Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Should TSA agents be armed?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Nov 11, 2013 | 3:12 am
  #256  
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: LAS
Posts: 1,279
Originally Posted by InkUnderNails
Originally Posted by cbn42
The status of the person performing the search has nothing to do with it.
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.
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
ScatterX is offline  
Old Nov 11, 2013 | 3:32 am
  #257  
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
10 Countries Visited
All eyes on you!
10 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,708
Originally Posted by InkUnderNails
Clearly wrong. Try using that after blowing a .15 at a sobriety check.
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.

Originally Posted by InkUnderNails
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.
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.


Originally Posted by ScatterX
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.
Yes, that is correct.
cbn42 is offline  
Old Nov 11, 2013 | 8:29 am
  #258  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
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
bdschobel is offline  
Old Nov 11, 2013 | 9:36 pm
  #259  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
10 Countries Visited15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Sunshine State
Programs: Deltaworst Peon Level, TSA "Layer 21 Club", NW WP RIP
Posts: 11,372
Originally Posted by jkhuggins
Question: who determines the standards for a federal employee to carry a firearm?
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.
Flaflyer is offline  
Old Nov 12, 2013 | 2:03 am
  #260  
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: HNL
Programs: UA/Hawaiian/Marriott
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by TheRoadie
DHS runs the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, for 89 US government agencies, and some state, local, tribal, campus, and international agencies.

http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/gao-..._training.html

DHS course length for Uniformed Police is 14 weeks. Air Marshal = 13 weeks. Basic firearms training = 6 weeks.

No way the agency is going to invest this amount of $$ for training folks recruited via pizza boxes with swiss cheese holes in their background checks.
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......
Bearcat06 is offline  
Old Nov 12, 2013 | 3:12 am
  #261  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
Originally Posted by Bearcat06
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
bdschobel is offline  
Old Nov 12, 2013 | 5:17 am
  #262  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
Originally Posted by cbn42
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.
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?
petaluma1 is offline  
Old Nov 12, 2013 | 6:47 am
  #263  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
Originally Posted by Bearcat06
As you've clearly stated above, there is no way they can afford to do it.
There are many things the United States cannot afford.

It hasn't stopped them from doing those things.
Caradoc is offline  
Old Nov 12, 2013 | 6:56 am
  #264  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
We couldn't afford the Iraq war, for instance. A lot of good that did.

Bruce
bdschobel is offline  
Old Nov 12, 2013 | 10:34 pm
  #265  
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
10 Countries Visited
All eyes on you!
10 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,708
Originally Posted by petaluma1
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?
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.
cbn42 is offline  
Old Nov 12, 2013 | 10:53 pm
  #266  
30 Countries Visited
1M
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Slightly to the left of center
Posts: 3,482
Squirt guns, but only after extensive training
DBCme is offline  
Old Nov 13, 2013 | 12:35 am
  #267  
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: HNL
Programs: UA/Hawaiian/Marriott
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by bdschobel
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
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....
Bearcat06 is offline  
Old Nov 13, 2013 | 12:36 am
  #268  
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: HNL
Programs: UA/Hawaiian/Marriott
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by Caradoc
There are many things the United States cannot afford.

It hasn't stopped them from doing those things.
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....
Bearcat06 is offline  
Old Nov 13, 2013 | 5:06 am
  #269  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
Originally Posted by cbn42
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.
Is the TSA allowed to do a probable cause search or is that a search reserved for real law enforcement?
petaluma1 is offline  
Old Nov 13, 2013 | 7:26 am
  #270  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Programs: QFF
Posts: 5,304
Originally Posted by cbn42
A few former FBI officers to keep the TSOs in line may not be a bad thing.
They have a former FBI officer in charge of them. It only made things worse.
Himeno is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.