Yeah! and those travellers carrying pain relievers, oregano, chocolate, or breathing air are begging for trouble too!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djXVnmrlKvE


I suggest you stop posting before you make a total idiot of yourself.

lol. i dont disagree with you about the tsa. i think it is a smoke and mirrors joke but it is what it is. many years ago i bought a velcro wallet in the gift shop of an airport. upon boarding the plane i handed it to the pilot and said, so others could hear me, "you dropped this in the bar". i thought it was funny and it got a small chuckle. today i would probably be arrested, filed suit against by the lady behind me who was traumatized, etc. it's just how it is.

I've had more than one screener salivate over my plastic bottle of antifungal foot powder. So, I guess I'm asking for it for simply preventing my feet from getting the crud in strange bathrooms and gyms around the world.

No, you would be called a hero. But, your joke would have caused the innocent pilot to be pulled from the flight and breathalized. This stunt could have ruined his flying career just as Ms Lee has had an arrest blemish on her record.

LOLZ

Wait a minute, I just thought of *another* instance where I could’ve ended up on the TSA body count. One time my girlfriend’s mom gave me a big mason jar of dried Italian parsley to take home (I love to cook). Clearly, I’m an Artful Concealer of kitchen herbs.


9/11 Changed Everything®

exactly my point. i was young and not thinking and if arrested i would have had to deal with it. i would not have looked to sue somebody for something i did.....

Absolutely incorrect.

First, there is no legal definition of "pornography," nor are there any legal prohibitions regarding pornography.

That which may be prohibited is termed, "obscenity" which, by definition, is considered "not speech" and therefore outside the protections of the First Amendment. The test for obscenity was defined in the U.S. Supreme Court case, Miller v. California. The test has three prongs:

• Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
  
• Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,
  
• Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Unless a work satisfies all three prongs it is not obscene and cannot be prohibited by law on the grounds that it is obscene.

Federal law regarding child pornography is found at 18 U.S.C. § 2251 et al.

It's bad enough that TSA plays fast and loose with the law. Let's not do that here on FT.

To an extent I can see what you're talking about, but I still have to disagree with you for several reasons.

1. There were no illegal drugs involved, hence no crime.

2. TSA is well beyond its bounds and authority to check for this type of stuff. When is the last time white flour-- or illegal drugs, for that matter-- brought down an aircraft? This wasn't part of the The Great Sharp Pointy Object Search (R) or The Mysterious Drinkable Liquid Confiscation (R). The only way TSA will ever have a hope of performing acceptably and accomplishing its mission is if it focuses on the areas it actually has authority to focus on. If their TSOs stopped acting like Barney Fife and their BDOs stopped trying to outdo Madam Cleo then maybe they would come across as a competent organization.

3. Neither flour nor condoms are contraband. They had no authority to confiscate these items.

4. Neither of the items set off alarms that their supposedly sensitive chemical detection equipment was supposed to find. Hence, there was not even a need to stop and question her further on this in the first place.

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8830/4.2.2 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)

Whoa!! Give me a break. I'm not a lawyer, obscenity issues aren't exactly in my top ten issues, and give me credit for getting 1/3 of it right.

The interesting thought is that my understanding of obscenity laws is probably very close to everyone in the TSA, including Francine The Googler.

That's the whole point. It's important to actually know the law. TSA can't simply grab dirty magazines from your carry-on because they've decided they're pornography. Similarly, TSA can not detain you or arrest you because they think you have other "contraband."

here's a question for some law experts.... if carrying drugs through an aiport is a felony can tsa make a citizens arrest?

Anyone can make a citizen's arrest. You just better be right because, if you're not, you'll be liable for a number of things. My understanding is that citizen's arrest, like an arrest by a LEO, requires, at minimum, probable cause in the legal sense and also requires that the person making the arrest have witnessed the alleged crime. Someone making a citizen's arrest is held to all of the same legal standards as a LEO. I would not recommend that anyone try to effect a citizen's arrest except in the most dire of circumstances. If a TSO tried that on me, I'd sue the living crap out of him, as well as press criminal charges.

We were discussing bags of white powder. I do not know what the standard for a drug arrest by a LEO would be, but I'd bet it would be more than, "I saw an otherwise solid-looking citizen with a small bag of what appeared to be white powder pass through airport security." A LEO is within his rights to question someone about it. A TSO has absolutely no right to question anyone about anything. If a LEO is dissatisfied with either the responses to his question, the person's demeanor, or any of a number of other factors that a good LEO might observe, he might have grounds to detain. A TSO has no ability whatsoever to detain, and if he should try to do so, he has committed a battery, among other things.

i see what you mean. a LEO has the right to question and if no crime is commited then they are covered where as a private citizen cannot just suspect a crime they must actually witness it. who then has the right to stop you going through security with a bag of cocaine?

LEOs don't have the right to question absent reasonable suspicion, as defined in Terry v. Ohio (subject to a narrow exception for state laws that require you to give your name to law enforcement officers upon request). (Clarification: They do have the right to question, but you're under no obligation to answer and are free to walk away at any time, and your refusal to answer is not grounds for reasonable suspicion and a custodial stop)

The proper constitutional answer to your question though, is, "nobody". That being said, considering the exceptions to the constitution that the TSA has given themselves and the courts have given police to "fight the drug war" (to the point where the 4th amendment more or less no longer exists in drug arrests), it seems to be "whoever feels like it".

reasonable suspicion could be someone(tsa) pointing something out to a LEO? one would hope. i would think someone packing something in a bunch of condoms should absolutely be questioned. shouldnt they?