FliesWay2Much

This time, the TSA felt compelled to go out on , but it made the https://www.flyertalk.com/articles/the-tsa-we-wont-look-for-your-pot.htmlof FT.

We've all heard this before:

This time around, there are a couple of subtle, but important differences:
1. "a substance appears to be marijuana or a cannabis infused product..." The long-used term "accidentally discovered" is not used. This would imply that, if they saw pot on the x-ray, they would bust you. A further speculation is that they must teach what pot looks like at the infamous academy.
2. This also implies that they no longer have to invent a WEI excuse for searching your bag for pot or other drugs.

They keep referring to "federal law" that requires them to call the cops. I was in federal civil and military service for over 40 years and I can honestly state that I have never seen this "law." Can anyone else quote chapter & verse?

petaluma1

Just guessing from reading an article in Forbes: The Controlled Substances Act?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzanne.../#1917a3d331e6

Boggie Dog

TSA, we don't need any stinking laws!

yandosan

Now that marijuana is legal for so many people, has the protocol changed?

petaluma1

Nope. Federally, it is still illegal.

Often1

It remains a violation of federal law to possess marijuana. It has been a violation of federal law for the 40 years of your service.

This does not require that a LEO make an arrest or otherwise pursue a case against an individual found in possession of a controlled substance. But, TSA Officers are not LEO's and it is not their decision to make. If a TSA Officer reports the find to a LEO and the LEO chooses to simply dispose of the product and not pursue a case, that is well within the LEO's discretion and happens every day.

Randyk47

FliesWay2Much

An interesting test case would be for someone to take a legal amount of pot to a checkpoint in a legalized state and send it through the x-ray as the only object inside a small carry-on, purse, or perhaps the pocket of a light jacket. The pot should be in a plastic bag, so they can't claim they couldn't see inside an aluminum foil-wrapped package. Heck, you wouldn't even have to use real pot. Oregano would work just fine. The goal would be to demonstrate that the TSA, does in fact, train its screeners to search for drugs by ruling out any other justification for searching the bag or jacket.

Boggie Dog

Where do TSA screeners obtain the needed expertise to believe an item appears to be an illegal drug of any type? If training can't be demonstrated then only illegal contact with drugs could be the source of expertise.

FlyingHoustonian

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...512-story.htmlPot smuggling arrests at LAX have surged 166% since marijuana legalization

FliesWay2Much

...or cop shows. If they are going to stick with the party line, they really can't admit they train their clerks to detect pot and other drugs on X-ray images. If they did admit that they do include this in their training, they can't continue to say they don't search for drugs. I would speculate that they aren't stupid enough to include drug or cash detection at the infamous academy. I have a hunch it's taught in their airports, where there won't be any official records or training materials.

chollie

I'm waiting for the first time the cops are called because a TSO is challenging a pax with a baggie full of unlabelled 'edibles'.

If they are really not looking for drugs, then a spice jar labelled 'oregano' or a baggie full of brownies or cookies should never be challenged if they pass the xray and a swab.

I had legal prescription drugs confiscated because of the label. No swab or confirmation of the contents was done - the bottle was never even opened.

Ari

Right. And I think the unanswered question FliesWay2Much posed is "what law requires the TSO to notify the LEO upon encountering the presumably illicit substance?" (Implied in the question is that such taddle-tale practice is just the TSA's policy, not based upon any statutory duty).

gsoltso

I think you are reading too hard into the article, or perhaps appending your personal view on what is written. Items are not always "accidentally found", most times they are found "incidental to a search for a possible prohibited/dangerous/threat items". The search, is to determine if an item is a threat item, or something that is not a threat - if, during that search, a TSO finds something that appears to be illegal, they must notify the STSO/LEO by rule/regulation/law.
1. The implication you perceive here, is not the case at all. There are times where illegal items can present a similar appearance to some threat items, but that is incidental.
2. The search is for the same reasons it always has been, to prevent WEI/Dangerous items from getting on to planes, and is part of an overall administrative scheme

The simple fact is, that TSA as an organization, does not teach people to search specifically for illegal drugs. A different reasoning for the difference in tone, is that possibly someone new is writing the dispatches and has a different style - at least, that is more reasonable than TSA incorporates (as part of it's overall training scheme) a direct statement to the workforce to actively search for illegal drugs. The training, and wording of this has remained almost exactly the same since I came to the organization - they actually tell you (repeatedly and in myriad different training courses) that you are not there to seek illegal drugs or illegal items, you are there to prevent possible threat items from getting on planes. I honestly think you are reading way too much into the way the release is written, because none of the teaching has changed, none of the overall message has changed.

WillCAD

Bolding mine.

My response to that is, does TSA specifically recognize, commend, or reward TSOs who find illegal drugs, human traffickers, or other criminal activity incidental to screening?