jkhuggins

They don't have to "take" it from you. You've voluntarily placed it on the conveyor belt for scanning.

I'm sure they can make up some excuse along the lines of "gosh, golly, it looks like your suitcase has a suspicious item in it, we're going to have to take it apart piece by piece very slowly until the LEO we called gets here before we hand it back to you".

Legally, do they have the "right" to do so? IANAL. But they can certainly come up with enough procedural delays to create the effect they want --- namely, that you can't arbitrarily leave a checkpoint without their compliance.

Spiff

You can still pick it up if you can reach it.

jkhuggins

And if you can't reach it --- say, because the TSO pulled it out of the scanner before it reached you --- then you're "stuck".

Spiff

Yes, you can abandon it, but that's about it. Don't declare your intention to leave until all of your property you care to leave with is in your possession.

javabytes

If you repeatedly alarm the ETD and a plain old pat down doesn't resolve the matter, the enhanced "resolution" pat down is done in private, though the person being patted down may have a witness present. Explanation given was that this is because they use the front of their hands, not the back, on "sensitive areas". (Not that I agree with this.) RIC failed to allow a witness to be present, which I unsuccessfully battled the FSD over, which is why I will no longer fly out of RIC.

CKA1

Really, I would rather get a patdown, even invasive rather than miss a flight I'd paid hundreds of dollars for.

Play their game, be nice and remember, they're just doing what they think they can get away with. Even if they shouldn't do something (like an illegal detention), I just think of the whole event as part of an occasional hazard of flight. If you want to complain, write a letter, but do it after you clear security.

At the Montreal airport, there is a sign before you go into the screening area. It says, "Persons who do not wish to board an aircraft may choose not to proceed".

I would be shocked to hear somebody being illegally detained once an LEO is present. As far as I know, there needs to be a legal basis for a detention, not just a "he looked suspicious".

Once I left my briefcase behind at a security checkpoint. The guy at the checkpoint chased me down to return it. If he would have been a jerk, he could have called a LEO and searched it for contraband, but he wasn't.

Yes, I realize about 40% of the time the TSA/CATSA guys are jerks. But the other 60% are simply getting a paycheck and trying not to get caught in a trap. My dad told me they probably target me for extra screening because they see a young guy in a full suit, and they figure it's a setup.

C.

jkhuggins

And so we return to my original point. A passenger can "choose" to leave the checkpoint at any time. But TSA can "choose" not to allow you to regain immediate control of your possessions if you don't already have them in hand --- which gives the passenger the further "choice" of remaining at the checkpoint until their possessions are cleared, or voluntarily abandoning them.

Not much of a "choice", but, hey ... you pays your money, you takes your chances ...

petaluma1

And, as janetdoe advised they do not want the traveling public to see them doing such a pat down.

I finally found the statement regarding administrative searches being done in public:

ehasbrouck

In US v. Aukai, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, en banc, found that once you enter the checkpoint or put any of your belongings on the belt, you can't leave until the TSA is done with you:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...10/0410226.pdf

Mr. Aukai asked to leave after being sent to secondary screening. TSA staff told him he was not free to leave. He didn't actually try to leave before a law enforcement officer had arrived, so we don't know what would have happened if he tried to leave earlier. And by the time the cop showed up, Aukai had already taken the crack pipe out of his pocket and put it in the bin for "screening". (Not a good move.)

Aukai is still "good" (although bad) law, but doesn't directly address the case of someone who tries to leave (presumably abandoning any property not in their possession) before an LEO shows up. The TSA clearly has no authority to arrest , except as a citizens arrest. TSA staff might try to obstruct the person form leaving. In such a case, trying to push through the TSA staff would almost certainly result in arrest for assaulting th TSA staff.

What if you made it past the TSA? They would, presumably, call the local police. Or what if police were already present by the time you tried to leave? Then the issue would be whether your conduct created a basis for an investigative detention ("Terry stop") or arrest, and if so, for what crime.

In any of these cases you would be at risk of an administrative fine imposed by the TSA.

janetdoe

Luckily, Aukai is 9th Circuit, so not necessarily binding everywhere. In their discussion, they discuss the scenario of a 'terrorist' testing the system if they are allowed to withdraw consent at any point, but you are right that the ruling doesn't seem to address that scenario. The ruling is bizarre, that no consent is required for airport searches, which directly contradicts the Davis case they cite. If the search is only constitutional to the extent that it accomplishes the goal of keeping WEI off a plane, then it would seem that saying you don't want to fly today renders the search unnecessary/complete.

I agree that it would be hard to get past a human TSA wall without risking a battery charge, that's my major concern. I tend to agree with the people above that the TSA will never open themselves up to discovery, so that limits their ability to fine / prosecute people for any alleged violations at the checkpoint. So doing anything that allows a non-airport-security-related charge like battery or disturbing the peace to be filed against you is the worst strategy, IMO.

But I would rather have a Terry stop/frisk from a real cop than TSA rubbing my vulva in a private room any day. So if the only way to get out of a private room search is to have the police frisk me for weapons and escort me out of the checkpoint, I'll take that option.

InkUnderNails

I made it as far as the x-ray machine and remembered that I had left a critical item at home. I needed to retrieve it even if it meant catching a later flight. As I live 90 minutes from the airport, time was critical. I would need to change my flight and have someone from home meet me half way with my stuff. I had to start the process immediately.

I spoke to the TSO next to x-ray entrance, said I needed to retrieve the one bag already in the x-ray and leave the checkpoint as I had to return to my car. They asked what it looked like and called a supervisor. The supervisor retrieved my item, carried it with him and walked me back to non-secure area where he gave me my bag.

The rest was routine and uneventful. Call home, re-ticket, meet wife, return to airport.

This does not address the most important issue being if one can leave after an alarm of some type. It does show that one can leave after starting the precess in some cases.

MichaelKade

Thank you all for your guidance. The question raised was because a little over a year ago I tested positive for explosives during an opt-out and was asked to go to a private room. After asking them for a retest, to test the swab first as a control, (which were denied) and escalating to one level above a 3 striper, I reluctantly went to the private room. I did ask for a LEO as a witness who did absolutely nothing other than watch. When asked if I had any sensitive areas, I answered "my penis and testicles" to which I was told "I will be touching those." The three striper then proceeded with the search which included touching my genitals with the front of his hand.

It bothers me to this day.

I will NEVER go to a private room or allow myself to be assaulted in that way again. I will simply not fly that day.

GaryD

I'd love to see the case where they try to impose an administrative fine on someone who left the screening, and returned landside. Even less love for the TSA.

InkUnderNails

That matches my experience pretty good, except that the LEO brought a dog and its handler. I would suggest that if they ever ask if you have sensitive areas say "none at all." I get the feeling that take your response as an area deserving particular scrutiny and your reply to them indicates that you do not want that area checked as closely. When I was "all opt out, all the time" I would answer this question differently each time, and each time that area got the most attention.

petaluma1

You hit the nail on the head with that one. There are thousands of reports of TSA prodding sensitive areas much harder than other areas, especially surgical scars.