Exactly. Besides, it is called probable for a reason, otherwise they would have named it certain cause.

If the LEO honestly thinks he has a good reason, that's enough. It is up to you to demonstrate malice, ill intent and what not in court, in order to obtain compensation.

Example: somebody is shot and as the patrol car arrives they see you running away. Running in the street is perfectly legal and they didn't see you materially shooting, yet you'll be detained.
Once they find you have nothing to do with the shooting, you are set free, but you won't have any recourse for wrongful imprisonment, or anything like that.

Here's how TSOs create probable cause:

They work together: the left hand (TSA) does the limited administrative search, while the right hand (LEO) makes the decisions and takes the responsibility. With a collaboration like this, some SPOTted hung-over passenger could get his bag inspected down to the seams looking for anything that might be suspected of being a realistic replica of an IED component.

*****

And the mistake people invariably make is responding to your "harmless" query.

Post deleted. Misunderstood the premise of what I was responding to.

See near the end of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik for an example of how it could. (Short version: I live hear a store that was robbed. I say that I was visiting my mother 200 miles away at the time and I, in fact, was. The police have a witness who think she saw me near the my house, and hence the store, at the time of the robbery. Had I not said anything, a witness claiming I was seen near my house was useless. But given the statement, now that witness would seem to impeach what I said.)

I am glad to see that I am not the only one whose eyes rolled to the back of their head when they saw that. Thank you for setting the record straight. I just have a few questions for you.

Is there a prohibited items list? All that we have ever heard is there is no comprehensive list, there will never be comprehensive a list and what is considered prohibited is solely up to the screener's discretion.

I thought the basis for the administrative search was simply weapons, explosives and incendiaries. Are there things on your list that fall outside of the weapons, explosives and incendiaries boundaries?

Final question, how often do TSOs have to appear in court over drugs and money they have found as part of their search?

*****

Two of my friends are airport counsel at larger US airports on the eastern seaboard. They constantly complain about their referrals not being accepted by the relevant USAO, and usually, it's for good reason.

Federal judges love pleas, and hate trials. Hence all prosecutors are under very subtle but real pressure to work out a deal with the accused, which also explains why TSO's might not be called to testify.

Bart, perhaps you can answer a question to which I've never received a specific answer, either from TSOs or their supervisors whom I've asked.

I have a fiberglass-legged tripod. It weighs 4.5 pounds and, folded up, is about 20" long. It has rubber feet -- no spikes. It, along with the small video head on top of it, cost me $600+ and I've been packing it in checked luggage, with which I am not comfortable given the high level of theft.

Can I or can I not take this through the WTMD checkpoint?

The answers I have gotten were, "It depends," "Ask your airline," "I would let it through but I don't know about other TSOs," and similar equally unhelpful responses.

I am sorry I asked that question badly. I should have said "how common is it for a TSO to be required to testify?" What I really wanted to know is if the prosecution relies on TSO�s testimony or do they try to skip over the TSO and rely on the LEO�s testimony.

On your riddles, and I would not bring this up but, we just covered being precise with your words in the kid's homeschooling.

Instead of "a refrigerator", you need to change that to "the refrigerator" to denote that you are talking about the same refrigerator. As the question stands the answer of �shove him in there� is correct.

The moral is dead on.

Why is this so difficult for the pro-harassment folks to understand? The problem is not with "contact," the problem is with police reaction when that contact is declined. I get police asking me "how are you doing today?" all the time. I respond by telling them I don't as a matter of course engage in conversations with law enforcement officers. Most of the time their friendliness is phony anyway.

The problem starts when many of them refuse to accept that and start hassling you. No one here is complaining about someone saying "hello". Why is that difficult for you to understand?

Again, in my earlier example, I was standing on a corner, minding my own business, drinking a ginger ale from a dark green bottle, when a cop pulls up in his authoritay-mobile and demands to see the label. NO PROBLEM THERE -- a cop can ASK anything he wants. The problem started when I declined to show it to him and gets out and grabs it out of my hand. Again, why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Some on this thread don't like the term "presumption of innocence," so let's use another: "benefit of the doubt." As a citizen standing on the corner, drinking from a dark green bottle, I might or might not be consuming alcohol underage in public. I am the one who is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Unless the police have some reason (i.e., I don't to be able to stay on my feet without the assistance of a lamppost) to believe it is alcohol, they have to assume that it is not. Similarly, if I am walking down the street with a bowling ball bag in my hand, I am entitled to the benefit of the doubt as to whether there is a bowling ball or a decapitated head in the bag, and the cops can't use the excuse that the bag could contain a head to have a look inside. Once again, if I am dripping a trail of blood from the bag as I walk down the street, then it might be reasonable for a cop to have a look inside.

I'll say it again -- NO, it is not. There actually has to BE a good reason, not just have some half-wit cop "think" or "believe" there is. I thought we already settled this.

Nobody has said anything in this thread that suggests that cops aren't entitled to the same presumption of innocence civilians are or that the burden of proof isn't on the plaintiff. But again, good intentions don't get you off the hook. Cops probably do more damage and are sued more often for good old-fashioned well-meaning, bumbling incompetence than they are for malicious actions. Just ask the Menendez family.

And once again, as has already been addressed in this thread, nobody has suggested that ultimate release or acquittal means that there wasn't PC for the detention in the first place.

That's the real problem, Polonius: in your world a patrol car is always an "autoritah-mobile", a police office a "half-wit cop", he says hello and you "don't engage in conversation"...
Why it is so difficult for you to understand ? Wouldn't be much easier for you to show the ginger ale label ?

A cop, or anybody else, wants to know what I had for breakfast, or what my middle initial stands for ? Who cares! I'm telling them, no problem.
They want to know if I'm attracted to underage girls or read my diary, then things are different.

Defend your privacy and your rights when they are really in danger and, above all, be polite to other people, whether they are wearing a uniform or not. It is your constitutional right to be a perfect jerk, but that's not a good reason for being one.

That's what intelligence is all about: being able to act accordingly to circumstances, instead of blindly following written rules no matter what.
Yes, you can require a court order before telling a policemen the time of the day. You can also be rude to your dentist and still demand the best service. My question to you is: Is this behaviour going to make your life better, or worse ?

*****