Can TSA search personal items that pose no security risk??
Sep 9, 2020, 9:51 pm
#16
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,689
Technically they have no right to notify law enforcement if you have a bundle of cash but they do it and have been doing it for well over 10 years. It’s a referral biz just like you get thank you from a friend for referring biz.
Sep 9, 2020, 11:51 pm
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG
Programs: UA 1K 0.9MM, Marriott Gold, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓
Posts: 13,811
Not trying to separate pepper from other things but the statement: "Except FAM, TSA are not LEOs." is not completely true. Federal Air Marshals are full fledged law enforcement officers whose primary duties are aviation safety but can be utilized in other federal law enforcement tasking if needed.
TSA is limited to conduct a Limited Administrative Search for the sole purpose of finding Weapons, Explosives, and Incendiaries. Searching beyond determining if the folio contained WEI exceeded TSA's mandate. Nothing stated in the ACLU link provided suggests otherwise.
In fact, 10 years ago, Fish has written something about this, which aligned with the ACLU thing I posted:
https://flyingwithfish.boardingarea....rth-amendment/
You don't need to be a LEO to question people.
Sep 10, 2020, 2:48 am
#18
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London / Los Angeles
Programs: Hilton Diamond, IHG Diamond Ambassador, Marriott Platinum, Hyatt Globalist, BA Silver
Posts: 1,631
Ultimately, they were bored, saw something slightly unusual but completely unrelated to airport security, decided it was fishy and that they wanted put on their Inspector Clouseau hat, poke around and ask questions. That is not their job - or at least should not be. The supervisor seemed a little flustered when I asked at the end what the issue was. She didn't have a good answer for what they had just done.
Last edited by Enigma368; Sep 10, 2020 at 2:54 am
Sep 10, 2020, 10:00 am
#19
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,111
I would say let's not spend more time in this, as I believe pretty much you know what I am trying to say.
You may be correct. But FWIW - unless you can prove otherwise, by a successful case challenging TSA's authority, unfortunately the law is still on TSA's side.
In fact, 10 years ago, Fish has written something about this, which aligned with the ACLU thing I posted:
https://flyingwithfish.boardingarea....rth-amendment/
Again not true - TSA can in fact detain you, as soon as the detention is meant to refer the matters to LEO properly. It is true that they can't use force.
A 1983 action is more practical.
But you never know if you will be further detained.
This I feel you.
You don't need to be a LEO to question people.
You may be correct. But FWIW - unless you can prove otherwise, by a successful case challenging TSA's authority, unfortunately the law is still on TSA's side.
In fact, 10 years ago, Fish has written something about this, which aligned with the ACLU thing I posted:
https://flyingwithfish.boardingarea....rth-amendment/
Again not true - TSA can in fact detain you, as soon as the detention is meant to refer the matters to LEO properly. It is true that they can't use force.
A 1983 action is more practical.
But you never know if you will be further detained.
This I feel you.
You don't need to be a LEO to question people.
As far as the the limits of TSA searches I don't have the resources to search the entirety of U.S. case law but did find this supporting passage.
Court Limits on TSA Searches
“The extent of the search went beyond the permissible purpose of detecting weapons and explosives and was instead motivated by a desire to uncover contraband evidencing ordinary criminal wrongdoing,” Judge Marbley wrote.
KNOW YOUR RIGHTS Enforcement at the Airport
TSA screeners can search you and your baggage at screening checkpoints, but they cannot arrest you. Other law enforcement officers, such as airport police, are present at airports.
"The ultimate right people have is to refuse all TSA screening," Pinsker said. Because TSA agents are not law enforcement officers, they don't have the right to detain you if you refuse.
Sep 10, 2020, 4:26 pm
#20
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London / Los Angeles
Programs: Hilton Diamond, IHG Diamond Ambassador, Marriott Platinum, Hyatt Globalist, BA Silver
Posts: 1,631
“The extent of the search went beyond the permissible purpose of detecting weapons and explosives and was instead motivated by a desire to uncover contraband evidencing ordinary criminal wrongdoing,” Judge Marbley wrote. Congress authorizes TSA to search travelers for weapons and explosives; beyond that, the agency is overstepping its bounds, U.S. District Court Judge Algenon L. Marbley said.
EDIT: Just saw this which *may* have given them justification for the extended search?:
TSA spokesman Greg Soule says airport screeners are trained to “look for threats to aviation security” and discrepancies in a passenger’s identity. TSA says verifying someone’s identity, or exposing false identity, is a security issue so that names can be checked against terrorism watch lists.
Last edited by Enigma368; Sep 11, 2020 at 2:39 pm
Sep 11, 2020, 3:56 am
#21
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
Can they? Obviously, then can, with impunity, because no one is holding them to the legal limits of their authority.
Should they? Absolutely not, since a search as described by OP is clearly outside of the legal limits placed on airport passenger screening defined by the 9th Circuit Court (US vs Davis, 1973):
"An airport screening search is reasonable if: (1) it is no more extensive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives; (2) it is confined in good faith to that purpose; and (3) passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly."
Since reading the content of a traveler's documents is not necessary to detect weapons and explosives, nor is questioning the traveler about those contents, the action is thus not reasonable as a screening search. Also, since the intent of the action is obviously to detect some sort of criminal wrongdoing, the action is not confined in good faith to the purpose of detecting weapons and explosives, and is again not reasonable as a screening search.
Since the action is not reasonable as an administrative screening search, it is prohibited by the 4th Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
A government actor reading the content of someone's personal papers without warrant - including those carried in a wallet or card sleeve - is a definitive violation of the traveler's right to be secure in his papers and effects against unreasonable searches.
Arguing Constitutional law with a TSO who is rifling through your wallet at a checkpoint, however, is an exercise in futility. A TSO who has already violated your rights either doesn't understand that he's violated your rights, or doesn't care that he's violated your rights, or both. Explaining their violation to them and expecting a reasonable walk-back of their illegal behavior is like trying to explain to a puppy that urinating on the rug is unacceptable behavior and expecting an apology and a cessation of the behavior. It just ain't gonna happen.
Should they? Absolutely not, since a search as described by OP is clearly outside of the legal limits placed on airport passenger screening defined by the 9th Circuit Court (US vs Davis, 1973):
"An airport screening search is reasonable if: (1) it is no more extensive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives; (2) it is confined in good faith to that purpose; and (3) passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly."
Since reading the content of a traveler's documents is not necessary to detect weapons and explosives, nor is questioning the traveler about those contents, the action is thus not reasonable as a screening search. Also, since the intent of the action is obviously to detect some sort of criminal wrongdoing, the action is not confined in good faith to the purpose of detecting weapons and explosives, and is again not reasonable as a screening search.
Since the action is not reasonable as an administrative screening search, it is prohibited by the 4th Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
A government actor reading the content of someone's personal papers without warrant - including those carried in a wallet or card sleeve - is a definitive violation of the traveler's right to be secure in his papers and effects against unreasonable searches.
Arguing Constitutional law with a TSO who is rifling through your wallet at a checkpoint, however, is an exercise in futility. A TSO who has already violated your rights either doesn't understand that he's violated your rights, or doesn't care that he's violated your rights, or both. Explaining their violation to them and expecting a reasonable walk-back of their illegal behavior is like trying to explain to a puppy that urinating on the rug is unacceptable behavior and expecting an apology and a cessation of the behavior. It just ain't gonna happen.
Sep 11, 2020, 2:37 pm
#22
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London / Los Angeles
Programs: Hilton Diamond, IHG Diamond Ambassador, Marriott Platinum, Hyatt Globalist, BA Silver
Posts: 1,631
A TSO who has already violated your rights either doesn't understand that he's violated your rights, or doesn't care that he's violated your rights, or both. Explaining their violation to them and expecting a reasonable walk-back of their illegal behavior is like trying to explain to a puppy that urinating on the rug is unacceptable behavior and expecting an apology and a cessation of the behavior. It just ain't gonna happen.
Sep 11, 2020, 4:55 pm
#23
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 2,507
Permission to do something and ability to do something are two different things. TSOs of course do not have permission to detain but we all know in practice they have the ability because although a pax can refuse to begin screening (and hence choose not to fly), once screening has begun (the TDC point) in general one cannot refuse to finish the process. Ultimately one can but it is very difficult and the pax will not be allowed to progress/move any further through the checkpoint until escorted by an actual law enforcement officer away from the checkpoint. This is always a very tense situation and fraught with negative possibilities for the would-be pax. A LEO is required to be within a certain response time of the checkpoint. But the amount of time it takes for TSA to request the LEO and then for the the entire situation to be resolved with the pax being escorted away can be long, indeed - a de facto detention.
Unfortunately, a violation of rights does not give rise to a cause of action unless it can be shown the violated demonstrably suffered some harm. So in this case, even though the search went relatively far beyond what is authorized, the pax was delayed for only a short amount of time and didnt suffer any harm (such as costs of missing a flight due to the search) and there is nothing to redress. Even if there were costs, the gubmint has lots of liars, -er, lawyers who are going to be really good at explaining why the delay was only caused by following procedures over which the TSOs have very limited discretion to follow and the problem was really caused by the pax, not least of which was not arriving early enough to accommodate any possible delays at the checkpoint, especially because there have been very public warnings issued for decades to arrive many hours before the flight because of delays at the checkpoint...... it sucks, but thats what we have. YMMV.
Love this: Explaining their violation to them and expecting a reasonable walk-back of their illegal behavior is like trying to explain to a puppy that urinating on the rug is unacceptable behavior and expecting an apology and a cessation of the behavior. It just ain't gonna happen.
Unfortunately, a violation of rights does not give rise to a cause of action unless it can be shown the violated demonstrably suffered some harm. So in this case, even though the search went relatively far beyond what is authorized, the pax was delayed for only a short amount of time and didnt suffer any harm (such as costs of missing a flight due to the search) and there is nothing to redress. Even if there were costs, the gubmint has lots of liars, -er, lawyers who are going to be really good at explaining why the delay was only caused by following procedures over which the TSOs have very limited discretion to follow and the problem was really caused by the pax, not least of which was not arriving early enough to accommodate any possible delays at the checkpoint, especially because there have been very public warnings issued for decades to arrive many hours before the flight because of delays at the checkpoint...... it sucks, but thats what we have. YMMV.
Love this: Explaining their violation to them and expecting a reasonable walk-back of their illegal behavior is like trying to explain to a puppy that urinating on the rug is unacceptable behavior and expecting an apology and a cessation of the behavior. It just ain't gonna happen.
Sep 12, 2020, 7:20 am
#24
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
Regarding detention - a TSO may claim that they're not detaining you, but if they have taken possession of your carry-on bags and refuse to return them, then you are not free to leave, particularly if you've divested yourself of your ID, phone, and money, not to mention certain necessary articles of clothing like shoes, belts, and outerwear. In plainer language, if they've got my stuff and aren't giving it back, then I am technically free to leave, but I would have to leave my stuff behind. TSA, of course, would call that "voluntary surrender" or "abandonment", but I call it de facto detention.
Of course, if you know where your stuff is, you can try walking over to it and taking it back, but that gives the TSO ammunition to claim falsely that you were trying to break through the c/p, or that you weren't cooperating with the search, or whatever else they want to claim. If they physically block you and you come into even the slightest physical contact with them when you go around, they can claim assault, too. Checkpoint video can disprove these claims, but any one of them can be used to prevent you from flying, and possibly get you arrested and charged, since many LEOs tend to have an "arrest 'em all and let the court sort 'em out" mentality.
They get this tactic from car sales people, who will often take the keys from your old vehicle to have it appraised while they negotiate the price of the new vehicle with you. You can't walk away from the negotiating table if they've got your old car, and it forces you to sit there patiently until they decide to let you leave. Unless you raise your voice and make a scene, which of course makes you look like the bad guy.
Of course, if you know where your stuff is, you can try walking over to it and taking it back, but that gives the TSO ammunition to claim falsely that you were trying to break through the c/p, or that you weren't cooperating with the search, or whatever else they want to claim. If they physically block you and you come into even the slightest physical contact with them when you go around, they can claim assault, too. Checkpoint video can disprove these claims, but any one of them can be used to prevent you from flying, and possibly get you arrested and charged, since many LEOs tend to have an "arrest 'em all and let the court sort 'em out" mentality.
They get this tactic from car sales people, who will often take the keys from your old vehicle to have it appraised while they negotiate the price of the new vehicle with you. You can't walk away from the negotiating table if they've got your old car, and it forces you to sit there patiently until they decide to let you leave. Unless you raise your voice and make a scene, which of course makes you look like the bad guy.
Sep 12, 2020, 8:10 am
#25
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,111
Permission to do something and ability to do something are two different things. TSOs of course do not have permission to detain but we all know in practice they have the ability because although a pax can refuse to begin screening (and hence choose not to fly), once screening has begun (the TDC point) in general one cannot refuse to finish the process. Ultimately one can but it is very difficult and the pax will not be allowed to progress/move any further through the checkpoint until escorted by an actual law enforcement officer away from the checkpoint. This is always a very tense situation and fraught with negative possibilities for the would-be pax. A LEO is required to be within a certain response time of the checkpoint. But the amount of time it takes for TSA to request the LEO and then for the the entire situation to be resolved with the pax being escorted away can be long, indeed - a de facto detention.
Unfortunately, a violation of rights does not give rise to a cause of action unless it can be shown the violated demonstrably suffered some harm. So in this case, even though the search went relatively far beyond what is authorized, the pax was delayed for only a short amount of time and didnt suffer any harm (such as costs of missing a flight due to the search) and there is nothing to redress. Even if there were costs, the gubmint has lots of liars, -er, lawyers who are going to be really good at explaining why the delay was only caused by following procedures over which the TSOs have very limited discretion to follow and the problem was really caused by the pax, not least of which was not arriving early enough to accommodate any possible delays at the checkpoint, especially because there have been very public warnings issued for decades to arrive many hours before the flight because of delays at the checkpoint...... it sucks, but thats what we have. YMMV.
Love this: Explaining their violation to them and expecting a reasonable walk-back of their illegal behavior is like trying to explain to a puppy that urinating on the rug is unacceptable behavior and expecting an apology and a cessation of the behavior. It just ain't gonna happen.
Unfortunately, a violation of rights does not give rise to a cause of action unless it can be shown the violated demonstrably suffered some harm. So in this case, even though the search went relatively far beyond what is authorized, the pax was delayed for only a short amount of time and didnt suffer any harm (such as costs of missing a flight due to the search) and there is nothing to redress. Even if there were costs, the gubmint has lots of liars, -er, lawyers who are going to be really good at explaining why the delay was only caused by following procedures over which the TSOs have very limited discretion to follow and the problem was really caused by the pax, not least of which was not arriving early enough to accommodate any possible delays at the checkpoint, especially because there have been very public warnings issued for decades to arrive many hours before the flight because of delays at the checkpoint...... it sucks, but thats what we have. YMMV.
Love this: Explaining their violation to them and expecting a reasonable walk-back of their illegal behavior is like trying to explain to a puppy that urinating on the rug is unacceptable behavior and expecting an apology and a cessation of the behavior. It just ain't gonna happen.
OP's experience with TSA mirrors, to a lesser degree, what happened to Steven Bierfeldt in 2009.
TSA FIXES SEARCH POLICY AFTER ACLU SUES
“This new policy provides much needed clarity to TSA screeners and reflects the critical requirement that TSA agents must adhere to their important but limited mandate of protecting flight safety,” said Ben Wizner, a staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. “The airport is not a Constitution-free zone, and the price of traveling is not exposure to limitless government searches.”
Again, OP should file complaints with both TSA and DHS OIG.
Sep 12, 2020, 2:35 pm
#26
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London / Los Angeles
Programs: Hilton Diamond, IHG Diamond Ambassador, Marriott Platinum, Hyatt Globalist, BA Silver
Posts: 1,631
Sep 12, 2020, 3:19 pm
#27
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,111
I strongly suggest any complaint includes DHS OIG Hotline.
Sep 12, 2020, 6:36 pm
#28
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London / Los Angeles
Programs: Hilton Diamond, IHG Diamond Ambassador, Marriott Platinum, Hyatt Globalist, BA Silver
Posts: 1,631
Probably not but if we as citizens or guests visiting this country just give up then government will know they can get away with anything.
I strongly suggest any complaint includes DHS OIG Hotline.
I strongly suggest any complaint includes DHS OIG Hotline.
TSA spokesman Greg Soule says airport screeners are trained to “look for threats to aviation security” and discrepancies in a passenger’s identity. TSA says verifying someone’s identity, or exposing false identity, is a security issue so that names can be checked against terrorism watch lists.
Sep 12, 2020, 7:38 pm
#29
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,111
Sep 13, 2020, 4:04 am
#30
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
Permission to do something and ability to do something are two different things. TSOs of course do not have permission to detain but we all know in practice they have the ability because although a pax can refuse to begin screening (and hence choose not to fly), once screening has begun (the TDC point) in general one cannot refuse to finish the process. Ultimately one can but it is very difficult and the pax will not be allowed to progress/move any further through the checkpoint until escorted by an actual law enforcement officer away from the checkpoint. This is always a very tense situation and fraught with negative possibilities for the would-be pax. A LEO is required to be within a certain response time of the checkpoint. But the amount of time it takes for TSA to request the LEO and then for the the entire situation to be resolved with the pax being escorted away can be long, indeed - a de facto detention.
Unfortunately, a violation of rights does not give rise to a cause of action unless it can be shown the violated demonstrably suffered some harm. So in this case, even though the search went relatively far beyond what is authorized, the pax was delayed for only a short amount of time and didnt suffer any harm (such as costs of missing a flight due to the search) and there is nothing to redress. Even if there were costs, the gubmint has lots of liars, -er, lawyers who are going to be really good at explaining why the delay was only caused by following procedures over which the TSOs have very limited discretion to follow and the problem was really caused by the pax, not least of which was not arriving early enough to accommodate any possible delays at the checkpoint, especially because there have been very public warnings issued for decades to arrive many hours before the flight because of delays at the checkpoint...... it sucks, but thats what we have. YMMV.
Love this: Explaining their violation to them and expecting a reasonable walk-back of their illegal behavior is like trying to explain to a puppy that urinating on the rug is unacceptable behavior and expecting an apology and a cessation of the behavior. It just ain't gonna happen.
Unfortunately, a violation of rights does not give rise to a cause of action unless it can be shown the violated demonstrably suffered some harm. So in this case, even though the search went relatively far beyond what is authorized, the pax was delayed for only a short amount of time and didnt suffer any harm (such as costs of missing a flight due to the search) and there is nothing to redress. Even if there were costs, the gubmint has lots of liars, -er, lawyers who are going to be really good at explaining why the delay was only caused by following procedures over which the TSOs have very limited discretion to follow and the problem was really caused by the pax, not least of which was not arriving early enough to accommodate any possible delays at the checkpoint, especially because there have been very public warnings issued for decades to arrive many hours before the flight because of delays at the checkpoint...... it sucks, but thats what we have. YMMV.
Love this: Explaining their violation to them and expecting a reasonable walk-back of their illegal behavior is like trying to explain to a puppy that urinating on the rug is unacceptable behavior and expecting an apology and a cessation of the behavior. It just ain't gonna happen.
P.S. Dogs can be housebroken . . . eventually . . . with proper training. And they never apologize for urinating on the rug when they were puppies but are forgiven for it. Yet the rug still stinks and has to be replaced.