So what exactly creates probable cause?
 

OK, we've had a lot of talk, especially this past week, about probable cause-- primarily around what creates it and what doesn't. I think it would be a service to those of us on this board, and the flying public in general, to hold a candid and frank discussion about this issue.

I'd like to specifically target this issue around probable cause as it relates to TSA checkpoints, and I'm hoping that those with practical experience or solid legal knowledge will chime in on this. (Opinions from the peanut gallery cannot be stopped, I suppose, but I really intend this thread to solicit feedback from those who know what they're talking about on the matter.)

To start the discussion off:
- Can we get a legal definition, with a relevant example or two, of probable cause? I think that many of us who play armchair attorney here (myself included) think we know what it is, but do we really know?

- How does obtaining probable cause relate to questioning by TSA? I understand that you have a right to not answer questions asked to you... how does answering or not answering bolster a TSO's position if s/he decides a referral to an LEO is warranted?

- What exactly are your rights at a checkpoint? I've read a lot of assertions from a lot of people-- some sound knowledgeable and some sound like they're on a power trip. What can and can't a passenger do if questioned? What is advisable? (Note that these two questions may lead to substantially different answers.)

PROBABLE CAUSE - A reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. The test the court of appeals employs to determine whether probable cause existed for purposes of arrest is whether facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. U.S. v. Puerta, 982 F.2d 1297, 1300 (9th Cir. 1992). In terms of seizure of items, probable cause merely requires that the facts available to the officer warrants a "man of reasonable caution" to conclude that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime. U.S. v. Dunn, 946 F.2d 615, 619 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. Denied, 112 S. Ct. 401 (1992).

Example: LEO sees crime in progress, or LEO has articulable facts to determine whether a crime is/was committed.

TSA Screeners are not LEO's, therefore probable cause does not apply to them.

You search at a TSA checkpoint falls under an Administrative Search (read below)

All I know is from direct experience. I make a point of routinely verbally harassing TSOs as much as possible every chance I get. But I am careful not to cross any lines, e.g., anything that could be considered assault or a threat. Sometimes they just deal with it and move on. Other times, they get uppity and threaten to call the cops, a threat to which I always respond to with, "yes, absolutely, please do." Then I never answer any of their questions and they eventually let me go.

The bottom line is that you do not have much in the way of rights at the checkpoint. Walking down the street, a cop wants to know this or that and with the exception of the need to identify yourself in some states, you can pretty much tell him to go ******* ****** with your ******* until he ********* and there isn't much he/she can do about it. At the checkpoint, all they need to do to ruin your day is just inform you that you're not going past the checkpoint, and there isn't a lot you can do about it. There is no need for probable cause for anything, because again, you either consent to the search or you don't fly. However, even though it has yet to be tested in court, I doubt they could justify keeping you off the plane just for annoying them. If they tried to bar me from boarding on the basis of my taunting them and their pathetic rules, I'm reasonably confident I could successfully sue. They have backed down on issues like the KHIAI bag because they are aware that they are on legally thin ice if they try to use 1st amendment activity as the basis for barring a passenger from a plane. But other than that, I think they have pretty wide latitude in terms of whom they keep off. But I would expect that if they are unable to articulate a specific and credible reason for it they would be at risk of a lawsuit of some sort.

As for development of probable cause in relation to a security inspection, it's pretty straight forward. Walking down the street with decapitated head in a bag, if its not dripping blood on the sidewalk as you walk there is pretty much no way a cop could get a look inside. But if a screener sees it, they are allowed to alert the cops by saying "it looks like he has a decapitated head in the bag," and voíla -- instant probable cause and the cops can search (although it should be noted that the cop in that case wouldn't be able to search beyond what was necessary to establish whether there was or was not a decapitated head in your bag, i.e., he couldn't search your bag, find out it was just a bowling ball, and then search your jacket and find a packet of cocaine).

I'm not a moderator, nor do I play one on TV, but can I just put in a simple request from a lowly reader to be civil about this?

I'm as anti-TSA as anyone in here, but as a whole, it's getting harder and harder to read threads in this forum nowadays.

+1

well said ^ so let's play nice in the sandbox folks

[QUOTE=Wentor;11632209][b]

You search at a TSA checkpoint falls under an Administrative Search (read below)

Quote:
Administrative search
Definition
: an inspection or search carried out under a regulatory or statutory scheme esp. in public or commercial premises and usu. to enforce compliance with regulations or laws pertaining to health, safety, or security <one of the fundamental principles of administrative searches is that the government may not use an administrative inspection scheme as a pretext to search for evidence of criminal violations .People v. Madison, 520 N.E.2d 374 (1988)>

....................
This definition is what interest me. To bring into focus let's look at the $4700 incident.

Man with metal box presents to be screened. To clear the box it must be opened and the interior cleared of prohibited objects. No problems so far.

The bounds of the Administrative Search permit TSO's to search for certain things, explosives, weapons, incendaries and other prohibited items.

Does the TSO step out of bounds when seeing something that is clearly not a threat to aviation, as in the case of the $4,700 and calling in LEO?

It would seem so to me, but INAL, don't play one on TV nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express recently.

The TSA Dragnet Checkpoint is clearly a problem, have they jeopardized their Administrative Search criteria?

[QUOTE=Boggie Dog;11632597]Not so long as they're within the limits of the original justification for the search. If they're looking for items that are dangerous but in places that can't hold them, then that would be an invalid search. You can only look in those places that can legitimately hold the item(s) in question. If so, and they discover something illegal but outside their purview, then they are within the law to call over LEOs.

You have the right not to answer any questions from TSA, CIA, DEA, FBI, LEO, ABC, CBP, etc...

If you decide to play hardball, so can they...

So if I understand this correctly, the following would be accurate:

- While hand-inspecting a metal box the size of a laptop computer, a TSO finds a wad of cash. S/he thinks it might be evidence of wrongdoing, and the passenger refuses to give an explanation. The TSO refers it to an LEO. This is reasonable, because, based upon its size, the metal box being searched could have held a prohibited object/weapon.

- Someone brings a pill box (you know, something just big enough for about a half dozen aspirin). The TSO decides to open it and see what's inside, just for the heck of it. He finds a diamond that he believes to be valuable. When asked about it, the passenger refuses to give an explanation. The TSO refers it to an LEO. This is not reasonable, because, based upon its size, the pill box could not have held a prohibited object/weapon.

Does this make sense, or am I missing something else?

That sounds about exactly right.

For example, as a LEO executing a warrant looking for a body, I can't look in the pantry. So anything I find there would be inadmissible. If I looked in the closet, however, and found something that would be admissible.

So similarly, if a TSO is flipping thru someone's documents and find kiddie porn that wasn't in plain sight, that would also be inadmissible as there would be no reason for a TSO to be looking for weapons, incendiaries and similar in a folder. Correct?

Unless there's a way they can articulate they were looking in that place - ie-a razor blade or the like.

I have yet to see the TSA state that a particular container is too small to search. Examples of their reasoning are that grams of explosive material can fit within the smallest of containers or that a very small knife can also fit in a very small space. However, if liquids in containers of less than 3.4 oz are okay, then it would seem that a container that is less than 3.4 oz. has no reason to be examined.

Wouldn't something like this show up on the X-ray? If so, yes, looking in that place would make sense if such an image is identified. Otherwise, what would be the purpose of such search?

Of course, all this discussion is purely academic. In reality they just do whatever they want. Attempts to complain are met with DY...T threats, phone complaints are ignored, and written complaints are tossed in the trash.

At the end of the day, though, it's up to a judge to determine if the scope of the search was appropriate.

Which, of course, would in theory show up on an x-ray scan that would give them reason to look in that folder.

I think absent that (and having it available for a judge to review), a good lawyer could get the evidence suppressed.

For all the Southerners, by "pantry" he means cabinets like where you put the dishes.

law dawg, down south we call the big closet in or just off the kitchen a pantry. This is where we store our canned and dry goods. Most are large enough to conceal a body.

So if you ever serve a warrant looking for a body be sure to check by the pinto beans, that is where I keep mine until I can feed them to the gators. ;)

I didn't think screeners were held to the Probable Cause doctrine in the legal sense. The legislation which (ostensibly) controls their actions is administrative not criminal, as someone pointed out.

With regard to the 4th Amendment, courts ruled some time ago that airport searches were constitutional provided they were limited in scope to discovering items which were a threat to flights. I don't think there's any question that that particular interpretation/ruling has gone by the board.

If a screener summons a LEO then PC is supposed to come into it, except that the LEO can simply defer to the screener - because a LEO has been summoned that is ipso facto probable cause. A court might not and hopefully would not agree, but I wouldn't place any bets.

This begs another question:

Scenario 1: Passenger A goes though security, calls over a LEO and says, "I looked in Passenger B's bag and saw a big wad of cash."

Scenario 2: TSA screener inspects Passenger B's bag, calls over a LEO and says, "I looked in Passenger B's bag and saw a big wad of cash."

In scenario #1 does the LEO have probable cause to detain, question or search Passenger B?

If no, then why would the answer be different in scenario #2?

The officer, based on the TSO's word, would have probable cause to detain (seize) the passenger and investigate. This would be a reasonable seizure under the Constitution.

If the officer during his investigation feels that the circumstances presented articulatable probable cause the officer can then instigate a search.

Which is prone to abuse and has been, unfortunately.

What it comes down to is referrals to LEOs can be done at screener whim. :td:

It's to the TSA's advantage never to state a minimum size for a prohibited item. No police department will ever challenge this, either, because the TSA constantly hands them probable cause and/or reasonable suspicion on a silver platter with no standards attached that any beat cop would have to meet before even talking to you.

Now, since the smallest substance on this planet, an atom of hydrogen, is flammable, you can bet that the TSA will never declare a smallest prohibited item.

NOTE: I am not a lawyer. The following is only a lay opinion.

Probable cause does not apply to TSA, as previously stated, because TSA functions under administrative search authority. As part of the administrative search authority, TSA may ask questions about items that might have implications to aviation security. If you choose not to answer those questions, it is my understanding that it is supposed to be taken as a neutral input. A simple, polite refusal to answer questions should not bolster the TSO's case or create probable cause where none already exists. Also, LEOs in many jurisdictions will tell the TSO where to shove their "concern" if the TSO cannot articulate LEO probable cause.

On the other hand, there is a difference between "I refuse to answer that question" and "F*** you, I don't have to talk to you." or even the ever-so-popular, "Go SPOT someone else." Depending on the individuals you encounter, the difference may be important.

Ultimately, the passenger can do quite a bit if questioned. I can't really provide decent advice as to what is advisable, as I am not qualified, and do not know your individual circumstances. You must decide, in your circumstance, if it is more likely to help you or harm you to provide a specific piece of information to TSA. Stand mute. Answer only those questions you are comfortable with, answer all questions, engage the TSO in conversation until his supervisor yells that he should return to work. I'm sure there are plenty of people who can come up with far more creative possibilities than I. There are a few things which are not advisable. Don't walk off into the sterile area without finishing screening. Don't grab your items out of the TSO's hands, or before the TSO finishes screening them. Don't start a physical altercation. Don't start screaming or throwing a fit on the checkpoint. Don't start yelling about how you're a terrorist, where the bomb is located, your explosive toothpaste/shaving cream/deodorant/ect.

Yes it can be abused on a whim, but so can any "tip" to a police officer. It is up to the police officer to investigate before a search and the officer must be exercise due diligence to avoid abuses.

In the case of the Ron Paul money, the screener DID abuse the rights of the traveler by referring him to a police officer out of spite not good faith. My recommendation to the Ron Paul worker is to sue the TSO for violating his civil rights and to seek charges for false imprisonment.

I think the key to this whole thing is this "TSA may ask questions about items that might have implications to aviation security."

If a TSO sees an electronic item that they are not familiar with, I think it is completely within their right to ask what it is and how it works as the device may have safety implications.

If a TSO sees something that they feel may be criminal like kiddie porn, white powder or cash, the TSO needs to STOP and call a LEO. The TSO can then relay to the LEO their concerns.

At no time should a TSO question anyone about non safety related items or subjects. All questioning about criminal matters need to be handled by those trained to do so. (note: I am not saying they can't chat in a friendly manner)

Let's play what if. Assume for a moment that the Ron Paul money man was in reality a drug dealer. Assume the money was from a drug sale. Assume when the Ron Paul money man asked if he was required by law to answer the question he was told by the untrained TSO that he was.

If the Ron Paul money man at that point said it was drug money and that in turn triggered a search of his vehicle, person and checked luggage, that untrained TSO just blew the case and the dealer walks.

His "confession" would not be admissible as he was not read his rights before being questioned by the TSO under color of law. His confession would not count as a spontaneous utterance as he was being directly questioned to the nature of the money at the time of his utterance.

The search would be tossed because it is fruit of the poison tree. The police officer may have probable cause due to the confession but the confession is invalid and the officer should know that it is invalid and therefore not reliable and therefore is not strong enough to induce probable cause.

If the checked luggage has already been screened the officer could not rely on the TSA's administrative search for a look in the bag.

Interesting. So an administrative search that unnecessarily rifles through papers after an X-ray and finds cash can be used to refer to the victim to a LEO, who then has probable cause to confiscate the money.

Genius. Airport Authorities can make some serious coin this way.

Lengthy...sorry
 

There are a lot of answers here and they run in a lot of different directions. I'm approaching this from almost 30 years in and around law enforcement starting as a regular street cop and now training police all over the world. So, having said that, I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on TV....

Trying to get back to what the OP said, I think the underlying issue here - one which some have touched on and described well - is what applies to the TSA security guard at the check point? The best answer is: the concepts of probable cause and reasonable suspicion really apply to real law enforcement officers, not those engaged in "administrative activities." Lemme' see if I can explain this better:

Contact with law enforcement normally starts with either (a) an observed direct and active violation of the law or (b) where the LEO can articulate a reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is where the LEO can articulate through some set of facts or circumstantial evidence or inference to believe that a crime has is being, has been, or will be committed in the foreseeable future. The test is: would the facts or circumstances lead the reasonable man to suspect a crime...? In a simplified example say a LEO is driving down the road at night and sees a car ahead of his weaving or swerving within its lane and then, occasionally, into the adjacent lane. The reasonable man might believe there was a drunk driver behind the wheel. The officer stops the car based on a reasonable suspicion the driver could be under the influence. He COULD stop the driver and write them a ticket for a number of actual violations depending on the state (i.e.: "unsafe lane change," "failure to maintain path" and so on) so the stop is initially based on an observation and a reasonable belief there may be a crime being committed (the DUI) or the actual violation (ticketable offense) at that moment. Once he contacts the driver, say he realizes the driver's actually tired, or dropped something and was weaving as he was trying to reach across the seat but he doesn't smell booze on his breath. At that point, the officer's choices are: (a) the ticket for the "unsafe lane change" (etc) or (b) cut him loose with a warning to pay more attention to his driving. Reasonable suspicion, in this example, is the lower standard justifying the contact with the police, that is, it's a lower standard than "probable cause (to conduct a search or make an arrest)."

Carrying that example forward, the officer contacts the driver, sees bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, smells the booze...he has probable cause to get the driver out and investigate further by doing field sobriety tests and, based on the totality of the observations, develops probable cause to arrest the driver for driving under the influence of alcohol. The progression is from the lower standard: a reasonable suspicion (to make the contact with the person), to probable cause to conduct the investigation into the potential crime, to the higher one: probable cause to make the arrest.

And here, I think (caveat: my opinion only) is where we stray from the normal application of reasonable suspicion leading to probable cause leading to an arrest when it comes to the TSA at the checkpoint. TSA security guards have administrative authority to examine our belongings under the guise of aviation safety (and through programs like SPOT and so on observing you and Iin plain view in a public place). As such, even if the concept of reasonable suspicion were to apply to these non-law enforcement individuals, when we go through the checkpoint they have the equivalent of what I'm going to call here "built in, non-law enforcement level reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify a search." What I'm saying is, they have the administrative authority to make contact with us solely by virtue of the situation not an articulated set of facts which would lead the reasonable man to conclude a crime is, has, or was being committed and that we were involved. On the street, a real LEO would have to articulate reasonable suspicion to contact you and move into the area of probable cause examine your possessions. At the checkpoint, the administrative search has eliminated the lower step in the normal process and they can jump straight to a search of our belongings under the notion that "do you want to fly today? You do? Good, then I have the authority to search your possessions without warrant or other justification which would apply in any other setting."

In short then, as a function of the non-law enforcement nature of their position (despite the physical simulation of real law enforcement authority), and their charge to determine if you or I are a threat to aviation safety, reasonable suspicion really doesn't apply and, by extension, neither does probable cause in the context of real law enforcement. Which carries us to: so, what do they do when they see a crime being committed in their presence? The same thing anyone can do as a non-law enforcement officer: (a) make a citizen's arrest (jurisdictionally dependent definitions apply here) or (b) "observe and report" the situation to the appropriate real law enforcement agency. However, in the context of the TSA, the extension of their authority is that they can also arbitrarily and capriciously deny you access to the "sterile" area beyond the checkpoint for - as we've seen in examples described on this forum and in the mainstream media - reasons which would not otherwise rise to the level of reasonable suspicion much less probable cause (i.e: "the Steve Bierfeldt situation').

Now, since the OP, this thread has strayed into when one has to answer questions and such. In the context of the "DUI" example above, one is required to produce a driver license, and, in some states, there's the "implied consent" provision where one has to provide a chemical sample related to blood alcohol content as a condition of having a driver license. Nowhere is there the requirement (a) to answer questions which may incriminate you or (b) comply with the field sobriety tests (the roadside evaluation of the driver's sobriety; HOWEVER, not replying to questions or not performing the field sobriety tests may well factor into the officer's evaluation of the driver's sobriety and be one of the many factors that would lead to the arrest.

But how does that play at the checkpoint? Meaning, how does a refusal to answer questions play out at the check point? The TSA blogger recently posted the non-answer by the TSA lawyer about how, if you don't answer questions, that might lead to further detention (read: investigation) and one might compare that to the DUI example above; however I think the striking difference is that in the DUI example above there was a real law enforcement officer involved who went through the progression of reasonable suspicion to probable cause rather than having administrative authority to jump that step and cut to the interrogation where one would, under the normal constructs, not expect such interrogation.

So, do you have to answer questions? I think it's clear you don't "have to" (see also the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights); however, as a function of their administrative authority, they can impose the "do you want to fly today?" administrative penalty until they get caught and the courts hold their feet to the fire (again, in another case like the one involving Steve Bierfeldt I see coming but not soon enough) where they overstepped any reasonable bounds of reasonable authority. Until then, from me and me alone - and this is not offered as legal advice - if I feel like I'm getting jacked up for no good reason by one of these security guards, they will get the equivalent of "name, rank, and serial number" in the form of:

"We both know you may examine my belongings in my presence, check my ID and my boarding pass, but you're not taking any of my possessions out of my sight and I am not required to answer your questions. If you feel like you have a reason to detain me further, you need to make the call now for the TSA supervisor, my airline's Ground Security Coordinator and, if you think I committed a crime, a real law enforcement officer, otherwise I expect you to let me go on my way as soon as possible without any further unreasonable delay." It should be spoken in a low, calm, even tone, with no hand gestures and no pointing or swearing and no threats tucked in. It is an assertion of my rights and puts them in a position where they will have to make the next move and then justify that action with one or more of those people mentioned.

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.

I doubt it -- if a razor blade showed up on an x-ray, then the TSA wouldn't have any choice but to find it. If in looking for it, they found it in a stack of documents, and flipping through it, they found what was obviously kiddie porn, they would be quite legally able (required under their internal regulations, I believe) to summon a police officer. A police officer, when confronted with such evidence, would not really have any other choice but to arrest him, and I can't think of any basis on which such evidence would be suppressed.

I don't see any difference -- if a citizen sees something he believes is criminal and alerts a law officer, the law officer has the ability to investigate even if he didn't witness anything first hand. That's true at the airport or anywhere else. I once saw a guy exiting the building next to mine via a window with a bunch of stuff in his hands, gave chase, pursued him for eight blocks until my shouts attracted the attention of the police who then searched him, found contraband and burglary tools and arrested him. That search was perfectly legal even though all the cops saw was one guy chasing another guy down the street.

Probable cause is irrelevant when you're talking about TSOs. TSOs can't arrest, detain or confiscate, so there's nothing to require probable cause. When a TSO summons a LEO, he has exactly the same "authority" as you do.

You are not required to answer any questions asked by a TSO.

A TSO has no authority to detain or arrest you.

All a TSO can do is refuse entry to the sterile area ("Do you want to fly today?")

If a TSO attempts to physically restrain you, you should call a LEO and have him arrested. You may also use reasonable force to free yourself, though I'd recommend calling a LEO.

If a TSO attempts to confiscate your possessions, you should call a LEO and have him arrested. In most jurisdictions, you may also use reasonable, non-deadly force to recover them, though I'd recommend calling a LEO.

If a TSO says, "I'm holding this until I can call a LEO," he has committed the tort of conversion. If he carries it away, he has committed the tort of asportation. Sue him AND press charges.

Once again, "Probable cause" has absolutely no meaning in dealings with TSOs. Probable cause is only a concern for a law enforcement officer.

[QUOTE=law dawg;11632626]law dawg, I want to clarify something:

Anyone can call over a LEO if they see something suspicious. I have just as much "authority" as a TSO to do so.

The relevance of turning up something illegal in the course of an administrative search is whether such evidence would be admissible against the person who brought it to the checkpoint. The Supreme Court has answered that question: yes, it will.

I don't think anyone here is concerned with bringing illegal substances through the checkpoint. Rather, they are concerned about knowing the extent of their rights and the limits of the TSO's authority when it comes to something that is perfectly legal, like the $4,300.

The answer is short and sweet: TSO's have no right to seize anything, even for the short time it takes for a LEO to walk over. TSO's have no authority to compel the answers to questions.

All TSOs can do is deny entrance to passengers and/or their belongings to the sterile area.

Except that it's not. See Cohen v. California. I have a First Amendment right to tell government agents what I think of their job. This means I am under no obligation to be polite and, unfortunately for you (because you seem like a nice guy), taking action premised solely on the basis of what is said has a chilling effect on speech and, almost certainly, would be viewed as unconstitutional.

Like you said you have as much right as a TSO to involve law enforcement. Similarly the the TSO has as much right as you do to apprehend someone committing a crime.

Granted when the TSO is doing this he is NOT using TSA authority but the authority every private citizen has in that particular state.

BUT, if that TSO projects that they are a law enforcement officer they open themselves up to charges of impersonation. If that TSO acting as a citizen arrests someone they open themselves up to liability if they violate the arrested person's civil rights, or if they wrongfully arrest that person in violation of state law.

Laws vary greatly, what constitutes a legal citizen's arrest in one state may be an illegal arrest in another.

So long story short, yes a TSO can detain (arrest or seize) you IF they do so within State law just as I can detain (arrest or seize) you if I do so within state law.

Cash money by itself is not indicative of a crime anymore than a ballpoint pen which is probably responsible for more crimes than any other single object.

So would TSA stop everyone who has a ballpoint pen because it could be used as an instrument of crime?

[QUOTE=PTravel;11635764]Correct. That's what I meant. If I was unclear my apologies.

Again, correct, but the perception of authority is, often enough, just as good as having it on paper. If people think they have to wait at the checkpoint, they will.

And that's summarizes, very neatly, my objection to TSA. Most of the TSOs that I come in contact with are polite, professional and efficient. Then there are the others . . .

Giving them police-style uniforms and badges only reinforces the perception that they have police powers. On the whole, I trust LEOs -- they've had extensive training in police work, law and enforcement. Though some will abuse the power with which they've been entrusted, the overwhelming majority don't, and put their lives on the line daily to protect me, my family and my property. TSOs, on the other hand, receive only minimal training -- only as much as is necessary to let them determine whether something being carried through the checkpoint is a potential threat to aviation. In this regard, they're no different than the doorman at a club that checks IDs. However, I guarantee that most of the flying public have no idea that (1) TSOs are not LEOs, and (2) TSOs have no enforcement powers, other than barring entry to sterile area. Quite the contrary, most people, including many frequent fliers on FT, have little idea of just how circumscribed is the authority of a TSO -- a misunderstanding that appears to be deliberately fostered by TSA.

I dread the day that terrorists realize that the easiest airport target is the security line before the WTMD. Many people will be killed or injured, thinking that the TSOs will protect them and, of course, TOSs being non-LEOs, that won't happen at all. It will be up to the airport police to put down the attackers. I'd much rather see TSA's budget directed towards beefing up airport police departments (and giving them responsibility for conducting screenings). At least I know that the whole purpose of police is to keep me safe, and I trust them to do it.

Well said. I do not think I could have made the point better. You also have me wondering how many potential cases have been ruined by TSOs. (I now suspect the number is not zero.)

I'm sorry I was not clear in my post. No decision should be made solely on the basis of what is said. The passenger's property, demeanor, tone, and body language all play a part in the outcome. If I have an issue that needs to be referred to a LEO, the entire situation will usually be considered. In my experience, LEOs are far more interested in hearing about crude and abusive speech, as part of a larger incident, than they are in hearing about calm and polite assertions of rights.

The same principle holds for any concerns raised while transiting the checkpoint. The oft bemoaned fact is that, as the regulations currently stand, TSA considers your cooperation (or appearance of cooperation), honesty, and credibility when they decide to let you proceed through the checkpoint into the sterile area. If you want to be a jerk or tell a TSO where to shove his employment, you have every right to do so. If you are traveling with items that present a potential problem for aviation security, the items, as well as your demeanor, actions, and speech, will be considered in the final result.

I'm not smart enought to add anything to this thread at this time, but I'd like to say this is the best thread I've read on TS&S in a long time.

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, as it were. :)