Over in http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2009/04/inci...rnational.html you thought it was "reasonable" to go so far as to count Bierfeldt's money:

They can't be searched for specifically. But if they're found while in the scope of the permitted search (weapons, etc.) then they're admissible.

Your logic about gaming the system, lines up directly, IIRC, with the 9th circuit logic. What I may never understand is where this concern came from. Does "game the system", mean, enter into the "system" to get intel about it, without going all the way through? Why would any self-respecting bad guy want only partial data?
If the bad guys wanted to learn the "system", such as it is, then they would be further ahead to buy a fully refundable ticket, print out dozens of BP's and transit the "system" completely as often as need be to learn as much as they needed to know. If you're going to wrap a block of cheese in wires, you'll likely create the same check-point response, ie get the same info, whether you try to leave the screening part way through or have the TSO's determine it's a harmless block of cheese wrapped in wires, and let you go on your way.
And if someone decides to leave a screening part way through, which TSO has authority to detain them?
The posted logic seems to me to be just a red herring to assist turning administrative searches into fishing expeditions under color of a court ruling.

This is what I mean by "game the system". Imagine I have a stick of dynamite in my pocket and I am not just glad to see you. I send my bag with all my electronics through the x-ray. There is nothing in the bag so no worries if they give it a secondary.

My dynamite will not trigger the metal detector so no problems there. If the TSO decides to do a pat-down or MMW screen on me I am now in trouble as the dynamite will be detectable.

If I am allowed to say "no thanks" to the MMW AND the pat-down and if I am free to turn away, the TSA has prevented THAT attempt to bring down a plane.

Now assume I walk though the metal detector with no problem and I am not chosen for a secondary. I have just entered the sterile area with a stick of dynamite.

No advanced intel needed.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Who has suggested that it doesn't?

Really? And what kind of threat to aviation can be artfully concealed in a bag's seam?

All I can say is it will be a bad day for TSA if that ever happens to me.

http://research.lawyers.com/glossary...ve-search.html

You actually give a good case for the puffer. The puffer would pick up that stick of dynamite and would be discovered in a minimally intrusive way.

I think puffers are the way to go. My only question on puffers (not trying to be funny here) is if you pass gas would the puffer alarm?

Good question. I don't know if methane is detected. Only been thru puffers twice: once at SLC and once at the CN Tower in Toronto. Didn't have to fart either time. :D

The tricky part here is that the bounds of a legal search specify both what is to be searched and what is to be searched for. This is true both when a search warrant is issued and for administrative searches. In the case of TSA, there is an "implied consent", but we have ask what what the bounds of the search being consented to are. Clearly, it's "a search of the passenger's accessable property for objects that are a threat to aviation". So I would indeed expect the possibility that the bag may be opened and objects in it looked closely.

However, there are limits to the search. A magazine is not a threat to aviation. So I would have an expectation that my magazine would not be opened. If somebody did open it and discovered kiddy porn, I would hope that such evidence wouldn't be admissible.

A flash drive (once that is determined to be what it is) is not a threat to aviation. So I would have an expectation that nobody would read the files on it and find that some were copyright violations and cite me for it.

Currency is not a threat to aviation. So I have an expectation that nobody would count my currency and try to figure out my itinerary and/or if I filed any required forms.

I agree that there are subtlies here. For example, it would be reasonable to be requested to turn on a laptop computer and maybe even open a file or two to prove that it's a functioning computer. If my background, a window that I'd previously opened, or a file I opened contained kiddy porn, I would have no expectation of privacy. But if the TSO took the computer and randomly opened files and found some pirated software (or kiddy porn, for that matter), that would be outside the bounds of the search and hence not permitted.

Next time eat a pickled sausage and BBQ Fritos about 3 hours before you walk through. Tell us of the results.

A bit OT, but there is NO WAY for the TSA to "figure out" if you have filed the required forms. Firstly, as clearly in indicated in the instructions for the FinCen 105, in the part titled "when and where to file", you can file pretty much at any point prior to departure, including filing AFTER you have cleared the TSA checkpoint. Even if you have filed, you have no proof of filing (unless you specifically asked for it) the TSA has no right to ask for any, and the TSA has no access to any information on who has or has not filed, nor do they have the knowledge or expertise to make a determination about compliance with the law even if they did illegally gain access to such records.

Secondly, I don't see anything in the regulations that prevents you from filing by post. So if you drop your form in the mail on your way to the airport, you're 100% legal, and since that form goes to the CBP, who then passes it along to the IRS, the TSA has no way to "figure out" if you have filed, and indeed, it would be an violation of the Privacy Act if they tried to find out.

And? Your point is?

Thanks Richard.

So far as I can tell you are right on target. But a magazine can be used to conceal a prohibited item. So, it might be opened if the TSO is searching for a prohibited item depending on what it is. If they noted kiddie porn then they are required to notify the supervisor who calls a LEO.

At my airport we don’t have the ability to access the data on flash drives. I don’t see where this could be an issue. Now, there are a few places that sell knives that look like flash drives, I could see that as a reason to examine a drive, but not plug it in somewhere.

Which is why if we believe that the amount of cash approaches the limit we call a LEO. They have the resources to deal with the issue, as well as the authority.

Ewww, that could be... messy. :)

I have seen an ETP once at SFO, but never have gone through it. Of course we all (TSO's) are aware of the system, but until we get one at my airport I wont be trained on it. So I dont know all of the things it detects.

My understanding is that most if not all of the puffers are off-line due to costs and maintenance issues. We may never see that machine again in that incarnation.