*****

quan·tum (kwŏn'təm)

• A quantity or amount.
• A specified portion.
• Something that can be counted or measured.

Physics.

1. The smallest amount of a physical quantity that can exist independently, especially a discrete quantity of electromagnetic radiation.
2. This amount of energy regarded as a unit.

A quantum leap would be a small leap. I do not think that is what you meant.

*****

I think I figured out what I was trying to remember about inventory searches.

It was a local talk show host that made the argument that the ruling will change the admissibility of evidence found during an inventory search and/or limit the availability of inventory searches.

So it was opinion I had heard that for some reason stuck in my head as something I had read.

Long story short, never mind.

That is what I thought you meant, just wanted to make sure.

In the absence of other evidence that may bring about reasonable suspicion, the TSO should refer it to CBP, if anyone, and let them make the call as it is their purview, without ever bothering the local LEO.

The fact that the SOP of the TSA demands a LEO intervention for a set amount of cash, goes beyond the scope of their administrative search privilege.

"suspicious incidents", yes. Things that are definitely illegal, no. That's my understanding of the bounds of an administrative search.

You make it sound like there's some careful deliberative process going on here. But that's not possible. Since neither the TSO nor the supervisor can detain the passenger nor sieze any item, if the decision isn't made within a few seconds, the passenger (and likely the item in question too) will be long gone before the LEO arrives. Given that time constraint, how can the supervisor do anything other than always support the TSO?

While no longer an active street LEO but, like Bart still training LEOs internationally, let me offer this.... First, I already said and include by reference: So, do they have authority to find the object, whatever it is? I think, as a function of the consent to search being "voluntary" (or you don't fly today...) yes, they do. Which next leads to: they found the object, can they "hold" you until the real LEO is summoned. Normally, there's a concept of a reasonable period of time real LEO can hold someone on the street, for example, to run a check for outstanding warrants. As a general guideline, in most places, that's about, generally, roughly, give-or-take 20 minutes before we move into a detention that activates a different set of rules. Now, at the checkpoint, I'm thinking that time is going to be even more vague. A screener who finds, say, drug paraphernalia and calls for a supervisor may - given your previous consent to his search - continue that search for the "normal threats" he's supposed to be looking for while the supervisor makes the call on whether or not to involve real LEOs. Here, then, we would seem to rule out a "false imprisonment" or "unlawful detention" kind of situation...if only circumstantially. By comparison, a security guard at the mall stops someone he thinks MIGHT be shoplifting and moves them from the mall to the mall security office although he never really saw them pick up anything and hide it in their belongings or clothes, and then detains them and searches their stuff may - because of the circumstances - be criminally liable. The difference here is the circumstances and, to a degree, moving the person.

Next, we go to what if the thing turns out to be something innocuous instead of drug paraphernalia? Before addressing the part of the original question which suggests "and obviously so," what I think Bart's saying another way is that it's tough to say that one has a real good basis for a criminal complaint against the screener for some sort of "false report" simply because later, a real LEO may come along and make an informed decision based on training and experience and cuts you loose. I agree, using the real LEO's judgement call as the test for whether or not something is "illegal" when he chooses not to make an arrest, no, that alone, doesn't rise to the level of making it a "false report."

The reality is that basically, anyone can REPORT anything to the real police. It's up to the real, trained police to act on what is reported to them appropriately to include making an arrest or cutting you loose. Frankly, you see a guy driving some way you don't like, you can dial "911" and report him as a "drunk driver." Assuming there are police nearby and they stop him and find out he's not drunk, they're not going to "go after" you for a "false report" they're going to explain it to the guy and cut him lose and he really has no recourse as it relates to you. Even assuming he found out who you were, you would describe his driving and the idea would be that you were acting in "good faith." Make it painfully obvious to an outsider: the guy just "cut you off" and you report him as a drunk "to get even" - again there's a presumption that you were acting in good faith and, since no one knows what's in your heart, how can/would they prosecute you?

That same logic would apply to the situation where the screener sees something he knew was "innocuous (and obviously so)" IF the screener could somehow find a way to describe the rationale for calling over the LEO. No one would consider prosecuting him. The truth is, it's not always "what" you say so much as "how" you say it. "I smelled alcohol on his breath..." No, alcohol is odorless, you smelled the odor of an "alcoholic beverage" on his breath... Just like Bart's "leafy green substance..." It's in how you say it: the difference between peeing IN the pool and peeing INTO the pool...

Now, in your question, you ask about "A TSO who says, "Tell me about this $4,000 or I'm going to call over a LEO and you can explain to him,"...". On the one hand, if he detains you at that point, particularly if it's physical in some way, I think that is, effectively, a citizen's arrest which has and will continue to get civilians in trouble especially when it leads to say, a fight or the "perp" (uuugh!) resisting. Now, if it were me and I can only speak for me, when I travel with a lot of cash domestically, if I were asked that, I'd reply: "then I suggest you do just that."

Now when the real LEO shows up, what's he going to do? An UNprofessional officer (like we saw in St Louis) would demand you tell him "why (do) you have this money?" to which I would reply, "frankly, it's none of your business nor is it any of this screener's business." It isn't and there's not been ANY showing that, with cash alone and no other suggestion of a basis for reasonable suspicion much less probable cause suggesting some illegal activity, there'd be no reason to hold you any further without risking THEN the civil tort side, if applicable.

But then back to practicalities, from a practical perspective, say the real LEO sees the screener's in the wrong, he's not going to jack up the screener in front of you, for your benefit, much less arrest him. He's going to dutifully take down your name (called an FI - field interview) and cut you loose. Your name as written down in his note pad, in that case, may never see the light of day again because that was theatre FOR the screener's benefit. The same sort of theatre they hold for the general public: think of it as a sort of "reverse baggie effect." If he's really on top of it, he might talk to the TSA 3 striper about the screener but that's as far as it'll go with a real, professional LE.

You're left with filing the demonstrably meaningless complaint with the TSA and perhaps the uphill battle of pursuing the civil tort action and, there, defining damages...

It's really quite simple. The screener refuses to return your bag to you, if you try to take it you commit assault or at the very least that nice "interference" thing. Unlawful detention in my book, not that it matters in the slightest.

Of course if you don't have a bag, but that's umm... suspicious too isn't it ?

Nice catch that catch-22.

You appear to have perfected the art of giving answers that are factually correct but nonetheless misleading.

Firstly, I don't see how you could legally obtain a passenger's itinerary without a warrant, but for the sake of argument, let's say that you could. Your reply suggests that an itinerary with an international destination would give you probable cause, but as I have posted before, the FinCen 105's own instructions indicate that it may be filed at ANY point prior to departure. So again, assuming that you can legally find out if this particular traveller is headed out of the country, there is most definitely no way for you to know (legally) whether or not he is planning to file his FinCen 105 on his way out of the country, or indeed whether or not he has ALREADY filed it. It's not up to a citizen to demonstrate they are in compliance with the law, it's down to law enforcement to have reasonable grounds to believe that they are not. Given that it is entirely plausible for someone to have cash AND be on their way out of the country AND have filed or be planning to file a FinCen105, having the first two pieces of information doesn't create probable cause. You might just as well detain such a traveller for Jimmy Hoffa's murder, given that you don't have any evidence that he WASN'T responsible for it. Information on a FinCen105 is subject to the same Privacy Act restrictions that a tax return is, it is shared with specific agencies, for specific reasons, which have a duty to protect that information from those with no need to know. An airport LEO has no need to know about confidential, private information shared between a traveller and the IRS, and cannot legally get access to it.

Sorry, though I've never played one on television, I am a lawyer, and some of what you've written is incorrect.

First and foremost, TSOs are not LEOs and have none of the powers of LEOs. LEOs, appropriately, have much committed to their discretion -- that's a necessary part of police work. TSOs are permitted no such discretion.

However, that is an incomplete explanation. TSOs conduct an administrative search which, by definition, must be "narrow in scope" and "minimally intrusive". The scope of an airport search is limited to threats to aviation. TSOs cannot conduct a general search. For example, a TSO in an earlier post, either in this thread or one of the others in this forum, said that he was allowed to rip open the seams of a carry on bag. I asked him what might be within the seams of a carry-on that posed a threat to aviation. Not surprisingly, he didn't answer. Such a search, absent a belief on the part of the TSO that the seams might harbor a threat to aviation is unconstitutional and, further, illegal. By exceeding the scope of the administrative search, it is my belief that the TSO is personally liable for destruction of the bag.

Similarly, assume a carryon bag containing sweaters, a radio and, under the sweaters, a very small plastic bag containing a white powder. X-ray is insufficient to allow the screener to determine whether the box of electronics is actually a radio or something that might represent a threat to aviation and calls for a bag search. The TSO conducting the bag search opens the bag, presses against the sweater and determines the unidentified electronics are underneath. He removes a couple of sweaters, uncovers the radio, removes it and determines it is harmless. In the course of replacing the radio he notices a little bit of the plastic bag sticking out from the remaining sweaters.

He may not pull out the bag to see what is inside because that exceeds the authorized scope of the administrative search, i.e. to determine that there is nothing present that constitutes a threat to aviation. He has cleared the radio and has no reason to suspect anything in the plastic bag. If he pulls it out and calls over a LEO to verify the contents, the evidence is, by definition, fruit of the poison tree, i.e. it will be excluded, at least under current law (though not if the ultraconservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court have their way).

Again, sorry, but you're mistaken. Remember, TSOs, unlike LEOs, have no powers of seizure. They may not deprive anyone of their possessions. Doing so is no more nor less than theft.

See above. If he discovers the drug paraphernalia incident to the administrative search, e.g. in the example above, he opens the bag to look for the radio and sees drug paraphernalia sitting on top of the sweaters, the evidence would be admissible.

That's because no one is being detained. There are two separate issues, here.

"Detention" refers to detention of the person. TSOs have no power to arrest or detain. This means that they cannot physically prevent you from leaving the checkpoint. All they can do is tell you that you may not enter the sterile area and if you try to do, they can call a LEO, who does have the legal power to arrest and detain, to stop you. However, if you simply turn around and walk out of the checkpoint and back to the non-sterile area, they can do nothing except report what happened to a LEO who can then determine, through the exercise of his discretion, whether or not to approach you, ask you to identify yourself, detain you or arrest you.

Any TSO that lays hands on a passenger, other than that permitted within the narrow scope of the administrative search, has committed a battery or worse.

With respect to property, it's a little more complicated. If I were to decide I wanted to leave the checkpoint through the non-sterile area and a TSO, in an effort to stop me, grabbed my shoes from the bin, that would probably constitute illegal detention -- by taking my shoes, I can't really leave.

TSOs have absolutely no power to confiscate anything, including contraband. If a TSO finds what he thinks is "drug paraphernalia" in my carry-on, e.g. the syringes that I possess legally by prescription for injecting my prescribed migraine medication, he may not "seize" it to bring it to a LEO. If he believes that my syringes pose a threat to aviation, he may refuse to admit me to the sterile area. He may not, however, take my syringes from me and bring them to his supervisor who, in turn, calls over a LEO to examine them, at least not without my consent. If I say, "give me back my syringes," and he refuses to, he has committed, at minimum, conversion and asportation, and, possibly, theft.

A LEO who finds the syringes incident to a search can seize the syringes and hold them as part of his investigation. A TSO cannot.

A TSO is not a LEO and has none of the powers of a LEO.

A security guard at a mall may do this only in those jurisdictions where such actions are authorized by statute. California has a statute that authorizes such non-police detentions, but also has very specific conditions that must be satisfied, e.g. I believe one of the criterion is first person observation of the suspect hiding or taking merchandise by a store employee. Absent statutory authorization, or complete compliance with all the requirements of the statute, the security guard at the mall is liable for false imprisonment and battery.

For example, my syringes?

Okay, let's take another example. Bongs are legal in some jurisdictions and not in others. If I'm in a jurisdiction in which they are legal, and a TSO reports me to a LEO for having "drug paraphernalia," because he believes they are not, he has made a false police report.

Let's take another example.

Scenario 1: You, as a LEO, are on patrol on the street and see me standing on a corner. You observe me for several minutes and notice me making what you know to be gang signs to others standing midway down each street from the corner. You note that, occasionally, someone walks up to me and shakes my hand, after which I put that hand in my pocket, then shake hands with the person again, who immediately departs. You come over to me and when I spot you, I immediately become very nervous and look to my "associates" who are standing further down the street. You ask me for identification, I reach in my pocket to pull out my drivers license but, when I do, a plastic packet containing white powder falls out on the ground. As a LEO, you know that cocaine is often sold on the street in this manner. You decide to detain me and perform a pat-down to assure yourself that I have no weapons within my immediate access. In doing so, you feel a large bulge in my back pocket. You pull it out and discover it is a wad of twenties totaling $4,300. You show me the money and ask me, "What's this?" I say, "I don't have to talk to you." You decide there is enough reason to arrest me and do so. You take me back to the station, book me and enter the wad of twenties into evidence.

Later it turns out that the white powder was my migraine medication, that the people who came up to me were friends in the neighborhood, and that my associates on the corner were looking for my mother's car because she might have gotten lost.

False arrest? Theft? Battery? Of course not. Not even remotely close.

Scenario 2: I work for a political campaign and I'm returning by plane from a fund-raiser. I have cash donations from the fund-raiser, totaling $4,300, in a metal cash box. The metal cash box is in my carry-on. The cash-box shows up as a questionable item on the x-ray at the WTMD and a bag-check is called for. A TSO opens my bag and determines that the item in question is the metal cash box. The TSO opens the box and determines that there is cash inside. The TSO shows me the cash and says, "What's this?" I say, "None of your business." The TSO calls over a LEO and says, "I think this guy is a drug dealer." The LEO detains me, questions me about the cash and, eventually, decides to let me go.

False arrest? Theft? Battery? Of course not. Not even remotely close -- with respect to the LEO.

Making a false police report? That's what I think.

That's correct. And a TSO has no more legal power to do so than anyone else. And, like anyone else, a TSO should incur liability for filing a false police report in the circumstances that I've described above. A TSO cannot use a LEO as a surrogate -- if he knew or should have known that no crime has been committed, reporting that one has to a LEO is illegal.

And that's fine. That's the job of real, trained police and there are specific statutes that authorize police to do so in full compliance with the Constitution. Most LEOs spend many months at a police academy, learning both police work AND the applicable law, and then many more months on probation. That's the point -- LEOs have the training and education to exercise police powers, which is why we allow only LEOs to do so.

Nothing in the Constitution permits TSOs to exercise police powers. TSOs, who are authorized only to perform an administrative search that is narrow in scope, cannot, either legally or constitutionally, act like "junior LEOs" and exercise de facto powers of detention, arrest and seizure, by calling over a LEO to perform the actual acts.

If I see someone weaving all over the road, I'll call 911 and report a driver who is weaving all over the road and is driving dangerously. If it turns out that the driver wasn't DUI but had a broken rack-and-pinion that was causing the car to weave, I haven't made a false police report. If, however, I see someone in a tricked-out red Mustang convertible with two beautiful girls in the back and I call the police and say, "I just saw a pimp with two prostitutes," I must certainly have made a false police report. As far as who you would "go after," its within your discretion whether or not to make an arrest. It is up to the DA or CA to decide whether to prosecute. Neither have anything to do with whether the law prohibiting false police reports has been violated.

Good faith is, by definition, a complete defense to an accusation of making of a false police report. If you made the report in good faith, i.e. if didn't know AND shouldn't have known, you're not liable.

There is no legal presumption of good faith. As with any crime, the burden of proof lies with the state, which must provide, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a false police report was made.

Returning to TSOs, in the drug paraphernalia example involving my syringes, if I sue the TSO, I have the burden of proof of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the TSO made a false police report. There is no presumption involved because all a legal presumption does is shift the burden of proof from one party to the other. As I already have the burden of proof, there is no presumption because there is no burden shifting.

Criminally? Possibly so. Civilly? I would. In a heart beat.

I'm talking about the law, not the evidence.

Yup. A false citizen's arrest is unlawful detention, assault and battery. All jurisdictions of which I'm aware privilege reasonable force to resist these.

ASnd that's what I would do as well.

If I am physically assaulted by a TSO and a LEO doesn't arrest him for assault, then I'm going to follow up against the LEO as well. If a TSO confiscates my cash and a LEO doesn't arrest him for theft, then I'm going to follow up against the LEO as well.

You guys are there to protect me, not to cover up illegal conduct by TSOs.

Which brings me back to the beginning. The average pax is not going to go out, hire a lawyer and go through the expense of a lawsuit. TSOs (and TSA) count on that.

However, I am a lawyer. It costs me nothing but the filing fees.

That was a really great post. Unfortunately I disagree with the section I have quoted above.

The administrative search boundary of searching for weapons, explosives and incendiaries would allow the TSO to examine the plastic bag to determine if the powder posed a threat to the aircraft. That powder may contain a weapon (chemical mixed with water to produce noxious fumes) it may contain an explosive substance or it may contain an incendiary substance.

I think you would be hard pressed convincing a court that the TSO removing the plastic bag for inspection overstepped the administrative search limitations.

I am not an attorney so if you can show me where my logic is flawed I would appreciate it.

PT, I think we're actually for the most part on the same page here perhaps saying it in a different way... By way of the reference I would again point back to my previous (which it seems you may not have read...?), repeated here in part: I'm pretty sure we are in agreement, I never said TSA screeners are LE or have any sort of authority similar to that of real LE. Moreover, I think you may have elevated discretion a bit higher in the process than it should be. From my experience, from the LEO side, you have to (1) know what your actual charge/authority is, (2) have to understand what the elements of (a given) crime are and (3) then you can exercise discretion. For the most part, you learn "1" and "2" in the academy. "3" comes from understanding "1" and "2" and gets honed over time and with experience and after exposure to and a grasp of the realities of the job (to include dealing with prosecutors and judges). Too often, a rookie comes out of the academy thinking police work is about "guilty" and "not guilty" - black and white - and they have to learn it's more like 10% "black," 10% "white" and 80% "gray" and THAT's where discretion comes into play in LE. I have not suggested TSOs have any sort of room to apply anything like the sort of discretion real LEOs have.

Welllll, I thought we were on the same page (grin)...I think we're at least in agreement that the screener in that scenario has the right to be looking in the bag for the thing (radio) that he wanted to make sure THAT wasn't a threat. So far, so good. Now, getting to the next step then, he sees nothing more than the corner of "a plastic bag" sticking out. You didn't say he sees a bag of "white powder" at that point and, I think that's key. At this point in the search, I'm totally in agreement with you, just the corner of a plastic bag, no, there's no justification to remove that bag. I'm not seeing where "discretion" even comes into play, I agree it doesn't apply to the screener here. I agree that if he does lift the next sweater to see the bag or removes that bag and finds it is coke, I think it would easily be excluded at trial. Now, as a practical matter, that doesn't mean the guy won't be arrested. That doesn't mean the TSA won't brag about the "big catch" on their web site. That does mean he'll be paying for bail and for a lawyer to get to the point where it's excluded, but that's another story, right?

Now change it a bit, as you pointed out later, and say he moves the sweater that had been over the radio and it also uncovers a bag beside the radio and it has a white powder in it. If he has the training and experience to be able to articulate that there was a reason to suspect the bag of white powder was either a threat or was coke and the latter meant that there was a felony being committed in his presence, as a TSA screener or not since he was in a place where he had some authority to be and what he saw was, at that point, in plain view, he arguably has a social responsibility to call the LEO over and one might say, as a citizen, he may have the right to make a citizen's arrest for that felony being committed in his presence. But don't single out that passage without reading on...THAT's where LEOs discourage citizen's arrests because the average citizen (and TSA screener) lack that training and experience. Where LEOs are reluctant to follow up on citizens arrests is in situations where that lack of training and experience lead to justified claims of false arrest.

On this next point, with all due respect, it doesn't seem you understood/read what I wrote:

I didn't say a TSA screener has the authority by virtue of his job to make a seizure of an item or person that's not a threat to aviation or that they may deprive you of your possessions. I never suggested under color of "TSA authority" they have the power to arrest or detain in the same way an LEO would. As citizens they do and I think we're in agreement, that's done at their own peril. I'm totally in agreement with what you said and it is not in conflict with what I wrote. IF they found something and were willing to make the citizen's arrest, yes, they could effect that arrest using whatever means necessary (yes, at their own peril) for the minute or so it would take the real LEO to walk typically the 30-40 feet over to intervene. But the reality is that they can, through continued rifling through your bag, "keep" you there while a cohort walks over, gets the LEO and brings them back and then that LEO may then detain you. Those are realities separate from whether or not whatever they found might or might not later be admissible. Whether or not you choose to resist or walk away are "your choices," staying with your bag is "your choice." The screener tricking you into staying with your bag long enough for the LEO to arrive is a reality which goes back to you posting bail, you hiring the lawyer then getting the things found in the search beyond the scope of the current "authority" or articulated justification excluded.

In this respect, later you mention "assault and battery." From a criminal perspective, assault is a lesser included offense, effectively an element of battery. Speaking from primarily a California criminal law perspective, assault doesn't require contact with the "victim," the elements of the crime are where someone makes gestures or does an act that would cause the reasonable person to believe that they are immediately or imminently threatened. Battery carries that threat from imminent to "it happened, there was contact" and is a specific intent crime where there is physical contact intended to harm someone. Unintentional or incidental contact, even if it causes injury, isn't battery. If I swing at you and miss, it's assault. If I land the punch, that's battery.

Now, say, screener X has me and my bag in "secondary," he's run the magic wand and hankie around it and as he's putting the hankie in the "Magic Bad Thing Detector and Easy Bake Oven," I tell him in a calm, low voice: "know what, I think this search is over and I'm leaving the checkpoint to go back to the ticket counter now to talk to the (airline name) Ground Security Coordinator" then I close the bag slowly and deliberately without making any movement toward the screener above the level of the bag I'm closing. What part off that would lead the reasonable man to conclude he was in any sort of imminent danger? On the other hand, if you raised your voice, slammed your hand(s) or stuff down on the "Locard's Exchange Proof Stainless Steel Search, Poker and Picnic Table" and started waiving your arms around like a mad man, I think we'd all agree - being reasonable people - that's another story.

If it was handled as described in the first case, it wouldn't, of course, get to battery and really, from a criminal perspective, I can't see how they would bee able to justify calling it assault. Which leaves the more vague "interference" violation related to 49 CFR 1540.107 and more specifically 49 CFR 1540.109. (I've read here where "distracting" a TSA screener is "nonphysical interference" and conviction carries a fine and I know there was a thread here about it.)

BUT, in the "explanation in a calm, low tone and close the bag, I'm leaving the checkpoint now" approach outlined above, say we can eliminate assault, and if the screener's duty is to check me and my stuff before allowing admission to the sterile area, and what I told him is that I no longer want to go into the sterile area, I want to go back "outside" to talk to the airline people, is not his job under 1540.107 over and, if so, how can I be "interfering?" The only appellate case I can find on "interference" is Rendon v TSA where the appellate court's test didn't hinge on freedom of speech but rather that the tone and type of speech coupled with actions and things like voice volume which "caused" the screener to shut down his screening position and call a supervisor and that it reached a point where other people were distracted by Rendon's outburst. Again, NOT what I was suggesting above which would, instead, seem to be promoting the screener's job function by freeing up both the "Locard's Exchange Proof" table and the screener for other, er, important tasks.

So, since there is no objective, published definition of "interference" (what do you bet it's "SSI"), I suppose we're left with the Rendon case description or TSA blog reference. There have clearly been people subjected to the fines by the Administrative Law Judges and the "TSA Decision Makers" (yikes, that's what they're called in the Rendon decision) but details seem to be hard to come by...

The, again, we're in agreement, I think, if handled right, you close your bag and leave the checkpoint, moving away from the sterile area and they have no authority to stop you and no authority to hold your bag. They have no "authority" at that point apart from perhaps letting the nearest LEO know what happened and then, again we agree, that LEO can use discretion and make the call, THEN the LEO has discretion to leave his post at the checkpoint and go conduct your field interview.

Perhaps it's more like "arguably illegal detention" in the practical sense. At the end of the day, he's going to write in his report that he was in the process of gathering some of your belongings and waiting for you to gather the rest of your belongings to begin examining your shoes..." perhaps we're parsing practical as opposed to conceptual...?


We're in agreement and again we're back to the notion of reasonable suspicion to get the LEO to the point where he'd be in a place to see the syringes in plain view. But, if the screener knew the TSA policy that reads you may carry on an "unlimited number of unused syringes when accompanied by insulin or other injectable medication," where is his justification to take them out of your bag in the first place? Say I carry an injectable medication (insulin, B12, it doesn't matter) and 10 syringes in a box in my carry on. They want to go into my bag and they always ask "is there anything sharp in the bag that might cut or stab me?" When I was on the street, before I did a pat down, I asked the same question - from a personal safety perspective, it is entirely reasonable. I would say "yes, there are syringes in there." The TSA web site asks that you identify what med and the syringes. I suppose the request to identify the syringes is reasonable, identifying the med is perhaps beyond the scope but then again there's the idea of identifying the liquid...different debate perhaps.

I'm going to disagree here. He has made a mistake. Filing a false report entails making knowingly false accusations of claims. Moreover, there is no "report" until the LEO completes it. Meaning, if you call the police and say you think the guy next door killed his wife with a machine gun and I rush into that guy's house with the SWAT team and the guy and his wife are asleep on the couch with the TV on and a gangster movie playing, you made a mistake you didn't commit a crime unless you knowingly, using that example, called the police to have them take some action which you knew wasn't justified. That's why, instead of simply rushing in with the SWAT team, the dispatcher would ask you a bunch of questions to get at why you thought she was murdered and the first guy on scene would talk to you about it. If they found you were mistaken - been there, done that - they'd pat you on the head and thank you for being diligent and watching out for Mrs Crabapple next door.

If you made the call, fabricated "observations" took a chicken from the fridge and opened the bag to create a blood trail down the Crabapple's driveway to Mr Crabapple's car...then you'd probably be in trouble.

Eeeeeehhhh..."I think this guy's a drug dealer..." I really don't see that meeting the elements again of a "false report." It's a mistake, and the LEO who questions you about the cash let you go after he did the proper investigation. BUT now you're allowing for the notion that you were detained or allowed yourself to be detained by the TSA screener until the LEO came over to investigate...?

Now then, in that reagrd, what about Steve Bierfeldt? When the screener asked him what the money was for and he asked (note the tone and inflection on the recording: non-threatening) "am I required to tell you that?" might not the screener have whined that was "interference?" If someone has, I'd be interested in seeing it but I haven't seen anything that would indicate he was given an administrative fine for interfering when the screener shut down his position to get LEO involved to get "his answer." Moreover, given the attention the incident drew, IF Bierfeldt were issued an administrative fine for interference, I'm betting it would have made huge news since even the court in Rendon said you are allowed to ask questions:

I think most of it's going to be in how you handle yourself: calmly and professionally or like a raving mad man. Bierfeldt stood up to the unjustified question in a calm and mature manner and I think that's why the last LEO cut him loose so quickly but I've said before and believe strongly that the screener had no justification questioning him about that money and had no authority or justification to hold him in the first place.

And that's the sad truth..er, not that you're a lawyer, that happens in the best of families (insert sly grin here ;) ). Seriously, there's so much shrouded in vague or incomplete directions and statements, secrecy, the mission creep and the lack of anything that resembles professionalism so blatantly obvious at so many checkpoints that those of us who care about the erosion and outright theft of our core, fundamental rights are left pulling what little hair we have left out.

See also post #187: The hypothetical I laid out above to discuss "assult" as opposed to "interferring" is flawed because of where the TSA apparently defines in secret the boundaries of the "sterile area" - which would apaprently include "secondary." I haven't removed or edited the original text here, the mistake is mine and I'll own up to it. In my eagerness to address one subject (assault/interferring), I did so without contemplating the actual boundariees of the "sterile area."

*****