The sign you posted was for a VIPR operation and refers to direct access points. Direct access point signage is one of the five primary areas of TSA signage. One of the other five is checkpoint signage. Do you not have access to the current version of the TSA Airport Signage Guidelines for specific sign descriptions and location within the checkpoint? Even if this was at a checkpoint, it does not contradict what I have been stating. Once again, I don’t think the signage says what you think that it says.


First, your list is irrelevant as it completely fails to address the search that is at issue. Second, you are "not going to argue the language [I am] using" because you have not been able to show even a scintilla of legal evidence to contradict the relevant regulation I have quoted now several times, even though that is the crux of the matter.

You mean like when TSOs would come through waiting areas to have their magic strips sniff passengers' liquids? I don't recall any passenger who refused if they were not then boarding an aircraft to have the "end result" "be you will be escorted from the sterile area, and denied access to the flights."

You previously stated that, "All searches conducted at the airport by TSA, are part of the regulatory scheme. They are clearly defined in regulation, are implemented according to those regulations and are used at several locations throughout the airport." Yet you continue not to, even as a minimum, link to those regulations where searches are "clearly defined". And there is a reason for your failure to do so -- because your position is not supported in the regulations.

Bottom line: a higher standard to conduct a search of a non-covered person is required if that person is not proceeding through the screening checkpoint or is not boarding an aircraft.

Of course I have access to the signage suggestions and requirements - as do you: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/...0_5360_12f.pdf

You can sift through it at your leisure. It does not contain an actual sign that I can find that matches the one at our checkpoints or any of the other checkpoints I have been through or worked.

What I do not have access to that I can post, is the actual signs. I also do not have the actual TSA signage guidelines to post, because they are not online for linking and may actually be considered SSI (or not, I am uneducated as to whether they are or are not). The FAA listing above outlines the majority of signage requirements per the FAA. I have been unable to find an actual posting online at TSA that includes the images for signage, or the actual signage requirements.

Wow, imagine that, we are going to disagree on something. The list is simply what happens for each and every passenger that comes through. The responses are what I have seen happen, and what has been described to me by other TSOs nationwide. If you feel that something that happens to you is outside of the law, it is your legal right to challenge it - I am unable to post SSI or other regulatory information that is not openly posted at TSA websites, so we will simply have to disagree on the signage, and the search consent.

As for the "sniffer strips", if it is being done according to SOP, if a passenger refuses screening that is identified as a part of the regulatory scheme (read that to mean it is written down in TSA SOPs, MDs or ODs), then the normal process is to be escorted out of the sterile area - whether that happens every single time or not, YMMV.

I fail to grasp how TSA signage meant for public reading could ever be considered SSI.

I have a personal policy that I will not post official TSA stuff, unless I can find it on a TSA page. I find that if I do not share anything that is not on their official pages with public access, I do not have a chance of running afoul of SSI/PII/non public information regulations or policies - written or unwritten.

Can't you try to find out what's SSI and what isn't?

Written and *unwritten* regulations and policies?

And how can anything be SSI if it isn't clearly identified as SSI wherever it appears?

Speaking of TSA searching for passengers:

This is in regard to the 11 passengers who got through a checkpoint at JFK this morning.

Here

I had already reviewed the FAA Circular, but last time I checked, FAA and TSA were not the same. And really nothing contained in that circular is relevant to the issue at hand, so that really is a rabbit trail.

I was referring to the TSA Airport Signage Guidelines (the exact words I used in my prior post), but it appears that the TSA wants to keep them hidden from view. Big surprise. And to suggest that the signage posted at screening checkpoints may be SSI is nonsensical. Once again, I don't think the signs at the screening checkpoint say what you think that they say.

You previously stated that, "All searches conducted at the airport by TSA, are part of the regulatory scheme. They are clearly defined in regulation, are implemented according to those regulations and are used at several locations throughout the airport." Yet you continue not to, even as a minimum, link to those regulations where searches are "clearly defined".

I guess I have to state this again: The inquiry does not start with TSA having broad authority to conduct searches of non-covered persons and then what regulations limit that authority. Just the opposite. A constitutional right inquiry starts with the basis that no search is permitted unless it is shown not to be unreasonable. As such the authority to conduct the search without a search warrant must be articulated and specific.

I have shown you the specific regulation:

Can you show me the regulation that expands TSA's administrative searches of non-covered persons beyond what I have noted? If not, then that is the TSA's limit.

The "TSA SOPs, MDs, or ODs" do require a higher standard to conduct a non-consensual search of a non-covered person if that person is not proceeding through the screening checkpoint or is not boarding an aircraft. For example, your Screening Management SOP only discusses the screening checkpoint and has one small section on gate screening. Note there is nothing about searches any other place.

You continue to fail to provide even a scintilla of legal evidence on searches outside of the screening checkpoint and during boarding to support your position. You are an agent of the government and continuing to make these assertions without showing any legal support is having a chilling effect on the exercise of our constitutional rights.

Couldn't you just snap some photos of the signage leading up to the TDC?

TSA has unwritten policies?

We will simply have to disagree.

Asked and answered above. No.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/27937662-post54.html

Notice how your last question was conveniently ignored.

Fully expected.

I am lead to believe that the original post concerned private leased space of an air carrier at DEN. Are you suggesting that TSA can enter, unannounced, the private leased space of an air carrier to conduct body searches of the air carrier employees, search the personal property of the air carrier employees which is located in the private leased space of the air carrier, or search through the air carriers property within that private leased spaced?

Airport tenant areas are under the conditions of the airport security program (and a tenant's security program, if applicable) all of which is under the jurisdiction of the TSA. Not suggesting but stating that, Yes, certain TSA employees (as well as certain employees of the airport operator) may inspect/search almost all areas of the airport (that fall within the program) at anytime according to the conditions of the program(s), the lease(s), and the law.

Don't get distracted by the "private leased areas" language - airports not similar to a rented apartment or house, or even commercial leased space like at an building.

The other threads regarding the CBP activity in NY made realize that you raise some good points that deserve a response; plus I have to admit that I overstated/was inaccurate in some parts.

In general, my responses are correct about the authorities of TSA as an agency and TSOs as employees.

Part 1542 applies to the security program of operators (and tenants, if applicable) which necessarily involves passengers and others not in the sterile area or not boarding airplanes. TSA as an agency, via certain employees, has broad authority through regulation and agreement with operators to search most parts of an airport and the persons and things therein. TSOs have very limited authority to do anything.

Yes, a TSO can demand an arriving pax to undergo a search. In fact, regulation specifically provides for searching ARRIVING pax in certain situations (didn't get searched at all, properly, or up to a certain standard) from international departure points and the procedures of a security program cover similar pax arriving on domestic flights. The regulations authorize such searches as part of the security program.

The key part of 1540 that authorizes the above is 1540.105 (2) "may not be present...without complying with the systems, measures, or procedures being applied to control..."

You are right that my description of required levels of suspicion are wrong. Saying "...reasonable suspicion is much to high a requirement..." was just plain wrong. I confused and exaggerated probable cause and reasonable suspicion.

Reasonable suspicion is required to search an individual outside of the SIDA, sterile, and secure areas (meaning the landside areas). What I was trying to express is my opinion that courts will give much more leeway and deference to what the government argues rises to an acceptable level of reasonable suspicion in an airport environment than what would apply out on the streets (away from a transportation environment).

The only issue I brought up was that a higher standard is required to conduct a search in the sterile area of a non-covered person compared to the administrative search standard of a person proceeding through the screening checkpoint or boarding an aircraft. I don't think that you have yet to agree that is the case. But I have quoted the regulation (more than once) and I have yet to see anything that refutes it.

Part 1542 is not applicable to passengers; only Part 1540 is.

I would appreciate seeing the specific authority for purely administrative searches outside of the screening checkpoint or not boarding an airplane. The inquiry does not start with TSA having broad authority to conduct searches of non-covered persons and then what regulations limit that authority. Just the opposite. A constitutional right inquiry starts with the basis that no search is permitted unless it is shown not to be unreasonable. As such the authority to conduct the search without a search warrant must be articulated and specific.

The TSA SOPs do require a higher standard to conduct a non-consensual search of a non-covered person if that person is not proceeding through the screening checkpoint or is not boarding an aircraft. For example, TSA's Screening Management SOP only discusses the screening checkpoint and has one small section on gate screening. Note there is nothing about searches any other place.

Actually, TSOs can't demand an arriving pax undergo a search based on an administrative search basis if all the passenger wants to do is exit the airport. We have certainly seen that where international arrivals in certain airports dump into the sterile area and, as such, have a screening checkpoint. But some have refused to go through that checkpoint and are then escorted out without undergoing a search.

That section addresses not only the “sterile area” as related to systems, measures and procedures. It also includes secured areas, AOAs and SIDAs. For that reason, the other “systems, measures, or procedures being applied to control access to, or presence or movement in, such areas” are dependent on the particular area at issue.

So what is your belief as to the standard required for searches of passengers in the sterile area who not proceeding through a screening checkpoint or not in the process of boarding an aircraft? Do you believe that a TSO can search a person outside of the sterile area based solely on reasonable suspicion?

Once again, the bottom line is that a higher standard to conduct a search of a non-covered person is required if that person is not proceeding through the screening checkpoint or is not boarding an aircraft.