![]() |
Originally Posted by LegalTender
(Post 11583591)
Don't jurisdictions overlap?
|
Originally Posted by ND Sol
Have any TSO's been disciplined for failing to refer "drugs" or cash to a supervisor for further investigation?
|
Originally Posted by HSVTSO Dean
(Post 11587058)
Not that I'm aware of. It may have happened somewhere, but if it did, I've never heard about it.
|
Originally Posted by HSVTSO Dean
(Post 11584987)
It actually does say more about drugs, but nothing that hasn't already been told to ya's by Blogger Bob: that while it's not specifically the role of the TSA, we as government entities can not overlook blatantly illegal contraband, blahblahblahblah.
Originally Posted by HSVTSO Dean
(Post 11584987)
And we don't identify a substance as being an illegal drug rather than something that is suspected of such, Phil. The "suspected of such" is as far as TSA goes, and then we refer it to the law enforcement professionals to determine if it actually is or not.
|
Originally Posted by LegalTender
(Post 11583103)
<SNIP>
Hold persons carrying $10,000+ cash? Confiscate X-Rated DVDs? Gag Halloween fright garb? |
Originally Posted by polonius
(Post 11587354)
How are you to know what "blatantly illegal contraband" is? You guys are like a bunch of nine years old who have just gotten their plastic "agent" badges and decoder rings out of the cereal box and you think that qualifies you to somehow "know" contraband when you see it. This is the kind of pig-ignorance that led to the arrest of Janet Lee. Disturbing to see you haven't learned from such incidents.
So you believe it's OK for the articulation of "suspicion" by an untrained TSO/burger flipper to serve as the basis for justifying a search by law enforcement, hence depriving all travellers of the presumption of innocence? |
Kelly at the TSA blog doesn't seem to understand "suspected" vs. "certainly"
Originally Posted by HSVTSO Dean
(Post 11584987)
There's nothing in there at all about pornography, nothing in there about pirated DVDs, or, for heaven's sake Phil, animals without all their vaccinations. None of the above are even anything I've remotely cared about, primarily because TSA doesn't care about it either.
Originally Posted by HSVTSO Dean
(Post 11584987)
I wrote it right on there, Phil :P "It's a call to the cops." It's that category. It's the same category that guns and blasting caps and all sorts of other things are in.
Originally Posted by HSVTSO Dean
(Post 11584987)
And we don't identify a substance as being an illegal drug rather than something that is suspected of such, Phil. The "suspected of such" is as far as TSA goes, and then we refer it to the law enforcement professionals to determine if it actually is or not.
For example, in the comments for the Incident at St. Louis International post, Kelly Mae, a TSO and member of the TSA blog team, wrote: If while in a bag check for our primary focus items (i.e. liquids/weapons etc) and we find things such as drugs, it IS our "procedure" to inform supervisors and Law Enforcement. No matter how big or small, illegal is illegal and we can't just overlook it, sorry. We can't just hand back your kilo b/c it's not a "threat"."
Originally Posted by HSVTSO Dean
(Post 11584987)
You do realize that's the sum total and whole of the entire screening process itself, right?
|
Originally Posted by polonius
(Post 11587354)
How are you to know what "blatantly illegal contraband" is? You guys are like a bunch of nine years old who have just gotten their plastic "agent" badges and decoder rings out of the cereal box and you think that qualifies you to somehow "know" contraband when you see it. This is the kind of pig-ignorance that led to the arrest of Janet Lee. Disturbing to see you haven't learned from such incidents.
So you believe it's OK for the articulation of "suspicion" by an untrained TSO/burger flipper to serve as the basis for justifying a search by law enforcement, hence depriving all travellers of the presumption of innocence? The cops get to do everything that they normally can only do with reasonable suspicion -- demand an ID to run a warrant check, perform what is now a warrantless criminal search of a passenger and their property, and arrest someone, such as Ms Lee, with absolutely no compliance with any sort of reasonable suspicion or probable cause standards. Ms Lee had to expend considerable funds herself, take time off from college, and even defend herself against a charge of something like "faking drugs". I don't recall the specific charge they tried to lay on her after it was clear that the condoms didn't contain illegal drugs, but, it had something to do with the fact that it's apparently a crime to make up something to look like illegal drugs. Now, despite the civil settlement and the criminal charges being dropped, Ms Lee now has an arrest record based on an untrained screener thinking they had made the "big catch." I hope Ms Lee never needs a security clearance for a job, because the arrest, no matter how bogus, will makeit difficult, if not impossible, for her to get a clearance. And, the screener will NEVER be held accountable. This is just plain disgusting. |
Kelly Mae at TSA also wrote:
The issue with the cash is, "if found", it is a scenario for further scrutiny in which the LEOs may get involved, especially if you are traveling out of country with said cash. (that IS illegal) There will be some questioning involved, but it's only to ensure it's not illegal, and if all is kosher, you'll be on your way. |
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much
(Post 11587517)
This is my biggest gripe. There is absolutely no reasonable suspicion standard for a screener. The cops love it because THEY don't need articulable reasonable suspicion -- all they have to do is to respond to a screener's whim.
The cops get to do everything that they normally can only do with reasonable suspicion -- demand an ID to run a warrant check, perform what is now a warrantless criminal search of a passenger and their property, and arrest someone, such as Ms Lee, with absolutely no compliance with any sort of reasonable suspicion or probable cause standards. Ms Lee had to expend considerable funds herself, take time off from college, and even defend herself against a charge of something like "faking drugs". I don't recall the specific charge they tried to lay on her after it was clear that the condoms didn't contain illegal drugs, but, it had something to do with the fact that it's apparently a crime to make up something to look like illegal drygs. Now, despite the civil settlement and the criminal charges being dropped, Ms Lee now has an arrest record based on an untrained screener thinking they had made the "big catch." I hope Ms Lee never needs a security clearance for a job, because the arrest, no matter how bogus, will makeit difficult, if not impossible, for her to get a clearance. And, the screener will NEVER be held accountable. This is just plain disgusting. |
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much
(Post 11587517)
This is my biggest gripe. There is absolutely no reasonable suspicion standard for a screener. The cops love it because THEY don't need articulable reasonable suspicion -- all they have to do is to respond to a screener's whim.
The cops get to do everything that they normally can only do with reasonable suspicion -- demand an ID to run a warrant check, perform what is now a warrantless criminal search of a passenger and their property, and arrest someone, such as Ms Lee, with absolutely no compliance with any sort of reasonable suspicion or probable cause standards. Ms Lee had to expend considerable funds herself, take time off from college, and even defend herself against a charge of something like "faking drugs". I don't recall the specific charge they tried to lay on her after it was clear that the condoms didn't contain illegal drugs, but, it had something to do with the fact that it's apparently a crime to make up something to look like illegal drygs. Now, despite the civil settlement and the criminal charges being dropped, Ms Lee now has an arrest record based on an untrained screener thinking they had made the "big catch." I hope Ms Lee never needs a security clearance for a job, because the arrest, no matter how bogus, will makeit difficult, if not impossible, for her to get a clearance. And, the screener will NEVER be held accountable. This is just plain disgusting. |
Originally Posted by 4444
(Post 11587547)
she has an arrest record because she was stupid enough to do what she did. she is responsible for her actions. is it ok for me to try and sneak fake tnt on a plane? what if i had a couple of pounds of parsley in a bag? they should just laugh it off? i am no fan of the tsa but we do have to take some responsibility for ourselves....
|
Originally Posted by polonius
(Post 11587581)
WE have to take responsibility for ourselves, but the TSA can just sort of shrug it off? Sounds to me like you have been smoking some of that parsley...
|
Originally Posted by 4444
(Post 11587547)
she has an arrest record because she was stupid enough to do what she did. she is responsible for her actions. is it ok for me to try and sneak fake tnt on a plane? what if i had a couple of pounds of parsley in a bag? they should just laugh it off? i am no fan of the tsa but we do have to take some responsibility for ourselves....
|
Originally Posted by N965VJ
(Post 11587637)
There’s a container of freeze dried basil in my kitchen cupboard right now that I picked up somewhere in my travels. I guess I should count myself as lucky I didn’t end up on the weekly TSA body count for that.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:28 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.