TSA and the War on Drugs
#46
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Posts: 2,976
Found an online article by an attorney which discusses DEA administrative searches.
http://www.drlaw.com/Articles/DEA-Ad...r-Not-Con.aspx
...under the CSA and corresponding regulations, DEA has the right to conduct administrative inspections or audits. They prefer to show up unscheduled and unannounced and to obtain the provider’s consent to search. They will provide a DEA Form 82, entitled Notice of Inspection of Controlled Premises, and will ask the provider to consent by signing the form. As the form makes clear, the provider has a right to refuse to consent, has a right not to have the inspection take place without an administrative inspection warrant, and incriminating evidence that is found can be used against the provider in a criminal case. The DIs will state that if the provider refuses to consent they will be back shortly, the implication being that same day, with an administrative search warrant. This is not totally accurate; although the administrative inspection warrant will almost always be routinely granted, it is not as “immediate” as one would think. In actuality it can take days or weeks in order for the agents to obtain and return with an administrative inspection warrant.
(...)
Whether an inspection takes place by consent or by warrant, it should be the same scope. DEA is authorized by regulation to “inspect, copy, and verify the correctness of records required to be kept” under the CFRs. Basically they are looking at proper record keeping of controlled substances and whether there is any evidence of diversion. Thus, it should be limited to a review of the provider’s records to determine compliance with the laws and regulations surrounding controlled substances.
(...)
Whether an inspection takes place by consent or by warrant, it should be the same scope. DEA is authorized by regulation to “inspect, copy, and verify the correctness of records required to be kept” under the CFRs. Basically they are looking at proper record keeping of controlled substances and whether there is any evidence of diversion. Thus, it should be limited to a review of the provider’s records to determine compliance with the laws and regulations surrounding controlled substances.
#48
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 471
Yes and no.
The TSA would be searching for WEI. We know that. The do it for all professional teams that travel by air. But, why would the DEA need assistance for a drug search?
The search for WEI is an administrative search. The one done by the DEA is a criminal investigation. Conjecture: The teams line up for the expected WEI search and the trainers and physicians are suddenly lined up for a search that involves possible criminal charges and prosecution. Were there warrants issued? I would think that there had to be if this was a criminal investigation. So, a team away from home is going home and expecting the normal WEI search and finding a search for criminal activity. IANAL, but is this even legal?
The TSA would be searching for WEI. We know that. The do it for all professional teams that travel by air. But, why would the DEA need assistance for a drug search?
The search for WEI is an administrative search. The one done by the DEA is a criminal investigation. Conjecture: The teams line up for the expected WEI search and the trainers and physicians are suddenly lined up for a search that involves possible criminal charges and prosecution. Were there warrants issued? I would think that there had to be if this was a criminal investigation. So, a team away from home is going home and expecting the normal WEI search and finding a search for criminal activity. IANAL, but is this even legal?
#49
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DCA/IAD
Programs: AS, US, Hilton, BA, DL, SPG, AA, VS
Posts: 1,628
Doesn't every NFL team fly charter? If so, why would they be encountering the TSA at all? I know for a fact that the NHL in my home town doesn't even go near a terminal when flying to away games. The team bus meets the team plane at a private hanger. No TSA, no screening.
#50
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
True. They are screened and watched to make sure they get on the bus. The bus is parked in a secure area and the team transfers from the bus to the plane. I do not know if the TSA follows the bus to make certain that it makes no stops.
#51
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,714
And the bus, of course, has been fully screened to make sure that no one at any point has stowed something illicit on board?
(Not to go OT, but it always shocks and disgusts me when an inmate gets years added on to his sentence for getting caught with drugs in jail - but no comparable punishment is handed out to the guard(s) who are clearly involved. TSA, unlike any other security organization I've ever encountered, except perhaps the police, really takes this 'one background check and you are trustworthy for life' business way too far.)
#52
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 471
I'm still confused. Why is the TSA involved with NFL charters at all? A charter is a private/GA flight. No TSA screening or rules apply. Heck, this is one of the reasons the charter business has seen a bit of a boom recently. It allows people to travel without putting up with all of the TSA nonsense. Certain people, such as sales reps, have little choice, as the products they are carrying(example, baseball bats), are banned from carry on. Is the NFL actually inviting the TSA to screen players?
#53
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,714
I'm still confused. Why is the TSA involved with NFL charters at all? A charter is a private/GA flight. No TSA screening or rules apply. Heck, this is one of the reasons the charter business has seen a bit of a boom recently. It allows people to travel without putting up with all of the TSA nonsense. Certain people, such as sales reps, have little choice, as the products they are carrying(example, baseball bats), are banned from carry on. Is the NFL actually inviting the TSA to screen players?
Besides, the police have to have a reason to stick their hands down your pants and between your legs and in your personal belongings. TSA doesn't.
#54
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
I'm still confused. Why is the TSA involved with NFL charters at all? A charter is a private/GA flight. No TSA screening or rules apply. Heck, this is one of the reasons the charter business has seen a bit of a boom recently. It allows people to travel without putting up with all of the TSA nonsense. Certain people, such as sales reps, have little choice, as the products they are carrying(example, baseball bats), are banned from carry on. Is the NFL actually inviting the TSA to screen players?
I also think that the TSA wrote a rule that says they can screen flights wherever they originate and depart if there are a minimum number of passengers on board.
If this wasn't bad enough, I have been in inter-agency meetings where senior TSA officials have said they are making plans to screen astronauts flying to the ISS on commercial spacecraft. (I wish I was making that up...)
#55
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
TSA and the War on Drugs
They don't even make up an excuse about what "prohibited item" prompted the search of the guy's suitcase, after which they just "happened" to find the pot in the course of the "administrative" search.
Spokesholess Lisa even called the pot "artfully concealed" and gloated about it on Twitter:
I was about ready to hope that the guy gets a good lawyer until I read this:
Spokesholess Lisa even called the pot "artfully concealed" and gloated about it on Twitter:
I was about ready to hope that the guy gets a good lawyer until I read this:
He was then paged at his gate by Port Authority police and confessed the marijuana placed inside a small plastic bag and wrapped in seven Mary Jane candy wrappers was his, Port Authority spokesman Joe Pentangelo said.
#56
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,129
They don't even make up an excuse about what "prohibited item" prompted the search of the guy's suitcase, after which they just "happened" to find the pot in the course of the "administrative" search.
Spokesholess Lisa even called the pot "artfully concealed" and gloated about it on Twitter:
I was about ready to hope that the guy gets a good lawyer until I read this:
Spokesholess Lisa even called the pot "artfully concealed" and gloated about it on Twitter:
I was about ready to hope that the guy gets a good lawyer until I read this:
#58
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 396
Drugs and TSA
Lets assume it is true that TSA does not look for drugs.
Lets also assume that because TSA does not look drugs, that TSA does not train its screeners on what drugs look like on a xray machine.
Assume those two are true, can screeners be expected to detect drugs?
I bring this up, because once again, a screener is accused of drug smuggling.
"Kiana Scott Clark, 28, of San Mateo, was arrested Wednesday on a federal grand jury indictment charging her with conspiring to distribute controlled substances and conspiring to defraud the United States by obstructing, impeding and interfering with aviation security functions of the TSA.
According to a federal Department of Justice news release, Clark operated an X-ray machine at the Oakland airport, where she allowed unnamed co-conspirators to clear the checkpoint without the required screening of their carry-on luggage.
If TSA does look for drugs, and does not train its employees to look for drugs, how could an x-ray operator be responsible for not calling a back check on bag with nothing "prohibited" in it?
Assuming, TSA does not look drugs nor train employees to look for drugs, wouldn't it be an abuse of authority for a screener to request extra screening when there is no apparent prohibit item?
Lets also assume that because TSA does not look drugs, that TSA does not train its screeners on what drugs look like on a xray machine.
Assume those two are true, can screeners be expected to detect drugs?
I bring this up, because once again, a screener is accused of drug smuggling.
"Kiana Scott Clark, 28, of San Mateo, was arrested Wednesday on a federal grand jury indictment charging her with conspiring to distribute controlled substances and conspiring to defraud the United States by obstructing, impeding and interfering with aviation security functions of the TSA.
According to a federal Department of Justice news release, Clark operated an X-ray machine at the Oakland airport, where she allowed unnamed co-conspirators to clear the checkpoint without the required screening of their carry-on luggage.
If TSA does look for drugs, and does not train its employees to look for drugs, how could an x-ray operator be responsible for not calling a back check on bag with nothing "prohibited" in it?
Assuming, TSA does not look drugs nor train employees to look for drugs, wouldn't it be an abuse of authority for a screener to request extra screening when there is no apparent prohibit item?
#59
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,129
If the TSA screener sees something on xray and thinks it may be WEI then that is the point they can call for a more detailed screening.
Drugs present no threat to commercial aviation and for TSA to call for searches on suspected drugs violates the Limited Administrative Search doctrine allowed TSA to search for WEI.
Drugs present no threat to commercial aviation and for TSA to call for searches on suspected drugs violates the Limited Administrative Search doctrine allowed TSA to search for WEI.
#60
Moderator: Information Desk, Women Travelers, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Programs: AA Gold
Posts: 15,655
If TSA does look for drugs, and does not train its employees to look for drugs, how could an x-ray operator be responsible for not calling a back check on bag with nothing "prohibited" in it?
Assuming, TSA does not look drugs nor train employees to look for drugs, wouldn't it be an abuse of authority for a screener to request extra screening when there is no apparent prohibit item?
Assuming, TSA does not look drugs nor train employees to look for drugs, wouldn't it be an abuse of authority for a screener to request extra screening when there is no apparent prohibit item?
2. Knowing that a piece of carry-on luggage _could_ be checked is a deterrent against bringing contraband through security.
3. Knowing with certainty that your carry-on luggage _won't_ be checked enables people to bring contraband through security.
4. The TSA agent was aiding and abetting a crime by intentionally preventing her conspirators' carry-on luggage from being subject to further screening.