Thank you for the information. This is exactly why I'm not afraid of calls for arming TSOs ... any attempt to do so will run straight into this reality.

I think TSA could set a new standard.

Man, you would THINK that the real airport LEOs would refuse to station themselves in a facility with undertrained TSA armed staff.

Not to mention, as has been pointed out, the checkpoint would then lose its administrative search status.

They should just wear polo shirts and khakis and EARN the respect of the public legitimately. They get mocked by us and targeted by loonies partially because of the silly plumage.

There is no reason that these new armed TSOs would have to come from the ranks of current staff. They could be new hires, or more likely, they could be transfered from other federal law enforcement agencies. This may improve the culture of TSA. I have far more respect for the FBI, DEA, and even CBP than I do for the TSA. A few former FBI officers to keep the TSOs in line may not be a bad thing.



That was when TSA was new and they had to get every checkpoint in the country staffed in a short amount of time. They actually issued waivers of many of the requirements. As the agency has matured, this is less of a problem.

Why would it lose its administrative search status? Whether or not it's an administrative search has no connection to what weapons they carry.

Reserving the right to be wrong, as I understand the federal system, before one can be issued a firearm to carry during the course of the work they do, they must be classified differently by the system. In other words, they are administrative clerks and do not have even the possibility of getting guns. For that to happen, they must be reclassified as a type of federal law enforcement. With that reclassification comes LEO-type responsibilities and constitutional requirements.

As it is, the administrative search is allowed because it is administrative. Make them law enforcement and the procedures must be realigned to comply with the requirements of law enforcement duties. The carrying of a weapon implies the authority to retain. It would be quite stupid if it did not. "Stop or I'll shoot!" "Kiss my butt moron, you can not detain me." See, quite ridiculous.

Now, if they can get guns without becoming "law enforcement," the system is screwed up more that I can imagine.

That would explain why in 2010 TSA hired a felon and tried to strong arm RIC into giving this person security credentials to access all areas of the airport.

their current leader is a former FBI Deputy Director. How is that working out for their image?

.....

^^

An administrative search is simply a search that does not require a search warrant. As such, any evidence gained from an administrative search cannot be used in a criminal trial. The status of the person performing the search has nothing to do with it. Their actions are what matter.

Many administrative searches are performed by law enforcement personnel. Examples would be DUI checkpoints, weapons screening at courthouses, etc. Law enforcement should be trained to understand that their authority is more restricted in such a setting.

If true then why are passengers hauled before an ALJ for certain violation of TSA policies, such as having a weapon with them during screening?

I agree. In fact, I think it the surest bet in the world that it will be outside hires or transfers, if for no other reason than to build the empire.

I disagree on this one. It's like pouring fine wine into a cesspool.

Because a hearing before an ALJ is not a criminal trial.

Perhaps not but a fine of several thousand dollars in a kangaroo court is certainly punitive.

No, it is not that simple. An administrative search is a search based on very specific criteria. The carve out of the 4th Amendment is very specific on what can legally be done in an administrative search. Yes, they are done by LEO's under very strict guidelines.

Clearly wrong. Try using that after blowing a .15 at a sobriety check.

Also clearly wrong. Only certain people can perform administrative searches under specific defined conditions. The status or job of the person conducting the search is definitely relevant.

This is correct.

I agree.