TSA wants to criminalize leaving security
 

TSA can already fine someone for for leaving security, but now they want to have an actual law on the books. I think Albany needs a new Sheriff.

http://www.timesunion.com/local/arti...ty-7941060.php

"Sheriff Craig Apple said he proposed the measure at the urging of Bart Johnson, head of TSA security operations at upstate airports, who hopes it will become a model for other airports. It is co-sponsored by Democratic Majority Leader Frank Commisso and Republican Minority Leader Frank Mauriello."

Mych

The country needs a wall that separates the traveling American public from the TSA and the other apologists for this kind of law.

An adult leaving security to recover their toddler or other young child who has escaped their grasp will be subject to criminal prosecution for such action? No thanks.

An adult leaving security in a rush to go to the bathroom to relieve their bowels, bladder or their stomach/upper digestive tract contents will be subject to criminal prosecution for such action? No thanks.

An adult leaving security to avoid being groped by strangers will be subject to criminal prosecution for such action? No thanks.

In a free country, the real divide is between those who love freedom and those who can't tolerate freedom for others who have not done society any real harm.

IIRC, this was tried previously with the airports surrounding Albany and went nowhere. Hopefully, it will go nowhere again.

The thread title is completely misleading. As is made clear, TSA does not propose anything. One low-level <redacted by moderator> who happens to be a TSA employee has proposed something at a local level in upstate NY.

Before even considering this, it would be interesting to see cold hard academic data suggesting that there will be greater compliance. The starting point has to be that checkpoints ought to be subject to uniform federal rules.

The fact that nobody has even proposed a criminal penalty at the federal level and that a low-level TSA employee (head of security for a tiny region) cannot get traction within his own agency, says it all.

It would be helpful if people posting on FT were as careful as the author of the article was. He makes it quite clear where the proposal comes from.

I would like to know how many pax actually walked away from the screening.

Is there something about upstate NY airports, that people exit the checkpoint before screening is completed in significant numbers?

Absent reliable data to the contrary, it sounds to me like a 'fix' for a non-existent problem. Interestingly, the frisk the cops are allowed to give someone arrested for leaving the checkpoint won't be as invasive as many gropes. Indeed, I expect that TSA will insist on finishing a grope before making any arrest.

I do want to give some credit where credit is due:

This is a very well written article. How many times do articles like this turn into TSA puff pieces or, at least, pro-security. This article showed both sides of the story, and I was able to make a fair assessment (which, btw, is that this law would be stupid).

This might be the stupidest law proposal I have ever seen. What's next...to thwart bank robberies, it will now be a felony to almost walk into a bank and then go somewhere else..

Last year I flew out of MKG, (muskegon, MI). The airport has two flights a day to/fro O'Hare.

The first time I went through security, I wanted a drink. Well...the airport is so small, the vending machines were actually outside of security. I mean, probably 20 feet from the metal detectors, the airport after all isn't large.

I asked what my options were, and they said I would have to grab all my stuff, leave the "sterile" area, and re clear security.

I know this isn't indicative of 99% of the traveling public, but this could never be a one-size fits all law.

Sorry I'm from out West and have never heard of this before. It isn't clear. Do they mean to prohibit leaving security without approval and going airside? That kind of makes sense.
Or do they mean that once you enter the security conveyor area you can't return to landside, that you're now committed to going through the entire inspection even if you've decided not to fly? Or - surely not - that simply entering the document check line - the one that sometimes snakes all the way back to the entrance doors commits you - under threat of prosecution - to going airside?

Why does it make sense? If you're willing to be re-screened to get back in, there shouldn't be an issue (although I did once see a traveler get some mild harassment for this).

This is what they mean. Once you've "submitted" they don't want you to decide you don't like it and leave.

Sounds to me they are talking about people that refuse screening once they pass into the screening area. (These are people that refuse screening and offer to leave.) There are already signs that read "Once you pass this point, you must be screened" or similar. They want to make it a law that you can't change your mind-vs a fine. Similarly, if you are going to be checked again at the gate you can't refuse and decide not to get on the plane.

Not saying I agree, but this is not for people that need to:
Go to the bathroom
Left something in the car
etc

Seems as though they can go back through and be rescreened without incident.

If you get into the security line at an airport, you're in it for a half hour, you then need to use the bathroom, then a stupid law like this would affect you.

Not allowing a person to freely leave, without threat of fine or imprisonment, means that once you enter the security area, you are detained. Since TSA is not a law enforcement agency, they can't detain anyone. To try to do so would be tantamount to kidnapping. They can prevent you from proceeding past the checkpoint without clearing security, but at any point in time a passenger should be free to turn back for any reason they see fit.

I was standing in line when I got a call from my customer canceling my meeting, which means I was no longer flying that day. I peeled out of line and headed for the parking garage. With a law like this, I would have had to remain in line, go through security, then walked around the "sterile" area to an exit.

I can see how this would play out right now.

Not how it's supposed to work, but how some TSOs will exercise their discretion to make it work.

Some elderly person (or someone unfortunate to be taking medications that have unpleasant gastric side effects) has an urgent need to go to the bathroom - or someone like catocony has another perfectly legitimate reason to exit the checkpoint before completing screening. Pax explains to TSO.

TSO's first response will be to force the pax to stand there and engage in a long, protracted discussion about why the rules forbid the pax to leave the line. Then the TSO would have to summon LE (and a few non-working LTSOs, STSOs and BDOs, just for good measure and because they have nothing else to do). When LE finally arrives, LE asks TSA for orders. Pax is told that rules are rules and pax will wait in line and finish screening or be arrested.

Prolonged, retaliatory screening follows.

BTW, the fool who thought up this law is an ex-cop, new to TSA and anxious to expand on the notion that all pax are guilty unless given a temporary one-time only reprieve at the checkpoint.

It also reinforces the widespread misbelief that TSA is a law enforcement agency. It would actually move TSA a step closer to becoming a law enforcement agency, which is the wet dream of all of the DHS advocates out there.

+1000 ^