This week in TSA history starting January 1, 2016
Feb 24, 2016, 9:27 am
#32
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,424
[QUOTE=Boggie Dog;26215885]
Do you agree that TSA screeners are not allowed a fishing expedition to find drugs?
Are TSA screeners trained in illegal drug identification?
And in some cases TSA screeners search for non-WEI.
I do.
I am not certain, I do not know all TSOs.
At least in one case that went to court.
Do you agree that TSA screeners are not allowed a fishing expedition to find drugs?
Are TSA screeners trained in illegal drug identification?
And in some cases TSA screeners search for non-WEI.
I am not certain, I do not know all TSOs.
At least in one case that went to court.
Feb 24, 2016, 10:15 am
#33
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,129
Feb 24, 2016, 10:28 am
#34
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: DL PM, MM, NR; HH Diamond, Bonvoy LT Gold, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Diamond, others
Posts: 12,159
This is actually pretty close to the answer. When there is something that looks different (such an organic where one is not normally found), it is searched to make certain it is not a threat item.
Cocaine does not necessarily pose a security risk, but TSOs are obliged to contact local LEOs when they find items that appear to be illegal items (like marijuana or cocaine).
Not quite. There are several other ways that TSOs and any number of citizens can be familiarized with different types of illicit drugs - many of them legal.
In some cases, that is exactly what happens. Large organic items trigger bag checks. In some cases, small organic items trigger bag checks.
Cocaine does not necessarily pose a security risk, but TSOs are obliged to contact local LEOs when they find items that appear to be illegal items (like marijuana or cocaine).
Not quite. There are several other ways that TSOs and any number of citizens can be familiarized with different types of illicit drugs - many of them legal.
In some cases, that is exactly what happens. Large organic items trigger bag checks. In some cases, small organic items trigger bag checks.
It's another when they see something strange, but not dangerous to an airplane, and search that.
But if you want to smuggle a powder drug, put it in a can marked "baby powder". Let's see the TSA call that suspicious.
Feb 24, 2016, 10:31 am
#35
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: DL PM, MM, NR; HH Diamond, Bonvoy LT Gold, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Diamond, others
Posts: 12,159
Tossing the can because it's over 3 oz is reasonable. What looked dangerous on the xray that permitted them to open the false bottom?
Feb 24, 2016, 11:45 am
#36
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,129
The cans shave cream content would have exceeded the 100ml limit. No problem with that. Going beyond that exceeds the limited Administrative Search doctrine.
For a TSA screener to tamper with a potential IED is just typical TSA stupidity.
Feb 24, 2016, 12:00 pm
#37
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,714
[QUOTE=petaluma1;26226642]
The credit cards might conceal knife blades, the bills might test positive for drugs or exceed the $10K limit for undeclared cash on INTERNATIONAL travel, and the business papers might contain arabic characters (or Hebrew - few, if any, TSOs would know the difference).
Of course, that's all BS, and it's nothing more than harassment and bullying, conducted right in front of LTSOs, STSOs, and suits who are too busy chatting with each other and playing with their cellphones to 'see something, say something'.
Besides, does the 'authoritay' of an LTSO, STSO or suit over-ride "screener's discretion"? If a screener feels 'threatened' by a wallet full of cash and credit cards, doesn't s/he have the discretionary authority to check it out - and confiscate, if desired?
Of course, that's all BS, and it's nothing more than harassment and bullying, conducted right in front of LTSOs, STSOs, and suits who are too busy chatting with each other and playing with their cellphones to 'see something, say something'.
Besides, does the 'authoritay' of an LTSO, STSO or suit over-ride "screener's discretion"? If a screener feels 'threatened' by a wallet full of cash and credit cards, doesn't s/he have the discretionary authority to check it out - and confiscate, if desired?
Feb 24, 2016, 12:10 pm
#38
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,714
This is actually pretty close to the answer. When there is something that looks different (such an organic where one is not normally found), it is searched to make certain it is not a threat item.
Cocaine does not necessarily pose a security risk, but TSOs are obliged to contact local LEOs when they find items that appear to be illegal items (like marijuana or cocaine).
Not quite. There are several other ways that TSOs and any number of citizens can be familiarized with different types of illicit drugs - many of them legal.
In some cases, that is exactly what happens. Large organic items trigger bag checks. In some cases, small organic items trigger bag checks.
Cocaine does not necessarily pose a security risk, but TSOs are obliged to contact local LEOs when they find items that appear to be illegal items (like marijuana or cocaine).
Not quite. There are several other ways that TSOs and any number of citizens can be familiarized with different types of illicit drugs - many of them legal.
In some cases, that is exactly what happens. Large organic items trigger bag checks. In some cases, small organic items trigger bag checks.
Is this why my nitro pills were confiscated?
Because they were a recognizable drug (in their original, clearly labelled, container), but under TSA's rules they are simultaneously illicit and legal?
If that's the case - that TSA can categorize legal drugs as 'illicit' at the checkpoint and confiscate them, shouldn't travelers be informed ahead of time?
I find absolutely nothing on the TSA website about legal drugs also being illicit and subject to confiscation at the checkpoint. Is this 'gotcha' information contained only in SSI/SOP documents unavailable to the traveling public? Or is this just GSOLTSO's 'screener discretion' definition?
I'm sure it is SSI, but I wonder what made my nitro pills, prescribed to me, in their original prescription bottles, 'illicit' and subject to confiscation?
Kind of scary to realize that not only are my nitro pills subject to confiscation, apparently any legal medication can also be deemed 'illicit' by a screener and confiscated and the public has no way of finding out about this ahead of time.
Medical consequences: some drugs can not be 'skipped' or abruptly stopped without great risk.
Financial consequences: some drugs are VERY expensive. Insurance/Medicare does not reimburse someone for legal-but-illicit drugs confiscated by TSA.
Legal consequences: try to get a replacement for some legal-but-illicit drugs confiscated by TSA, and your health care provider/pharmacist may make a note that you might be 'shopping' for excessive doses - TSA refused to give me a receipt when they confiscated my nitro pills, so I have no way to prove to the doctor/pharmacist/LE that I didn't sell the drugs to someone instead of having them confiscated by TSA or that I haven't been taking them more often than I need.
Do TSO background checks ensure that any prescription drugs carried by screeners are both legal AND licit, or is this just a hidden-from-the-public standard applied only to pax?
Feb 24, 2016, 12:20 pm
#39
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,129
[QUOTE=chollie;26237651]
The credit cards might conceal knife blades, the bills might test positive for drugs or exceed the $10K limit for undeclared cash on INTERNATIONAL travel, and the business papers might contain arabic characters (or Hebrew - few, if any, TSOs would know the difference).
Of course, that's all BS, and it's nothing more than harassment and bullying, conducted right in front of LTSOs, STSOs, and suits who are too busy chatting with each other and playing with their cellphones to 'see something, say something'.
Besides, does the 'authoritay' of an LTSO, STSO or suit over-ride "screener's discretion"? If a screener feels 'threatened' by a wallet full of cash and credit cards, doesn't s/he have the discretionary authority to check it out - and confiscate, if desired?
The only thing you listed above that should concern the TSA screeners is credit card knives. Money is of no concern to TSA and almost all paper money has traces of drug residue. Text of any kind should scare screeners, that is what time and time again shows how non-functional TSA is.
The credit cards might conceal knife blades, the bills might test positive for drugs or exceed the $10K limit for undeclared cash on INTERNATIONAL travel, and the business papers might contain arabic characters (or Hebrew - few, if any, TSOs would know the difference).
Of course, that's all BS, and it's nothing more than harassment and bullying, conducted right in front of LTSOs, STSOs, and suits who are too busy chatting with each other and playing with their cellphones to 'see something, say something'.
Besides, does the 'authoritay' of an LTSO, STSO or suit over-ride "screener's discretion"? If a screener feels 'threatened' by a wallet full of cash and credit cards, doesn't s/he have the discretionary authority to check it out - and confiscate, if desired?
Feb 24, 2016, 10:45 pm
#40
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: DL PM, MM, NR; HH Diamond, Bonvoy LT Gold, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Diamond, others
Posts: 12,159
The credit cards might conceal knife blades, the bills might test positive for drugs or exceed the $10K limit for undeclared cash on INTERNATIONAL travel, and the business papers might contain arabic characters (or Hebrew - few, if any, TSOs would know the difference).
Of course, that's all BS, and it's nothing more than harassment and bullying, conducted right in front of LTSOs, STSOs, and suits who are too busy chatting with each other and playing with their cellphones to 'see something, say something'.
Besides, does the 'authoritay' of an LTSO, STSO or suit over-ride "screener's discretion"? If a screener feels 'threatened' by a wallet full of cash and credit cards, doesn't s/he have the discretionary authority to check it out - and confiscate, if desired?
Of course, that's all BS, and it's nothing more than harassment and bullying, conducted right in front of LTSOs, STSOs, and suits who are too busy chatting with each other and playing with their cellphones to 'see something, say something'.
Besides, does the 'authoritay' of an LTSO, STSO or suit over-ride "screener's discretion"? If a screener feels 'threatened' by a wallet full of cash and credit cards, doesn't s/he have the discretionary authority to check it out - and confiscate, if desired?
Feb 24, 2016, 10:58 pm
#41
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: DL PM, MM, NR; HH Diamond, Bonvoy LT Gold, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Diamond, others
Posts: 12,159
Is this why my nitro pills were confiscated?
Because they were a recognizable drug (in their original, clearly labelled, container), but under TSA's rules they are simultaneously illicit and legal?
If that's the case - that TSA can categorize legal drugs as 'illicit' at the checkpoint and confiscate them, shouldn't travelers be informed ahead of time?
I find absolutely nothing on the TSA website about legal drugs also being illicit and subject to confiscation at the checkpoint. Is this 'gotcha' information contained only in SSI/SOP documents unavailable to the traveling public? Or is this just GSOLTSO's 'screener discretion' definition?
I'm sure it is SSI, but I wonder what made my nitro pills, prescribed to me, in their original prescription bottles, 'illicit' and subject to confiscation?
Kind of scary to realize that not only are my nitro pills subject to confiscation, apparently any legal medication can also be deemed 'illicit' by a screener and confiscated and the public has no way of finding out about this ahead of time.
Medical consequences: some drugs can not be 'skipped' or abruptly stopped without great risk.
Financial consequences: some drugs are VERY expensive. Insurance/Medicare does not reimburse someone for legal-but-illicit drugs confiscated by TSA.
Legal consequences: try to get a replacement for some legal-but-illicit drugs confiscated by TSA, and your health care provider/pharmacist may make a note that you might be 'shopping' for excessive doses - TSA refused to give me a receipt when they confiscated my nitro pills, so I have no way to prove to the doctor/pharmacist/LE that I didn't sell the drugs to someone instead of having them confiscated by TSA or that I haven't been taking them more often than I need.
Do TSO background checks ensure that any prescription drugs carried by screeners are both legal AND licit, or is this just a hidden-from-the-public standard applied only to pax?
Because they were a recognizable drug (in their original, clearly labelled, container), but under TSA's rules they are simultaneously illicit and legal?
If that's the case - that TSA can categorize legal drugs as 'illicit' at the checkpoint and confiscate them, shouldn't travelers be informed ahead of time?
I find absolutely nothing on the TSA website about legal drugs also being illicit and subject to confiscation at the checkpoint. Is this 'gotcha' information contained only in SSI/SOP documents unavailable to the traveling public? Or is this just GSOLTSO's 'screener discretion' definition?
I'm sure it is SSI, but I wonder what made my nitro pills, prescribed to me, in their original prescription bottles, 'illicit' and subject to confiscation?
Kind of scary to realize that not only are my nitro pills subject to confiscation, apparently any legal medication can also be deemed 'illicit' by a screener and confiscated and the public has no way of finding out about this ahead of time.
Medical consequences: some drugs can not be 'skipped' or abruptly stopped without great risk.
Financial consequences: some drugs are VERY expensive. Insurance/Medicare does not reimburse someone for legal-but-illicit drugs confiscated by TSA.
Legal consequences: try to get a replacement for some legal-but-illicit drugs confiscated by TSA, and your health care provider/pharmacist may make a note that you might be 'shopping' for excessive doses - TSA refused to give me a receipt when they confiscated my nitro pills, so I have no way to prove to the doctor/pharmacist/LE that I didn't sell the drugs to someone instead of having them confiscated by TSA or that I haven't been taking them more often than I need.
Do TSO background checks ensure that any prescription drugs carried by screeners are both legal AND licit, or is this just a hidden-from-the-public standard applied only to pax?
Feb 25, 2016, 8:22 am
#42
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,714
The only way TSA will know if you are carrying >$10K is by counting it out.
Why this would be done when someone is on a domestic flight beats me - 'screener discretion', I guess.
Feb 25, 2016, 8:25 am
#43
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 sure that TSOs are given 'chain-of-evidence' preservation. Wouldn't want any dangerous meds to 'accidentally' end up in the wrong hands or mouths, now would we?
Feb 25, 2016, 8:28 am
#44
Join Date: May 2008
Location: BOS
Programs: TSA TSO
Posts: 455
[QUOTE=Boggie Dog;26237081]
No. But green, leafy substance or white, powdery substance wrapped in brick form is pretty suspicious to me and that's someone who's never touched drugs.
Plus, no to mention, most drug addicts usually get themselves caught at checkpoints because they usually have something on them in their pants and refuse to divest (just like US v. Aukai) when it's caught on say an AIT pat-down and that usually leads to LEOs being called.
Plus, no to mention, most drug addicts usually get themselves caught at checkpoints because they usually have something on them in their pants and refuse to divest (just like US v. Aukai) when it's caught on say an AIT pat-down and that usually leads to LEOs being called.
Feb 25, 2016, 2:53 pm
#45
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
[QUOTE=LoganTSO;26241840]
No. But green, leafy substance or white, powdery substance wrapped in brick form is pretty suspicious to me and that's someone who's never touched drugs.
Plus, no to mention, most drug addicts usually get themselves caught at checkpoints because they usually have something on them in their pants and refuse to divest (just like US v. Aukai) when it's caught on say an AIT pat-down and that usually leads to LEOs being called.
Unfortunately, I agree with you. Most people documented as being caught with drugs at a checkpoint have no intention of a Constitutional fight. They just want their drugs. Their lawyers try to get them off to get them off, not to challenge these illegal TSA drug busts on 4th Amendment grounds.
The way to get our Constitution back is to construct a very well-thought out "sting" on the TSA clerks under very controlled conditions at a checkpoint where the only way the drugs are discovered is through an illegal search. Then, you have to hope that the TSA clerk actually finds the planted drugs and that he calls over an actual cop who arrests the "victim" using the illegally-obtained evidence as his only probably cause. Then, you have to hope that the "victim" is actually prosecuted. Then, you have to do this at an airport in the district of a Constitution-loving judge.
You know? An easier way would be for Congress to simply give us our Constitution back. Or, a President with a phone and a pen could simply issue an executive order.
No. But green, leafy substance or white, powdery substance wrapped in brick form is pretty suspicious to me and that's someone who's never touched drugs.
Plus, no to mention, most drug addicts usually get themselves caught at checkpoints because they usually have something on them in their pants and refuse to divest (just like US v. Aukai) when it's caught on say an AIT pat-down and that usually leads to LEOs being called.
The way to get our Constitution back is to construct a very well-thought out "sting" on the TSA clerks under very controlled conditions at a checkpoint where the only way the drugs are discovered is through an illegal search. Then, you have to hope that the TSA clerk actually finds the planted drugs and that he calls over an actual cop who arrests the "victim" using the illegally-obtained evidence as his only probably cause. Then, you have to hope that the "victim" is actually prosecuted. Then, you have to do this at an airport in the district of a Constitution-loving judge.
You know? An easier way would be for Congress to simply give us our Constitution back. Or, a President with a phone and a pen could simply issue an executive order.