I think the point CBN was making is that being an LEO, absent any other factor, doesn't automatically preclude you from conducting an administrative search.

And, in the silly case that TSAs arms itself, there is no doubt that they will continue administrative searches, only with added threat of force and greater pretense of arrest and detainment authority*. I will, at least, see this as a very different thing, Constitutionally.

* - the next thing they will want

Most sobriety checkpoints in the US do not actually administer a breathalyzer test unless they have reasonable suspicion that you are intoxicated (bloodshot eyes or slurred speech). Once they have that, they can legally detain you and it is no longer an administrative search, and the evidence can be used in a criminal trial.

The status of the person conducting the search might be relevant to the government for their own procedures, but it is not relevant to the constitutional issue. Whether the person conducting the search is a sworn peace officer or not makes no difference.


Yes, that is correct.

Considering the extremely low competence and thug-like attitude of the typical TSA employee (many of whom were hired from pizza box ads!), putting guns in their hands seems like a particularly crazy thing to do. These people can choose to be armed when they go home, but I would not want to see them armed in our airports.

Bruce

As mentioned in post 125 upthread, the Office of Personnel Management defines all regular federal jobs with a classification number. The OPM HANDBOOK OF OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS AND FAMILIES lists them.

TSA screeners appear to be based on 1802, Compliance Inspection and Support Series. Federal police are 0083 series. Security guards are 0085. CBP are 1895.

Of course, I do not know how much leeway TSA has to “exempt” itself from these rules, Out of an Abundance of Caution Anything for Security Gotta Prevent Another 9/11™ doncha know. :rolleyes:

As posted by me in this thread....after 9-11 when the TSA/DHS was being formed. they looked at "TSA Police Officers" to stand the checkpoints.

As you've clearly stated above, there is no way they can afford to do it......and that's what they found out last time around......

Of course, now that one guy (out of 60,000 in a dozen years) has been killed by a nutcase, the whole analysis changes. Instead of "can we afford this?", people will ask "what is the life of a TSA employee worth?" I don't see the great distinction, but the second question is much more emotional, obviously.

Bruce

So then, does that not take the private room grope after a "positive" ETD swab out of the administrative search realm and into the realm of a probable cause search? Does the TSA have the authority to do a probable cause search?

There are many things the United States cannot afford.

It hasn't stopped them from doing those things.

We couldn't afford the Iraq war, for instance. A lot of good that did.

Bruce

I would say yes, once they have a positive ETD swab, they have probable cause to do a search for explosives, and you may face criminal charges if you are found in possession of illegal explosives.

That is my opinion, but note that 1) IANAL and 2) AFAIK no court has ever ruled on the matter.

Squirt guns, but only after extensive training

I'm just happy it appears that no one in the HOR or Congress wants TSA armed.....and hoping it stays that way.

Add LEOs back to the checkpoints and be done with it....

True. But since most (if not all) Airports are in the black..... make them cover the costs or add a security fee to the airlines/concessions or something like that. Not much.....and it would cover the extra officers.

As stated, no need to arm any of these clowns....

Is the TSA allowed to do a probable cause search or is that a search reserved for real law enforcement?

They have a former FBI officer in charge of them. It only made things worse.