A TSO has never put hands on a passenger at my airport that I am aware of. If my assumption is correct, and LEOs are supposed to be within 1 minute of the checkpoint, then I assume one would have followed Aukai until LEOs could get on scene (or catch up), and based on the statements by the TSOs, I (personally) would have conducted a stop on Aukai and found out what it was he was refusing to produce out of his pocket. Aukai's suspicious behavior/actions + the statements by TSA about the bulge in his pocket = PC to stop/search.

Even if LEOs are further away, I have found in past cases that a TSA employee keeps his/her distance from the individual and follows them (while keeping constant observation) until LEOs can arrive and handle the situation.

The screeners can presumably maintain possession of the passenger's bag until such time as it is cleared (SIR, DON'T TOUCH THAT !).

So the situation would be if a passenger tried to exit back to landside without the bag, can the screeners physically restrain him/her. I would sincerely hope the answer is NO, but who would leave their bag or other stuff behind simply to flee ?

How much compensation is he due from the airline?

That is an interesting case. Since this involved a narcotics stop (even in 1979), they probably had intel on the defendant prior to coming to the airport. It's interesting that the judges felt that the encounter was an "illegal" seizure before Lara was even asked to go downstairs. It seemed consensual to me, but there were quite a few facts left out (as the court mentioned). Each state's court has various articulatable facts as to what constitutes a seizure. I bet in this day and age, it may have been looked at as a consensual encounter, but that obviously we will never know.

The basis of the lower court's decision to deny the suppression of the cocaine was the simple fact that they felt that Lara had abandoned the bag when he left with the agents (by claiming it was not his), regardless of the agent's "illegal" seizure of Lara. The appellate court felt that the abandonment was part of the "illegal" seizure and remanded the decision back to the lower courts. This case does not have much to do with the checkpoint, but it is amazing that the court felt the mere presence of law enforcement constituted a seizure.

That is the reason why we would be catching up to the individual pretty quickly and detaining him. I do not believe TSOs would physically put their hands on him. We had a similar situation occur at BNA. The individual fled back out of the checkpoint upon questioning by TSOs (or he knew LEOs were coming) and was caught in the parking lot outside of the main terminal. He was definitely involved in narcotics, but there was not enough to indict him. He was subsequently arrested for a couple of local charges (disorderly conduct, resist stop/frisk/halt).

Who?

No! TSO's are NOT allowed to physically detain anyone. In a situation like this, a TSO would be assigned to follow the passenger until a LEO could get there. But NO touching is allowed.

It generally means what "presence" is defined as. Pretty much any time a person feels they're not free to leave it can be construed as a seizure.

Technically, they had not discovered a violation of the law; rather, they had a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a violation had occurred or was about to occur allowing for the detention. The police would have to determine if probable cause existed before a making an arrest. This would than leave determining that a violation of law had occurred as an issue of fact and law for a judge and/or jury.

That said, Would you please provide a cite to the precedent? (I'm not challenging it exists, just want to read ..)

Keep reading. After that post it became clear as mud. ;)

FWIW: The most frightening sentence from that case is the following:

In other words: the more scared we are, the more rights we may deny.

Closely related is the notion that even where the primary screening does not "affirmatively reveal anything suspicious," a secondary is still permitted simply because notwithstanding the none discovery, the primary did not "rule out every possibility of dangerous contents."

Following this argument, even a full rectal examination would be considered to have been impliedly consented to, nothing short of a full rectal can rule out no dangerous contents are hidden within one's bum. They court may make some overtures of protecting against further, more intrusive, examinations, but as it noted itself, standards "change over time." In effect, the court was greasing the skids for the slippery slope, not erecting the barricades one expects from the judiciary.

Is this really the America we want?

As AUKAI addresses consent for search in the contect of evidence suppression, and as the OP's friend consented and completed to the search, it would seem logical at this point he could have left for steetside and TSA would be powerless to stop him. As noted by others, it could inform LEO and they could take actions consistent with their powers.

The more interesting questions, I ask in ignorance, is under what conditions may TSA deny access to the secure side of the airport. (For this questions, I treat the search area as a DMZ of sorts.)

Got it, thanks.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Daniel Kuualoha AUKAI, Defendant-Appellant.

440 F.3d 1168

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/....04-10226.html

Deeghas provided us the correct answer. A "citizen's arrest" is made by someone without official police power to arrest. It's use and restrictions are limited by jurisdiction, as are the consequences of a bad-faith or unreasonable execution of said arrest. Consult your local lawyer.

Yes, but the courts have consistently rules these are CONSENTED searches. I would join you in arguing that is nonsense, but that is the law of the land nonetheless.