Originally Posted by VPescado (Post 7919971)

My take on it:

1)...2)...3)...4)...5)...6)...7)...

Originally Posted by Superguy (Post 7920023)

And that's why the ban is a complete waste of time and resources.

If they want to detect them for explosives, use the existing puffers or swab the cup. If it's an explosive and it has a liquid in, it WILL set off the ETD. However, since this water carnival started, puffer and ETD use has dropped dramatically.

Pretty much it comes down to TSA being lazy and not wanting to actually do anything about the "perceived" threat. There are ways to determine if it really is a threat, but TSA refuses to use them.

If the liquids really are a threat, they should have dumped the terminal when she spilled it on the floor as it was an unknown liquid. If liquids are really a threat, they should treat them as hazmat and not lump them together in a trash bin. If liquids really are a threat, then they shouldn't be given to the homeless, unless they're trying to "kill off" the homeless population.

Yes, Emmerson isn't a good spokeshole against TSA, but then again, TSA created the situation with its idiocy. So it escalated to a no win situation for all involved.

Originally Posted by Wally Bird (Post 7920502)

Nothing can be carried through the WTMD in plain view without the approval of the screener.

Originally Posted by Wally Bird (Post 7920558)

Unknown liquids in any quantity > 3.4oz individually, about 1 quart in total.

Now there are binary liquids which when simply combined create an explosive mixture. They are used in minesweeping, target shooting and movie FX but require a detonator of some kind - not just shake-and-boom. Hopefully the purveyors are very carful about their customers, not something to be relied upon absolutely though.

Setting one (or more) off in an airplane cabin would not be pleasant to say the least; to do any structural damage would require literally gallons of the stuff. We're not talking Coke bottles or sippy cups here.

Originally Posted by justhere (Post 7922021)

Personally, I especially like to see when people try to walk through carrying the tray with all their items in it. :)

Originally Posted by Superguy (Post 7921405)

Bureaucracy does not an excuse make for trampling on someone's constitutional rights. It's still a government actor and the Constitution STILL applies, despite TSA's assertion to the contrary.

They might as well just wipe their a$$es with it at this rate.

Originally Posted by Superguy (Post 7921405)

Bureaucracy does not an excuse make for trampling on someone's constitutional rights. It's still a government actor and the Constitution STILL applies, despite TSA's assertion to the contrary.

They might as well just wipe their a$$es with it at this rate.

Originally Posted by kokonutz (Post 7920929)

Here is my concern: TSA clearly has unlimited access to these video recordings. And they have total control over them. I, on the other hand, am forbidden from taking still or video pictures or recordings at TSA screening areas. Thus TSA is free to publish and distribute any video recordings of me whenever it makes their case, but it would take a FOIA and probably more than that for me to get a hold of that video. And in this case they published it as part of a PR effort, not a law enforcement or legal effort.

That bothers me. A LOT. It should be investigated. And why in the HELL were the random people's faces who happened to exit the secure area not redacted in the video shown on the TSA website?

It is bothersome and should be investigated by Congress. And I have made that opinion known to my own representatives.

Originally Posted by infinityplusone (Post 7905224)

In the story the word "officer" is used a lot, I think this is in reference to the Police Officer.

"At this point, I was detained against my will by the police officer and threatened to be arrested for endangering other passengers with the spilled 3 to 4 ounces of water. ..."

So it is not just the inept seemingly power hungry TSA that should be cause for concern... but also the inept seemingly power hungry police as well.

Originally Posted by dhuey (Post 7922431)

Which provision of the constitution is violated when government takes a video of those in a public place and releases the video to the public? And which case(s) support(s) your answer to the foregoing question if there is such a violation?

Originally Posted by law dawg (Post 7922418)

I'd argue that, seeing as how the checkpoint is a consent search in a public place, your actions there are public domain. You cannot claim an expectation of privacy. I might be wrong though, just as I see it right now. If someone has good case law contradicting this I'd be happy to see it. I personally have no case law in support of my opinion here, just many years of LE work and the checkpoint has less of a burden of proof than LE.

Originally Posted by law dawg (Post 7921182)

I'm not a lawyer

Originally Posted by Superguy (Post 7922605)

Asked like a true lawyer. Have your paralegal look it up. ;)

I was responding to the statement that the Constitution doesn't necessarily apply to administrative agencies. I think it clearly does.

It's not the video itself that's an issue. I think that releasing the video in such a way as they did has a chilling effect on free speech. Complain too loudly and we'll put a website up about you. Additionally, I think the clean up forced by the cop could violate due process as the cop was out of line. Arrest her for disorderly conduct, sure. Let the courts decide what's appropriate punishment. Who knows ... public service cleaning toilets at the airport maybe.

Originally Posted by law dawg (Post 7921182)

...Also remember TSA is an administrative agency, not a LE one, so some Bill or Rights protections do not attach.

Originally Posted by dhuey (Post 7922680)

You're shooting from the hip here.

1) I have no paralegal.