Nightmare at DCA
Jun 18, 2007 | 2:33 pm
#211
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 60,677
We have a winner! 7 correct out of 7 -- well done. TSA deserves criticism for its liquids policy, not the conduct of its agents here. Emmerson needs to repeat kindergarden to review some basic rules of honesty and conduct toward others.
Jun 18, 2007 | 3:11 pm
#212
Join Date: May 2005
Location: PHX
Programs: AA Gold, WN A+ & CP, HH Diamond, Hyatt Platinum, National Executive Elite
Posts: 3,258
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.
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.
Jun 18, 2007 | 3:16 pm
#213
Join Date: May 2005
Location: PHX
Programs: AA Gold, WN A+ & CP, HH Diamond, Hyatt Platinum, National Executive Elite
Posts: 3,258
Jun 18, 2007 | 3:20 pm
#214
Join Date: May 2005
Location: PHX
Programs: AA Gold, WN A+ & CP, HH Diamond, Hyatt Platinum, National Executive Elite
Posts: 3,258
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.
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.
Jun 18, 2007 | 3:21 pm
#215
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,972
; I've never seen anyone try that but it does give me an idea for next time..... 
Jun 18, 2007 | 4:29 pm
#216
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,704
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.
Jun 18, 2007 | 4:33 pm
#217
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 60,677
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?
Jun 18, 2007 | 4:58 pm
#218
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New York City/NY22
Programs: AA Platinum 2.3MM (Lifetime PLT)
Posts: 5,291
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.
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.
What's more, this sets a bad precedent for other federal agencies. What next, say that you pay too much in taxes and the IRS puts your return on their website?
Jun 18, 2007 | 5:10 pm
#219
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 60,677
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.
"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.
"Have a nice day, ma'am -- don't worry about that spill, I'll get that for you!"
The cop didn't arrest Emmerson or even hold her for more than a couple of minutes. She apparently asked Emmerson to clean up the mess she had just intentionally made. Is that so unreasonable?
Jun 18, 2007 | 5:11 pm
#220
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
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.
Jun 18, 2007 | 5:12 pm
#221
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
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.
What's good for the goose ...
Jun 18, 2007 | 5:12 pm
#222
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New York City/NY22
Programs: AA Platinum 2.3MM (Lifetime PLT)
Posts: 5,291
You got that right.
"Stuff" is removed from YouTube every day under threat of litigation.
Would you give me a citation to the court ruling that decided this?
Stuff is out on YouTube every day, but no blurs.
Also remember TSA is an administrative agency, not a LE one, so some Bill or Rights protections do not attach.
Jun 18, 2007 | 5:25 pm
#223
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 60,677
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.
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.
1) I have no paralegal.
2) "chilling effect"?! It might chill the speech of those whose lies will be revealed by the video, and that's a good thing. I would think those who have a legitimate gripe against TSA/LE would be delighted that they could get a video to support their claims.
3) Due process violation by cop for asking Emmerson to clean up the mess she had just intentionally created? Let's just say she'd have a hard time finding a lawyer to take that civil rights case on a contingency fee.
Jun 18, 2007 | 5:30 pm
#224
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 60,677
Huh? It's a state actor in either case. Which rights would someone have with respect to LE that they would not have with respect to an administrative agency?
Jun 18, 2007 | 5:50 pm
#225
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
That was a joke.
The video's only half of the story. They didn't have the audio on there, so it doesn't tell the whole story.
Emmerson may have embellished some of the story, but I wouldn't put it past DCA TSA or police to have said what she said they did.
I don't think it's right for the federal government to dedicate that much space to a citizen in retaliation. Right or wrong what she did, TSA went way to far with creating that website.
Didn't know lawyers took contingencies on anything but personal injury/malpractice?
Seriously though, what about if the cop indeed said what she said they did? Is it ok for a cop to say "now apologize or I arrest you?" Clean this up or I arrest you? Didn't know it was OK for a cop to pass down a punishment on the spot like that. I thought that was a judge's job. Guess I learn something new every day.
2) "chilling effect"?! It might chill the speech of those whose lies will be revealed by the video, and that's a good thing. I would think those who have a legitimate gripe against TSA/LE would be delighted that they could get a video to support their claims.
Emmerson may have embellished some of the story, but I wouldn't put it past DCA TSA or police to have said what she said they did.
I don't think it's right for the federal government to dedicate that much space to a citizen in retaliation. Right or wrong what she did, TSA went way to far with creating that website.
3) Due process violation by cop for asking Emmerson to clean up the mess she had just intentionally created? Let's just say she'd have a hard time finding a lawyer to take that civil rights case on a contingency fee.
Seriously though, what about if the cop indeed said what she said they did? Is it ok for a cop to say "now apologize or I arrest you?" Clean this up or I arrest you? Didn't know it was OK for a cop to pass down a punishment on the spot like that. I thought that was a judge's job. Guess I learn something new every day.