Originally Posted by law dawg (Post 11640727)

I wanted to clear up one thing. While it has been correctly noted here that TSOs are not held to a probable cause standard, they are very much held to the scope of the search standard. IOW, they can't be looking in places that could not hold the prohibited items prescribed in the search parameters. If they find something within that scope that is not a dangerous item, they can refer that to a LEO and the search would be valid. If they went outside those parameters and found something, that evidence would be excluded. Although you'd still take a ride downtown

Originally Posted by PTravel (Post 11639388)

Giving them police-style uniforms and badges only reinforces the perception that they have police powers.

Originally Posted by yyzvoyageur (Post 11642036)

In my experience (not security screening, but rather an enforcement role), very aggressive and belligerent people often have something to hide,

Originally Posted by polonius (Post 11643038)

Sorry, don't believe that. I have little doubt the 9-11 hijackers were all "good morning to you," fully co-operative, friendly and cheerful on their way through the checkpoint. Probably the most pleasant people the screeners encountered that morning.

Originally Posted by Wally Bird (Post 11643086)

There is a video of Atta and Jarrah going through security and they are grim-faced and taciturn. Not what I'd call friendly, but not obviously bad guys either - just two more passengers. However, Atta did get into a bit of a dispute about having to be screened twice (PWM/BOS), something he obviously hadn't anticipated.

Which proves nothing, except the truism that you can't tell a terrorist just by looking. Or SPOTting.

http://www.historycommons.org/contex...ideoclassified

Originally Posted by Wally Bird (Post 11643086)

There is a video of Atta and Jarrah going through security and they are grim-faced and taciturn. Not what I'd call friendly, but not obviously bad guys either - just two more passengers. However, Atta did get into a bit of a dispute about having to be screened twice (PWM/BOS), something he obviously hadn't anticipated.

Which proves nothing, except the truism that you can't tell a terrorist just by looking. Or SPOTting.

http://www.historycommons.org/contex...ideoclassified

Originally Posted by rustyhaight (Post 11635569)

Now, to be clear, common questions I'd expect of someone being courteous, or even reasonably curious aren't the kinds of things I think the reasonable man ought to react like that to. For example, I often travel with a lot of "unusual looking" electronics or camera gear. I had a guy at a check point ask about a strobe I had and my experience with it. I may have been the subject of a "BDO" or it may have been wholly innocent conversation as he was rifling my stuff but my perception was it was casual, it seemed to be genuine interest, and it didn't extend my trip through the "secondary." I responded in kind, answering his questions and talking to him like I would anyone else who asked me about it. I see that as "no harm, no foul." It's been those few occasions where the person at the checkpoint has chosen a tone or line of questions I don't think I or any individual in that setting deserves that I have in the past and will again in the future reply to in the form of "name, rank and serial number (as above)." If they can articulate a reason for holding me, they will have to explain it to those people. I have no intention of subjugating my rights and freedoms to some wannabe who's nothing more than badge heavy.

Originally Posted by Bart (Post 11646126)

I teach TSOs that we can only search for prohibited items. Even if they see what appears to be a crack pipe on the x-ray screen, it is not enough to warrant a search because pipes are not prohibited items. ...

Originally Posted by Bart (Post 11646126)

I teach TSOs that we can only search for prohibited items. Even if they see what appears to be a crack pipe on the x-ray screen, it is not enough to warrant a search because pipes are not prohibited items. However, if they see a pocketknife on the x-ray screen, and the TSO who physically searches the bag comes across something that may be drug paraphernalia, then that TSO summons the supervisor. The supervisor determines whether or not to notify the LEO.

I also teach TSOs to notify the supervisor whenever they come across large sums of cash NOT because it may indicate a crime (it doesn't) but because before touching that large sum of money, it's best to have the supervisor on hand to witness the rest of the screening for the TSO's protection against false claims (not that that's ever happened before!). Large sums of money only come into play for international flights.

Originally Posted by Bart (Post 11646126)

......I also teach TSOs to notify the supervisor whenever they come across large sums of cash NOT because it may indicate a crime (it doesn't) but because before touching that large sum of money, it's best to have the supervisor on hand to witness the rest of the screening for the TSO's protection against false claims (not that that's ever happened before!). Large sums of money only come into play for international flights.

Originally Posted by colpuck (Post 11648356)

From my understanding of Criminal Procedure, the courts will not make a decision on the validity of the search based on the nature of the item discovered or the crime. Specifically, the TSA authority is based on administrative searches. However, should the discover a crack pipe on an x-ray scan or kiddie porn stash during a physical inspection of the bag, it is all admissible evidence.

Now on to TSA's as LEO's

TSA's are not LEO's, that's all been covered. However, according to the 9th Cir. (IIRC) once you consent to the TSA search, you can not withdraw that consent.

If you are talking to a LEO you can end the conversation by simply stating, "I invoke my 5th amendment right to remain silent, and I will not speak with you without my attorney present." At that point the officer has one of two choices, letting you go, or arresting you and holding you for a max of three days.