TSA and the War on Drugs
Dec 18, 2015, 1:43 pm
#62
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
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.
Dec 18, 2015, 1:51 pm
#63
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
Here's the article.
The several on-line articles all have to major flows:
1. All of the writers think that smuggling pot through a TSA checkpoint is a threat to civil aviation security;
2. All of the writers think that presence of pot in a bag would trigger a search.
The several on-line articles all have to major flows:
1. All of the writers think that smuggling pot through a TSA checkpoint is a threat to civil aviation security;
2. All of the writers think that presence of pot in a bag would trigger a search.
Dec 19, 2015, 7:54 am
#64
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
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?
Let's assume that this statement is true:
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.
To me, this statement means that she allowed her buddies to take carry-on bags into the sterile area without being screened. Period.
And that is a problem - all carry-ons must be screened for WEI. As critical as I am of TSA and their violations of the 4th Amendment, I fully support the x-ray screening of all carry-on luggage for WEI. I do not support searching specifically for drugs, as smuggled drugs do not present a threat to aviation security in and of themselves, and the search for drugs is a criminal investigation that cannot legally be conducted without warrant, probable cause, or articulable suspicion.
So, we get back to the statement - it didn't say she failed to screen for drugs, it said she failed to screen at all. And yes, failure to screen at all IS a problem and is certainly worth terminating her employment and initiating a criminal investigation. Which, presumably, turned up the illegal smuggling ring and led to the criminal indictment.
So even if your the most ardent pothead in the country and feel that it should be available freely at any liquor store, you should still have a problem with this particular case, because it involves a screener allowing unscreened bags into the sterile area. Why she did it (to allow someone to smuggle weed) is irrelevant. The fact that she did it, IS.
Dec 19, 2015, 4:35 pm
#65
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 396
WillCAD, That is an interesting intoretation.
The specific reference to her operating the xray suggest something different to me. I suspect the case against her is very thin. The govenrment would have to prove she did not perform "the required screening".
This suggest to me they have xray images of the carryon item from the xray she operated and she knowing allowed prohibited items in i.e knive, watet etc. OR, they will claim "you should have checked this bag".
If there was no obvious prohibited item in the bag, then the govenent does not have much of a case against her concerning not screening items. She would likely had to violate the law (adminstrative search authority) to request additional screening on items that by law/policy did not require it.
The specific reference to her operating the xray suggest something different to me. I suspect the case against her is very thin. The govenrment would have to prove she did not perform "the required screening".
This suggest to me they have xray images of the carryon item from the xray she operated and she knowing allowed prohibited items in i.e knive, watet etc. OR, they will claim "you should have checked this bag".
If there was no obvious prohibited item in the bag, then the govenent does not have much of a case against her concerning not screening items. She would likely had to violate the law (adminstrative search authority) to request additional screening on items that by law/policy did not require it.
Dec 19, 2015, 6:38 pm
#66
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
WillCAD, That is an interesting intoretation.
The specific reference to her operating the xray suggest something different to me. I suspect the case against her is very thin. The govenrment would have to prove she did not perform "the required screening".
This suggest to me they have xray images of the carryon item from the xray she operated and she knowing allowed prohibited items in i.e knive, watet etc. OR, they will claim "you should have checked this bag".
If there was no obvious prohibited item in the bag, then the govenent does not have much of a case against her concerning not screening items. She would likely had to violate the law (administrative search authority) to request additional screening on items that by law/policy did not require it.
The specific reference to her operating the xray suggest something different to me. I suspect the case against her is very thin. The govenrment would have to prove she did not perform "the required screening".
This suggest to me they have xray images of the carryon item from the xray she operated and she knowing allowed prohibited items in i.e knive, watet etc. OR, they will claim "you should have checked this bag".
If there was no obvious prohibited item in the bag, then the govenent does not have much of a case against her concerning not screening items. She would likely had to violate the law (administrative search authority) to request additional screening on items that by law/policy did not require it.
Dec 19, 2015, 9:43 pm
#67
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,417
WillCAD, That is an interesting intoretation.
The specific reference to her operating the xray suggest something different to me. I suspect the case against her is very thin. The govenrment would have to prove she did not perform "the required screening".
This suggest to me they have xray images of the carryon item from the xray she operated and she knowing allowed prohibited items in i.e knive, watet etc. OR, they will claim "you should have checked this bag".
If there was no obvious prohibited item in the bag, then the govenent does not have much of a case against her concerning not screening items. She would likely had to violate the law (adminstrative search authority) to request additional screening on items that by law/policy did not require it.
The specific reference to her operating the xray suggest something different to me. I suspect the case against her is very thin. The govenrment would have to prove she did not perform "the required screening".
This suggest to me they have xray images of the carryon item from the xray she operated and she knowing allowed prohibited items in i.e knive, watet etc. OR, they will claim "you should have checked this bag".
If there was no obvious prohibited item in the bag, then the govenent does not have much of a case against her concerning not screening items. She would likely had to violate the law (adminstrative search authority) to request additional screening on items that by law/policy did not require it.
Dec 19, 2015, 9:58 pm
#68
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Indianapolis
Programs: Hilton-Diamond Lifetime Platinum AA UA, WN-CP, SPG Gold.
Posts: 7,377
It appears someone got busted and ratted, or sold out a TSA screener.
It's more of a compliance issue of following the law, making the TSA Sreener a liability.
It's more of a compliance issue of following the law, making the TSA Sreener a liability.
Dec 20, 2015, 6:37 am
#69
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,129
In my experience large blobs of organic material draw TSA inspection, whether carry-on or checked. A large bag of drugs would be a blob of organic material. I think what they must be saying is that there were shapes on the x-ray that should have been inspected but weren't.
I am not in favor of illegal drug trade but stand strongly against illegal searches by government actors.
Dec 20, 2015, 9:17 am
#70
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Time to carry around loose tea leaves in thin wooden boxes inside cabin baggage. There is no good reason for a bag/bid with just loose leaves to be subjected to a domestic CONUS inspection by the TSA. But my bet is that some screener is going to jump on them under the "see something, say something" nonsense sold to the country.
Dec 20, 2015, 2:38 pm
#71
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,417
Are TSA screeners taught that organic blobs likely represent possible drugs? If that is what's going on then TSA screeners are violating the carve out for limited administrative inspections.
I am not in favor of illegal drug trade but stand strongly against illegal searches by government actors.
I am not in favor of illegal drug trade but stand strongly against illegal searches by government actors.
The reason I excluded pot is that density seems to matter--the same sort of thing of low density material doesn't draw a search.
Dec 22, 2015, 7:31 am
#72
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 574
"The reason I excluded pot is that density seems to matter--the same sort of thing of low density material doesn't draw a search."
Please, let's not get caught up in sophisticated physical/chemical parameters
like density; remember we are dealing with feeble-minded TSA
agents in this discussion who got their jobs from pizza box ads.
Please, let's not get caught up in sophisticated physical/chemical parameters
like density; remember we are dealing with feeble-minded TSA
agents in this discussion who got their jobs from pizza box ads.
Dec 22, 2015, 10:02 am
#73
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,129
I don't know what they look like but in my experience a bag will always be opened and a carry-on will be checked because they can't resolve it. I think it's the blob without structure that causes the problem.
The reason I excluded pot is that density seems to matter--the same sort of thing of low density material doesn't draw a search.
The reason I excluded pot is that density seems to matter--the same sort of thing of low density material doesn't draw a search.
I honestly believe that TSA is engaged in illegal searches for drugs.
Dec 22, 2015, 11:05 am
#74
In Memoriam
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Katoomba (Blue Mountains)
Programs: Mucci
Posts: 8,083
(Not sure about the US, but in Australia, somewhat who is less than intelligent is often described as "dense".
Dave
Dec 22, 2015, 12:05 pm
#75
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Finally back in Boston after escaping from New York
Posts: 13,644
On another note, this whole thread is yet another argument in favor of decriminalization: Make the TSA's life easier.
Mike