TSA and 'Druggies'
 

Does TSA test suspected controlled substances?

Hold persons carrying $10,000+ cash?

Impound water pipes?

Confiscate X-Rated DVDs?

Gag Halloween fright garb?

If the TSO feels that an item indicates a crime is being committed or has some directive stating that item is contraband then they can refer you to real LEOs.

So no the TSA does not test suspected controlled substances.
They will refer you to LEO for $10k+
They may ask that you "willingly" give up the pipe as they don't confiscate anything, or refer you to real LEOs.
Depends on how hot the DVDs are.
Most likely will take away your scream mask.

What was the point of this again?

Where does everyone keep getting the idea that porn is somehow prohibited?

...Huh? A Halloween... costume? What's the problem with that? We had a freakin' Darth Vader come through the HSV checkpoint once. He picked up his bag and went on his merry way.

Suspected paraphernalia are in the same category as actual drugs, TK. It's a call to the cops.

[QUOTE=HSVTSO Dean;11583428]Where does everyone keep getting the idea that porn is somehow prohibited?

TSORon keeps bringing it up by mentioning kiddie porn so folks might make the assumption that all porn is illegal.

How do TSA bag checkers decide what to refer to police during an airport search?
 

What category is that, Dean? And how do you identify a substance as being an illegal drug rather than something that is suspected of such?

I've posed the following questions to West and Kelly on the TSA blog multiple times, but they refuse to answer. Can you provide any input?

[QUOTE=AngryMiller;11583438]Various states enact and enforce different laws.

"Paraphernalia" and "porn" are elastic, even problematic terms.

A "condiment" may be psychotropic.

A screener may consider an adult DVD too crude or its stars too young. And do or say nothing.

I'm just wondering if screeners are inclined to pass on borderline enforcement items that don't literally violate the carry-on rules. Don't jurisdictions overlap?

"Inclined to"? Absolutely!
but should they? Absolutely not!

Only in the minds of the screeners and/or those who make their policies at TSA HQ. TSA's "jurisdiction" is to keep off aircraft those things which pose an immediate threat to the physical safety of that aircraft: i.e. weapons and bombs. That's it, that's all. Cash, white powders, green leaves, magazines (porn or not, kiddie porn or not) and books (regardless of the language or content) do not pose any danger to the immediate safety of the aircraft and are none of their business. Undeclared cash in amounts greater than $10k going in or out of the country is CBP's jurisdiction. Drugs and kiddie porn are the jurisdiction of local and federal police, FBI, DEA, etc.

They've gone a long way down the slippery slope. Most people would agree they should report a severed human head, even though it's not a threat to aircraft. The argument is that any decent person would report that, gov't employee or not, which is probably fair. But where do you then draw the line? Some people think they should report substances that might (or might not) be drugs, for the same reason that you'd report the severed head. They're now bold enough to think they need to report legal things (like cash) just because there is a scenario in which it might be linked to illegal activities. Their justification is that they're just "helping out" the CBP. Next they'll want to browse through your magazines to see whether they've got kiddie porn, check the music on your iPod to make sure it's all legal and run a check on your children just in case you're a kidnapper. Just helping out the FBI, you know. The problem, of course, is many innocent people are harassed in the process (which is why the Constitution doesn't allow such searches) and that screeners don't have any of the required training for detective work.

The next step (and if you think this isn't coming you haven't been paying attention) is random searches of your car, home and business to see whether you have any illegal activities or possessions. Game over.

The test is "Does the material violate local community standards?" If it does, porn that violates local community standards is illegal. I'm certain there was a Supreme Court case that defined this standard. There could easily be an FSD out there who decides that anything worse than Maxim violated local community standards. Then, porn becomes contriband.

BTW, isn't your airport in a dry county? (I know the Greenbrier BBQ down the road from you is in a dry county.) If so, it would seem to me that alcohol could also be contriband.

The TSA just hasn't chosen to go there -- yet.

Not really. There's a couple of dry counties around us, but Madison isn't. There are, however, laws against selling alcohol on Sunday, which basically runs from 12am Sunday morning to 7am Monday morning (I think it's 7am; it's been a long, long time since I worked at Wal-Mart and had to deal with that).

But even aside from that, the way I understand it is that it's the same as the sex toy prohibition that the Alabama legislature passed - it's not illegal to own, it's just illegal to purchase.

I'm willing to buy that it could happen, given that local community standards bit (and I agree with you; it's there somewhere. I've heard about it before), but it's never happened in HSV and hasn't happened anywhere else for that matter that I've heard, either.

Anytime in recent memory that even child pornography has ever been discovered in a passenger's bag, it's been (a) in checked baggage, and (b) cleared by the screeners and later looked into by LEOs. In one case, for example, the passenger was discovered to have drugs on his person going through the checkpoint. The LEOs made the decision to have his checked-in suitcase pulled off the plane to search, wherein they discovered the child pornography.

I'm not too terribly keen on understanding specifically what you mean by overlapping jurisdictions. We can be in contact with almost any branch of law enforcement when we need to be - we have the numbers for local police on-hand, as well as the FBI and CBP and several others that we've never had to use - so when we find something that's arguably questionable we can notify the proper law enforcement agency. I'm just not exactly certain that's what you meant.

As for inclination, I and the screeners I work with don't generally seem very inclined to do so unless the SOP specifically instructs us to. This whole thing with large amounts of cash is over exactly two sentences in the procedures. It doesn't say anything about $10,000 or anything else; it just states that if we find a large amount of cash money to report it to the STSO. That's it. I had to actually discover the meaning behind it myself, through other information outlets. 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.

However, that said, that's it. 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.

The only person in HSV who's ever made a comment at all about porn (aside from new people who're always shocked when they find it for the first time) is one of our LTSOs, a very religious person who calls it "spiritual hazmat." And that's it. He just has his own word for it, and then he does his job and sends it on his way.

It is, essentially, as Trollkiller said:


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.

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.

You do realize that's the sum total and whole of the entire screening process itself, right?

Clearly, the reaction to finding a severed head differs from spotting a suspicious white powder. A reporter from Darfur might be packing what a local jurisdiction calls a snuff video. Screeners who flag people and property operate within a jurisdictional patchwork. I'm not taking one side, just wondering whether standards and practices vary by station and state.

I wonder why the TSA SOP concerns itself with certain "blatantly illegal contraband," but not others, especially when one item of contraband under the SOP, cash, is not blatantly illegal.

HSVTSO Dean, I do appreciate you discussing these matters with the rest of us.

[QUOTE=AngryMiller;11583438]Kiddie porn is illegal in every jurisdiction in the United States. In most other countries as well. It is one of the only non-weapon/explosive related materials that is going to get an automatic LEO call.

Other porn, last I heard it was still covered under the freedom of speech amendment. We see it all the time, its just as common as dirty drawers.

TSORon

Phil,

Weaponized Anthrax appears to be a fine white powder. Several types of powdered explosives do as well. Think about that.

TSORon

And that is what the ETD's are for. No need to involve the LEO's unless you have a positive.

Have any TSO's been disciplined for failing to refer "drugs" or cash to a supervisor for further investigation?

[QUOTE=TSORon;11586236]Never trust cover art stating that "all actors are at least 18 years old."

Flag it.

TSA has no "jurisdiction." TSOs are not law enforcement officers and have none of the powers of law enforcement officers. They may not detain. They may not arrest. They may not confiscate, except for specific contraband. All they may do is deny you access to the sterile area and call for a law enforcement officer.

Not that I'm aware of. It may have happened somewhere, but if it did, I've never heard about it.

It wouldn't surprise me if there have been no discipline instances. The TSA walks a fine line with items outside of the specific items being searched for and to discipline a TSO for failing to report such an item could have legal repercussions.

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?

A fella could have a pretty good weekend in LAS with all that stuff.

janet lee should have been arrested and it was a crime she was awarded any money. she knew better. same as you wouldnt try to bring a fake gun through or yell bomb! in an airport.

Kelly at the TSA blog doesn't seem to understand "suspected" vs. "certainly"
 

Why does TSA care about export of unreported cash in amounts greater than $10,000 and possession of illegal substances, but not copyright infringement, transportation of unvaccinated pets, or (you didn't address this one) people who are in the country without permission?

How do you define that category? You've already told us that the definition is not, "appears to be something that could indicate wrongdoing." You said that TSA is not concerned with several illegal activities when its staff sees something that might indicate them.

Many of your staff who voice opinions on your blog do so. Every time one of us says that you shouldn't be concerned with anything found during one of your warrantless searches besides weapons, explosives, and incendiaries (with the exception, of course, of those things which clearly indicate wrongdoing, such as a severed head) someone else chimes in and says, "What do you expect us to do if we find drugs, just ignore it and let the person go on?" I haven't seen you speaking up to tell those people that in the eyes of the law, those aren't illegal drugs, they're just something that is suspected of such.

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:
Dean, this conflicts with what you wrote. Are you mistaken or is she? Bob put her in the junior blog corp, but despite repeated requests for him to do so, he will not say whether or not she now writes on behalf of TSA.

I don't understand.

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 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:
I have repeatedly asked her whether she thinks this sort of behavior is constitutional, but she has not answered.

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....

Hadn't heard they had tried to trump up bogus charges against her -- seems they'll pretty much do anything to avoid admitting wrongdoing. Which is why she was stupid to settle for 180K -- she should have collected enough so that she would never need to worry about getting a job.

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...

no i just take responibility for myself. i know how tsa is. i know there is nothing i can do about it so i cause the least amount of hassle as possible when going through. packing a bunch of condoms full of flower is begging for trouble and that is exactly what she got....

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.

i'm going to guess you didnt pack it to look like you were smuggling drugs. if miss innocent would have been just carrying a sack of flour she would not have been hassled. would she? she tried to make it look like dope. and the dope got hassled. dont get me wrong in different times it may have been viewed as a harmless prank but we dont live in those times anymore..

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."