FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate-687/)
-   -   Pax harassed and screened AFTER flight - video (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate/1726834-pax-harassed-screened-after-flight-video.html)

DaveBlaine Nov 25, 2015 12:50 pm


Originally Posted by chollie (Post 25771615)
You're scoffing, but there have been TSOs who tried to exert their own authority (federal agents flashing badges) outside the airport - it's happened more than once, although I hardly think it's a frequent occurrence.

I obviously can't speak to all airports or police departments, but I do know that some cops' bosses do not want calls from the local FSD complaining that the cops aren't backing the TSOs. They are stationed at the airport in a supporting role for the TSOs, so it's hardly surprising if some of them see it as an 'us v. them' situation. Brothers-in-arms and all that.

There are certainly some 'good' cops at airports; I've encountered one. The LEs in my family will point out that unfortunately, sometimes even good cops get a 'timeout' and get assigned to the airport, but it is most certainly not a position anyone vies for. Unless a cop gets 'lucky' enough to be involved in an airport disaster (shooting at LAX), it's not a career-enhancing assignment.

Why don't the powers that be just eliminate the middle-man? Empower the TSOs with the tools and authority they need without having to rely on their "brothers in blue" who may not be willing or motivated to help them. It should be "One Team, One Fight" as they BOTH stand on the front lines against terrorism. Apparently some aren't seeing it that way.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/...tsa-personnel/

All this could be done at the very top with a stroke of the pen in an Executive Order.

chollie Nov 25, 2015 12:58 pm

There's been discussion on this forum - way above my pay grade.

The upshot is that TSA would lose more than they would gain. The gropes are far beyond what an ordinary LE would be permitted to do as a routine measure. The administrative fines and penalties with no right to due process would have to change to a more transparent legal issue.

Think of the photography issues. It's legal to photograph at many airports. Pax is taking photos - not necessarily even of the checkpoint - and a TSO complains. Pax cites the law. TSO calls cops, cops show up and, in far too many cases, shut the photographer down - not based on the law, which in this case the cop should know as well or better than the TSO, but based on the demand of the TSO.

DaveBlaine Nov 25, 2015 1:02 pm


Originally Posted by chollie (Post 25771690)
There's been discussion on this forum - way above my pay grade.

The upshot is that TSA would lose more than they would gain. The gropes are far beyond what an ordinary LE would be permitted to do as a routine measure. The administrative fines and penalties with no right to due process would have to change to a more transparent legal issue.

Think of the photography issues. It's legal to photograph at many airports. Pax is taking photos - not necessarily even of the checkpoint - and a TSO complains. Pax cites the law. TSO calls cops, cops show up and, in far too many cases, shut the photographer down - not based on the law, which in this case the cop should know as well or better than the TSO, but based on the demand of the TSO.

You create a Federal Agent Screener-type position that doesn't have to rely on other agencies to do its job. And it has the weight and power of the Federal Government, DHS, etc. They're already spending Billions on this agency, why not?

chollie Nov 25, 2015 1:13 pm


Originally Posted by DaveBlaine (Post 25771700)
You create a Federal Agent Screener-type position that doesn't have to rely on other agencies to do its job. And it has the weight and power of the Federal Government, DHS, etc. They're already spending Billions on this agency, why not?

What positive value would we get for the additional expenditures that we do not currently get?

Assign an underperforming 'problem child' cop to the airport because you can't fire him. Tell him to keep his nose clean and stay out of trouble and maybe someday he'll get to be a 'real' cop again. Local taxpayers are already on the hook for paying for this guy.

Now send him back to the streets and shell out additional money to hire a 'federal armed screener' at very high pay and benefits to perform the task the cop used to perform - sit around, eat donuts, and wait for something, anything, to happen to relieve the boredom.

I'm not seeing the benefits here. If we want to go that route, re-assign air marshals to high-profile airports to perform this function. We're already stuck paying for them.

DaveBlaine Nov 25, 2015 1:30 pm


Originally Posted by chollie (Post 25771752)
What positive value would we get for the additional expenditures that we do not currently get?

Assign an underperforming 'problem child' cop to the airport because you can't fire him. Tell him to keep his nose clean and stay out of trouble and maybe someday he'll get to be a 'real' cop again. Local taxpayers are already on the hook for paying for this guy.

Now send him back to the streets and shell out additional money to hire a 'federal armed screener' at very high pay and benefits to perform the task the cop used to perform - sit around, eat donuts, and wait for something, anything, to happen to relieve the boredom.

I'm not seeing the benefits here. If we want to go that route, re-assign air marshals to high-profile airports to perform this function. We're already stuck paying for them.

I think we're coming at it from two different approaches. Let me try a metaphor. Remember when you were a kid and left home alone and your mom told you not to use the stove? Well, what if you were empowered to use that stove instead of waiting for an adult to get home?

Same thing with the TSO's. Instead of waiting for them to get a police officer (in the metaphor "an adult") we empower them to do what needs to be done. And then we don't assign any bad apple cops to airports. None would be needed. Put cops back out on the streets where they can crack down on street crime.

chollie Nov 25, 2015 1:38 pm


Originally Posted by DaveBlaine (Post 25771804)
I think we're coming at it from two different approaches. Let me try a metaphor. Remember when you were a kid and left home alone and your mom told you not to use the stove? Well, what if you were empowered to use that stove instead of waiting for an adult to get home?

Same thing with the TSO's. Instead of waiting for them to get a police officer (in the metaphor "an adult") we empower them to do what needs to be done. And then we don't assign any bad apple cops to airports. None would be needed. Put cops back out on the streets where they can crack down on street crime.

Put the under-performing cops back on the streets where they are likely to be doing anything but performing well - otherwise they wouldn't have been sent to the airport in the first place. There's likely more latitude to get in trouble on the streets.

I get your metaphor but I don't believe it fits, and more importantly, I think it takes TSA farther away from their already poorly-performed core mission.

If the organization was well-run in the first place, if TSOs had mastered their skills and performed them regularly, if the overseers (LTSOs, STSOs and suits) did their jobs properly, we would not be having this conversation.

gingersnaps Nov 25, 2015 1:59 pm


Originally Posted by chollie (Post 25771155)
I posted earlier - if you want a fuller account, courtesy of TSOs who posted here regularly, you'll have to search the forum (and it can be a pain, sorry).

A frequent TSO poster (allegedly a trainer) told us that TSA recognizes and defends against the possibility of multiple bad actors departing from different airports, meeting at a common connection airport, and assembling the stuff they have brought into something nasty.

For instance, that was used to explain why a shell casing gets confiscated. What can you do with a shell casing? Well, you can meet friends in the sterile area who have arrived on other flights, bringing more necessary bits. Put it all together and you have a problem.

So...according to that teaching, this guy may have had contraband on him that he planned to give to a partner he was meeting on arrival or he may have been stashing it somewhere in the terminal so that someone else could retrieve it and wreak havoc.

Might make sense, if empty shell cassings are not prohibited in my experience.


A supervisor at T2 PHX told me that pax and their belongings are subject to search at anytime without warning and without a requirement to do it in the sight of the pax. Nothing to do with SSSS - this applies to all pax (but not TSOs or airport workers).
I would say that is a clear violation of the of what at least one Federal Court has required about notice. And in my experience TSA always puts up a sign when they are screening at boarding gates.

chollie Nov 25, 2015 5:06 pm


Originally Posted by gingersnaps (Post 25771943)
Might make sense, if empty shell cassings are not prohibited in my experience.



I would say that is a clear violation of the of what at least one Federal Court has required about notice. And in my experience TSA always puts up a sign when they are screening at boarding gates.

I have never seen such a sign - not when TSA was gate-screening and not when TSA wandered the terminal testing people's liquids, including beverages clearly purchased in the terminal for immediate consumption.

The gate-screening (no signs) must be challenging for TSOs - they have to distinguish contraband bottles of water smuggled through the checkpoint from legitimate, safe bottles bought in the sterile area. I always make it a point to keep my receipts for just that reason - although admittedly, a clever TSO would realize that there's no way to ensure that the bottle I am holding is the one that is listed on the receipt, ergo, further testing or confiscation is necessary.

petaluma1 Nov 25, 2015 5:10 pm


Originally Posted by chollie (Post 25772751)
I have never seen such a sign - not when TSA was gate-screening and not when TSA wandered the terminal testing people's liquids, including beverages clearly purchased in the terminal for immediate consumption.

Have they stopped this nonsense? I've not read/heard any complaints in quite some time.

chollie Nov 25, 2015 5:39 pm


Originally Posted by petaluma1 (Post 25772763)
Have they stopped this nonsense? I've not read/heard any complaints in quite some time.

I haven't seen the roaming liquid testers in a while.

Occasionally I see the gate gropes in progress but never a sign. Sometimes they come with a cart, sometimes not.

Boggie Dog Nov 25, 2015 5:58 pm

The last thing we need is LEO status for TSA screeners. Nothing good would come from doing that.

chollie Nov 25, 2015 6:10 pm


Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 25772940)
The last thing we need is LEO status for TSA screeners. Nothing good would come from doing that.

Bad enough that they got their over-priced bogus TSA 'Academy'. Does anyone really believe they didn't ultimately intend to use that 'academy' as a basis for introducing armed TSOs? TSO 'SWAT' teams?

The agency is all about expansion, empire building and using taxpayer dollars to line the pockets of former DHS brass and their pals.

sethb Nov 25, 2015 6:23 pm


Originally Posted by chollie (Post 25766791)
Interesting training the TSOs get.

It took many months to get TSOs to accept NEXUS cards as valid ID, yet somehow TSA seems to have gotten the word out pretty effectively to never say 'yes' when a pax asks if s/he is being detained.

I wonder what happens if a screener decides to exercise his/her 'discretion' and actually tell a pax s/he is being detained?

If I were the pax, I'd loudly scream for the police and start making statements about unlawful detention, kidnapping, etc.


Note: there has been discussion about this type of screening in the past. One concern resident TSOs brought up was the possibility of multiple persons participating in a threat across multiple airports. Anyone who was already in the air by the time TSA realized they hadn't been properly screened may be part of a conspiracy to transfer contraband to another bad person in the sterile area of the destination airport.

The only way to stop a plot like that is to screen those pax immediately on arrival. Hopefully they didn't purchase any contraband inside the sterile area before departing, or they'll likely get it confiscated - out of an abundance of caution.
Or just follow the passenger out of the security theater area. With 3 TSA goons visibly following him anyone else involved in a conspiracy with him will stay far away.

sethb Nov 25, 2015 6:24 pm


Originally Posted by chollie (Post 25766835)
They don't (supposedly) have authority to detain, but as long as pax are in the sterile area, it doesn't matter how they got there - they and their belongings are subject to search (and retaliatory delay) at any time.

They can't, however, threaten you with missing your flight (assuming you don't have a connecting flight).

As Rand Paul found out, calling the cops doesn't make any difference.

Apparently, somebody doesn't know the Constitution.

sethb Nov 25, 2015 6:26 pm


Originally Posted by DaveBlaine (Post 25767039)
What about passengers and their belongings being subject to search at any time while in the sterile area?

What about that? Which law says so? What penalty can apply, other than being removed from the sterile area (which is what someone wants on arrival anyway)?


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 6:02 am.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.