Adding a little bit more to it, and I don't know CA liquor laws, the actual possession of alcohol a person under 21 may or may not be a crime. The reason I say this is that states can be aligned in one of the following rules for alcohol

1) Illegal to sell/serve to a person under 21, illegal to purchase if under 21, illegal to possess if under 21 and illegal to consume if under 21

2) Illegal to sell/serve to a person under 21, illegal to purchase if under 21, and illegal to consume if under 21

3) Illegal to sell to a person under 21 and illegal to purchase if under 21

4) Illegal to purchase if under 21

5) Illegal to sell to a person under 21

Any one of the five variations above met the requirement that the Feds set down when they tied the highway funds to a "21 year old drinking age". If you notice the last 4 in the list of options, a person under the age of 21 can posses alcohol, and only in the first two is it illegal for the person to consume the alcohol. Many states have specific exceptions to the consumption and serve rule that does make it legal for a person under 21 to consume alcohol. For example, many states allow a person to drink if a person over the age of 21 orders the beverage for them and pays for it. Typically, this rule is limited to if a parent/gaurdian buys a drink for a child or a husband/wife buys a drink for their underage spouse. It generally does not apply to buying and providing to persons unrealted to the purchaser.

So to say that possession is illegal is not necessarily true.

Now in the OP if the items were in his bag and not in the baggie, then TSA had the right to detain him for the search, but turning him over to LEO's may have been too much, but that also depends on the law of CA. By that I mean if CA has a law that requires persons to report any crime that they see occuring then the agents would be justified in turning the case over to the LEO's. However, I do not know the actual laws of california and thus cannot provide a correct assessment on this situation.

As a background to exceptions allowed under various states' laws, they were part of a religious exemption special dispensation. Most American politicians wouldn't want consumption of wine at communion to lead to mass arrests.

Either way, finding alcohol is not within the TSA's jurisdiction, and their action to hold (I'd still like more info on how the person was 'detained' by the TSA), was more than likely illegal if they used any force or threat of force to keep him at the checkpoint.

I'd also like to dispute the TSA's assertion of the sterile area. The FAA views the sterile area as comprising the Airport Operations Area and the part of the terminal *after* the security checkpoint which permits access to the aircraft without further expected security checks.

The sterile area does not begin when someone commits an act, like placing a bag on an x-ray machine or walking through a WTMD - the sterile area is a fixed space which exists after the checkpoint, contrary to any claim by the TSA.

An airport can modify this definition as well, as well as be the sole arbiter of who can and who cannot enter the sterile area or the AOA.

Are there really states in the US where it is illegal to bring alcohol from another state for personal consumption, either by air or land?

Yup. Prior to TSA's idiotic war on liquids, FAA provided relatively sane limitations on what could be carried by passengers. See http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...ersAndCrew.pdf.

The crux of it was (actually still is, but TSA has put stricter stupid rules in place):
alcohol under 24% (i.e., wine, beer, etc.): unrestricted
alcohol 24% - 70%: up to 5L per pax.
alcohol > 70%: prohibited.

So a mini-bottle of 200-proof booze would be prohibited by the FAA, although it's extremely unlikely many TSOs are aware of these regulation. Banning alcohol over 70% makes sense; it's pretty much fuel. (e.g., I burn 90% alcohol in a camping stove.)

Small amounts are OK but all 50 states and Washington, D.C. restrict how much alcohol can be brought across a state line without paying taxes, even if the purpose is for personal use. The amount varies but it's usually around a couple of liters. Bring more than that and you're risking being charged as a bootlegger.

Oh I am well aware of that - these are intended for consumption during a long layover in SJU, where our late-night flight to BVI will probably get canceled.

Hi all

I've followed FT with interest for a while, but never imagined my maiden post would be on a thread like this!

Let me preface my comments by saying that as an occasional visitor to the US, I have experienced at first hand the over-officious attitude that seems to be all too common amongst TSA officials.

However, this thread seems to be caught up in the question of the TSA's powers / jurisdiction, etc. What about the rights and responsibilities (both legal and social) of the individual TSA officials?

As BS as the 'crime' (assuming possession in itself is a crime) may be - if an individual (in this case a TSA official) discovers a crime in progress, is there not at the very least a moral and social obligation upon that individual to report that crime to the relevant authorities?

And on the question of detention - does the notion of a citizen's arrest exist in the US - and if so, could it apply here? For example in England and Wales (slightly different in Scotland, I think), any individual is entitled to arrest any other individual if they witness an indictable offence (i.e. one which could result in trial by jury) being committed. Not sure whether a 20 year-old in posession of alcohol would qualify as an indictable offence, but then again, the US approach to alcohol is very conservative/reactionary.

I'm also very interested in this. It would appear from reading thru this (admittedly 1-side only report) that the TSO's "held" the individual (I have no concept of how they could do that) after feigning a call to the LEO's. Am I correct in surmising that the LEO's were not actually summoned by the check-point TSO's to allow the TSO's to accomplish their intended result of delay of a "perp" to miss his flight?

TSA's assertion in this area can make sense only if you view it with a perspective of constant mission creep. (it's our area/it's part of the secure area/the secure area is our area, and so on, ad infinitum) How illogical to claim that the WTMD's and X-ray machines are part of the sterile area. Until people and items have passed through that area and have cleared to the sterile side, no security personnel has the slightest idea what pax are or are not carrying. How can the area possibly be deemed to be secure/sterile without that information? Makes about as much sense as ID=security.

The TSA's TSO's are agents of the federal government. Citizen's arrest is not a credible, nor, I believe a permissible action for "state" actors.

Generally speaking, citizen's arrest is made for felonies/crimes of violence only.

Many federal law enforcement agencies have policies on when their employees are allowed to use state law for "citizen's arrests" and still be considered within the scope of their duties. In fact, federal agents occasionally have to rely on such laws to make non-federal arrests in states which do not grant them peace officer status.

So...I can't address whether they are credible or permissible. But they do happen. And they are encouraged by the federal government under certain circumstances.

If discovered outside the bounds of an administrative search, then I would agree. Otherwise, absolutely not. Our rights under the Constitution protect us from unreasonable searches. As such, if it is an unreasonable search, then everything that is gained from that search may not be used in a trial, even if that means the accused gets away with murder. That is a basic tenet of our society that many still do not appreciate.

An administrative search is non-consensual in nature and as such is only permitted in very limited circumstances so that it is not unreasonable. The courts have said that you can only search for the items directly related to the purpose of the administrative search. So if the search is trying to see if you have an elephant, the government agent can't search your wallet since an elephant can't be hidden in it. Anything incidental to a proper search may be seized even if unrelated to the search.

So if a TSO sees a potential prohibited item via the x-ray and calls for a bag search and then the bag search discovers pounds of illegal drugs, then that would be okay. However, if the TSO just sees pounds of illegal drugs and no prohibited items, then a bag search is not proper (however, in reality, a TSO can almost always say the he saw something that might be a prohibited item). Ever wonder why TSO's are not given any training in the identification of illegal drugs? Because then the administrative search may not be valid if drugs were found.

And welcome, Scots_Al!

What I get out of this thread: Underage pax carrying permitted amounts (as in permitted to fly per FAA/TSA regs, not necessarily permitted to own by state law on either end of trip) of under 70% booze simply need to put it in a checked bag. Even if the bag gets opened and manually searched in the back room by the TSA, the screener has no idea of the age of the passenger that owns any particular bag and it flys, no problem.

I think you got most of it but I'd like to clear up a few things.

Yes, any search is limited in scope by the nature of the object sought. However, the admin search a TSO performs is very broad in nature in that weapons can be small. A knife can be very small, in fact, giving the TSO the right to look practically anywhere, which mostly negates the Exclusionary Rule.

I say mostly because the TSO could step beyond the bounds in he/she does something like, say, look on a zip drive. There could not be weapons in a zip, of course, so that would be excludable evidence under the Exclusionary Rule and any other evidence discovered by following the original evidence would be tossed out as Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.

A TSO is not given drug training because drug interdiction is not their function. If, however, they discover drugs then this is admissible, so long as it was under the scope of the search (and again, weapons can be small). Most anyplace you'll find drugs a weapon could have been hidden there as well (unless it's like a few pills in the smallest cubby hole ever).

A TSO won't "see" pounds of drugs on a screen. It won't register as drugs, just packages, so the only way they'll know is to open it up and look. Could it be a weapon, as you mentioned? Or could it be that they couldn't see through it?

Also note - what standard does a TSO need to meet in order to physically search your bag? Answer - little to none. There is no reasonable suspicion standard at the checkpoint As I understand it, a TSO can search at any time, any one coming through the checkpoint, so long as it meets the criteria for search - weapons and in places where weapons will be found.

Level of suspicion has nothing to do with it.

Usually violence-based crimes only.