact is, they'll be measured on how many arrests they make, not on how many situations they de-escalate and resolve peacefully. There will be every incentive to escalate everything.

This is frightening, but I can't disagree with any of it. They want total control and acquiescence and they're going to get it eventually.

My response would be "I don't respond to dumb questions."

They're going to "get it" but not how they think. We're coming up on an election year and the TSA abuse stories keep rolling in. You can bet a lot of enterprising underdog candidates are going to cash in on this for everything it's worth and, if I may be permitted a tiny spot of optimism, I think at least some of them are going to genuinely mean it when they say "A vote for me is a vote against TSA." TSA is pissing people off left and right and if you believe "6 degrees of separation," it's not too far from those people to someone involved in politics.

There are days when I think Pistole the Traitor is sitting in his office, realizing that there's no chance in hell his career is going anywhere but straight down and figuring "Screw it, I'll have fun while I can."

I get that question quite often -- probably not too surprisingly -- and my stock response is, "That's why I came to the airport this morning [or whatever time of day it is]." They move on.

Bruce

Better yet... Pat the TSO on the head, and say "Good boy, you figured that out all by yourself. They must be so proud of you at the group home!"