Well, it's not Johnny Cochran, since he's toast. :)

I've gotten secondary a few times in the last year at LAX (and only LAX), and needless to say, they've never found anything. I've learned to not get upset about it, although it has made me miss a connecting flight before.

I'll be entering next in HNL, which I've never had as an intl entry before, so hopefully they're better! I used to actually like flying through LAX, but not with some of their monster security lines, and other BS.

Whoa. TSOs aren't bound to keep passengers' personal property confidential when they inspect it? Sometimes I fly with confidential engineering prototypes which I'm bound not to make public. Do I need to stop doing this? It seems so, since there are many Internet rumor forums relating to my industry, and nothing is to stop the TSO from posting there as SMF TSO just did here.

And if someone made public that I regularly traveled with tens of thousands of dollars in cash in my bags, that could create a serious threat to my own personal safety. Remember, robbers kill far more people than terrorists do, and the TSA's job is to keep passengers safe.

I would think that even public figures should still be able to expect the contents of their bags to be private at the checkpoint - and that reasonable people wouldn't disclose information that threatens someone's personal safety.

Saying "Yup, sure is" to indicate that a 50+% false alarm is "a system that's been shown to work quite well over many, many years" seems to be one of those "Good job, Brownie" moments during Hurrican Katrina -- another roaring success for DHS. Since the creation of DHS/DHS-CBP, the government has been doing a worse job in this regard than before the creation of DHS.

If a judge kept granting warrants to local police that resulted in finding nothing as often as is the case with DHS-CBP, what do you think would happen?

If you go back a hundred-odd years or more, Customs used to search every person, vehicle, and thing that came into the country. As traffic increased, they had to stop doing that. It's the same way with cargo shipments. A small percentage are examined based on targeting criteria and gut feelings. No one expects to find contraband with every single secondary inspection. That's not the purpose of the program. It's probably something like a 10% success rate in commercial air passengers (if you include minor undeclared items for which the officer allows the person to make an amended declaration).

Instead of thinking of those sent for secondary inspection as suspects, think of them instead as people who couldn't be cleared on primary inspection. That's more how the officers think of them (or should be...the newer guys don't seem to get this). If the primary officer isn't convinced of their lawful immigration status, they get sent in to immigration. If the primary officer isn't convinced that they don't have contraband, they get sent in to baggage.

Most likely nothing. Judges shouldn't care about the outcome. They should be concerned only with the question of whether probable cause has been shown.

Why don't I believe that? Perhaps because it's historically anything but true. The US government had far more limited resources to control borders a hundred or hundred fifty years ago than it does today.

Unless the judges want to be a lap dog for law enforcement, they sure should care about the outcome otherwise they are authorizing a fishing expedition, something that the Founding Fathers of the United States were very much opposed to allowing.

Yeah, but if the cops have sufficient evidence to arrest someone they wouldn't waste their time interviewing "suspects" to begin with. If you don't believe it, just tell a detective you have retained professional counsel, they will back off as fast as they put on their cheap JC Penny Coat. Atleast, if they are smart.

If you tell me "cops" and agents aren't intimidated by good attorneys I'll openly laugh in your face. The vast majority of cops who make it to the level of detectives are career seekers who will do what is best for their own good. It isn't uncommon for detectives to build cases against suspects who are innocent, in order to further their own careers. That's why it is wise to never talk to investigators, regardless of innocence or guilt.

If cops aren't "intimidated" by attorneys there is something seriously wrong with the system. Cops can't make you "talk" regardless of what they *think* you've done. I find it offensive to hear a member of law enforcement saying "triggered the requirement that the detective not question her further. " I find it sickening that cops, such as yourself, are trained in each and every way to bypass the rights of individuals. Call it what you want, you are still a puppet and cannon fodder for a system designed to screw the common folk. You can't make anyone talk. If you ever approached me with that attitude I'd quickly tell you to go eat a doughnut.

I've been through both ORD, LAX and HNL, each once. ORD and LAX were the usual.. a few questions based on what I had checked off, then waved me through. HNL I declared a whole bunch of stuff and checked off the box for food and for soil since I was bringing sand back from Sydney. The 2nd guy I passed by said sand didn't qualify for soil and waved me through. Meanwhile a friend with me on that trip who declared and brought back nothing got the secondary.

HNL was annoying because as soon as we got off the plane we were escorted through the arrival terminal, onto a wiki wiki and transported to another terminal for customs.

Seriously, it's a good thing we have those upstanding moral crusaders known as lawyers to protect the common folk from the evil cops in cheap JC Penny suits... And they somehow manage to do it while running the very system designed to screw the common folk!.. I guess being a moral crusader is a demaning job, so no cheap JC Penny suits for them, eh? ;)

Interesting, and somewhat contradictory tones in that post...

I think the judges should care about the merit of the warrant request, and I believe that's what Deeg was referring to. Caring about the outcome would suggest their interest in approving or disaproving the warrant request was based on something other than the warrant's merit -- and that would be unfortunate.

Peter Francis Geraci? :D

No, I smoked it all there. :D

Do you honestly believe most TSOs are intelligent/educated enough to recognize what you're carrying? :D They are more likely to consider it a bomb and dump the terminal.

Probably, just not nearly bored enough to care... The life of the frequent flyer... Oh boy...

Your level of ignorance of police procedure is almost as staggering as your social class bigotry.

If a detective, or any other police officer (the police powers are exactly the same) asks questions of someone, and is told they have retained counsel, the questions can go right on. Whether counsel is retained or not, the person being questioned is free not to answer, beyond special circumstantial requirements to truthfully state your name, provide a driver's license if driving. etc. Now, if the person being questioned says anything similar to "I want a/my lawyer," then questioning must cease. The detective might explain that the person is not a suspect and that he is simply gathering information form the investigation, but there's no obligation to answer any of the questions, lawyer or no lawyer. And the prominence of the lawyer has no bearing at all. As long as I know I'm operating within the limits of my police powers, I don't care much if you bring in Gerry Spence. It's your money. Actually, I'd enjoy meeting him. The worst that can happen to me is that your attorney will say "My client will answer no more questions," which the client could have told me himself.

Far more often than not, a detective will be asking questions to develop or follow up investigative leads. This is what I suspect was happening in the office theft described previously. Everyone can refuse to answer questions, and the most likely outcome will be that the person responsible for the theft will get away with it. If you think that's a good outcome for you and your employer, so be it. I wouldn't mention that attitude in your next performance review.

As for your wardrobe comment (and it.s J,C. Penney, by the way), this infers to me that you regard anyone with clothing you view as inferior to your own to be as inferior to you. One of the brightest and most capable people I know is a neighbor who is a retired Navy master chief petty officer. He was responsible for the nuclear reactor compartments on a number of submarines and on the aircraft carrier Enterprise. I rarely see him wearing anything other than a khaki shirt and bib overalls. Is he your inferior, too?

By the way, I only buy socks and underwear at J.C. Penney. My suits and jackets come from Men's Wearhouse, but I used to be partial to Sears.

That wouldn't be a new experience. The laughs usually stop when I unsnap my handcuff pouch or hand them the clipboard with the admonition, "Please press firmly; you are making four copies."

First, the "vast majority" of cops that make it to detective are working an assignment that will end when they are rotated back to patrol or promoted to sergeant, which also sends them back to patrol. The assignment are usually from two to five years, depending on a variety of circumstances. Only very large agencies, like LAPD or NYPD, have more or less permanent detective slots, and even then, a promotion will put them back in uniform until they can get back to detectives. Many detectives in the permanent slots like their jobs, and never take promotional exams.

Most cops are "career seekers," at least when they start out. Some decide they would rather do something else, and move on, like with any other line of work. Many work in uniformed assignments until retirement because they choose to. I had several opportunities to go to a detective assignment, and I always turned it down. I liked patrol. There are many reasons that officers tried to get into or stay in detectives, but being smarter than a patrol grunt was not part of the equation.

If you know of detectives, or anyone else, that has built a case against someone they knew to be innocent, I suggest that you give your local FBI office a call. I wouldn't tolerate that, and I don't know of any other law enforcement professional that would. I think your view here is based mainly on TV and movie plots. Those are entertainment, and bear little resemblance to real life.


The only intimidation factor working here is that you know you had better have your ducks in a row when you go up against certain defense attorneys, because they won't miss much and will exploit any weakness in a case. That just means you have to be careful and do good journeyman work. My area of expertise was DUI enforcement, and I was told by more than one defense attorney that they regarded me in the same way on those cases. I had done a lot of them and knew what bases to cover, and how to bring out the facts in my reports and testimony. Had I been the primary case officer on say, a child molest case, they probably wouldn't have been so concerned, because I didn't have the expertise and experience that a more seasoned sex crimes investigator would have.

And you need to remember that when the case is under investigation, the investigator usually doesn't know who they might be going up against at trial. The intimidation factor, if any, just doesn't apply.

I think I said that.

Actually, the training is more targeted at knowing the constraints placed on the police by the constitution and case law. It's like having your tax return prepared by a knowledgeable accountant. The accountant may see perfectly lawful ways of allocating income and reporting deductions that would escape someone less experienced, and reduce your tax bill in so doing. That's tax avoidance as opposed to tax evasion, and the IRS will tell you that you should take every lawful deduction to which you're entitled. Similarly, the police are investigating violations of the laws that protect everyone, and if the police did not take advantage of every lawful investigative opportunity available, they would not be doing the job entrusted to them. If the police ask a question they are not permitted to ask, the response and any evidence that stems from it can be suppressed at trial (the "fruits of the poisonous tree" doctrine).

Rather than me being a "puppet and cannon fodder," I think you are an uninformed grandstander, spouting rhetoric on topics you learned about while watching TV.

Certainly, there are episodes of police misconduct, just as there are with every other line of work I can think of. When public authority figures mess up, it's big news. But fewer than 1% of law enforcement officers are ever accused of serious misconduct, and a fraction of those have those accusations substantiated.

So, the next time a cop asks you a question, feel free to laugh in his face and tell him you don't have to answer. He'll set you straight as to whether you have to answer or not. Either way, you will have positively identified your personality type, which he will file away for future reference. On that note, it is generally good practice not to taunt the alligator until after one has negotiated the swamp.

Wrong. There is sufficient evidence for an arrest and then there is sufficient evidence for conviction. In a number of my cases, we have delayed the arrest until after an interview because we were hoping to get a confession. Sometimes that's easier after an arrest and sometimes it's easier beforehand. All depends on the case.

Wow. So I guess I'd better cancel my scheduled interviews for the rest of the week. Either that or I'm stupid. Thanks.

Feel free to laugh at me then. I'm not intimidated by them at all. They make my job more difficult sometimes, but that's the beauty of the system of justic in this country. I have no problem arguing back and forth with one and then grabbing a cup of coffee with him the next week.

That assertion is flatly ludicrous. The vast majority of investigators enjoy solving puzzles, catching bad guys, and putting an end to criminals' careers. Cases only get made against innocent people for two reasons: first, because the investigator truly (and mistakenly) believes they are guilty, and second, because the investigator is corrupt. Corruption is uncommon, no matter what you think.

Thanks. That's exactly what I meant. I would only add that there is a requirement that a magistrate issuing a warrant be neutral and detached. I interpret that to mean, in part, that the judge can have no interest in the outcome whatsoever. All that matters is the content of the application.

Stupidity certainly isn't and that's what makes some investigators so dangerous. Many innocent people have been charged and/or convicted by cops who were sure (in their minds) the suspect was guilty. Most seasoned cops have spent years interacting with trash, therefore immediately assume guilt and build a case from there. Nothing is more dangerous than a person who has the power to build a case and is influenced by their own set of ideals.

Furthermore, I guess it depends on your definition of corruption. I would say abuse of power, police brutality and harassment are forms of corruption, and be willing to bet there isn't a police force in the country where it isn't occurring as we speak.

As for the cops who mistakenly build cases against innocent folks; they should at least lose their jobs, and possibly even face prosecution, IMO. Locking up even one innocent person is too many. If there were even a shred of TRUE accountability in government and law enforcement, these things would happen at a much lesser rate.


"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

-Thomas Jefferson