RichardKenner

Giving back the bag is an affirmative act, but it's not an act that conceals a crime. If I look up "conceal" in a dictionary, it says "To keep from being seen, found, observed, or discovered". The TSO has already "seen, found, observed, or discovered" the item.

RichardKenner

I wasn't suggesting covering up a crime and I don't think anybody else here has either. If a TSO sees something they know to be illegal, they should feel free to report it. But if they see something that just might be a crime (e.g., a bag of white powder), there no constitutional authority under an administrative search to determine whether it is a crime or not.

Bart

*****

Trollkiller

Bart are TSOs trained to recognize what may be suspicious like white powder, green leafy substance etc.?

If you can't tell us that you tell them what is suspicious just tell us it is SSI.

pmocek

Uh...

Yeah, what he said.

The only way one of your staff can know that he sees a substance that the person he's searching is prohibited from posessing at the location of the search is if that TSA agent has been very well trained on identifying those substances by sight (and I suspect that's not possible with most prohibited substances). In any other case, he'll have to stop searching for dangerous items in order to determine if what he saw was truly contraband.

If TSA bag checkers were police officers, then sure, something that looks suspiciously like a prohibited substance would be reason for further inspection. But your bag checkers are not police officers, and it's none of their damned business what someone has in his bag as long as it doesn't seem likely to be a weapon, explosive, or incendiery.

Unlike the average person who sees something he thinks inidicates wrongdoing, your bag checkers are operating under special circumstances, doing something that would otherwise be illegal. I see no problem with an expectation that they put on blinders and ignore things that might otherwise be reason to call the police while they're pawing through our belongings. That's the price we pay for them being able to perform a warrantless search of people's bags.

PhoenixRev

I would agree.

I don't trust the TSOs with any of my personal information and it isn't any of their business where I am going or why I am going there.

The TSOs on this board continually bring up the issue of suspicion, but I am completely unclear as to why traveling with any amount of cash, even large bundles, is suspicious. The idea that someone with, say, $10K in hundred dollar bills is probably concealing something is cynicism at its finest.

Next month, my spouse and I are headed to Vegas for a much needed bit of R&R. I will have lots of cash on me because I don't want to pay the outrageous fees in the casinos nor have to hunt down an ATM every time I want some cash.

What if I am a high roller that wants to carry $25,000, get a killer suite on the Strip, eat at every $250 a plate restaurant in Vegas and toss $500 bets every time someone shoots the dice? Why is it incumbent upon me, a supposed free citizen, to justify my choices to a TSO?

Why - exactly - is carrying a large sum of cash suspicious?

Bart

*****

Bart

*****

n4zhg

The persecutor tried that already. The judge wasn't impressed.

halls120

Please don't be giving up our trade secrets!

NoClu

I'll have to disagree on all points here.

Flaflyer

Appears to be something illegal? How is that determined? A baggie of green leafy material might be oregano or it might be pot. The pot might be medicinal with a prescription or it might not. On what basis/SOP/training does the TSO make the Worst Case assumption and decide "I don't know what it is, thus I assume it is illegal non-prescription drugs?"

You do bring up one good point and I hope the STL $4700 Bierfeldt lawyers pick it up and run with it. The mere fact of calling over the LEO is done because the TSO thinks something criminal might be going on. Thus each and every time a LEO shows up, it is the start of a criminal investigation and from the instant the LEO shows up the 4th and 5th amendments and Miranda silence and detention (I think it is cally Terry Stop, I have to go reread the many fine threads on FT regarding this) rules apply.

I think the outcome of these cases should come a Bierfeldt Warning along the lines of the Miranda Warning. I think the TSO should be required to inform the pax and hand them a printed card:

"I have found something suspicious in your bag. I am calling over a LEO to initiate a possible criminal investigation of you. From this moment on, the rules of Administrative Search are over. You have the right to remain silent and other legal protections(spell them out) when the LEO gets here. You are not under arrest yet but your are being detained until the LEO gets here, and he will detain you while initating a criminal investigation of you."

It cannot be clearer than Barts statement that EVERY encounter with a LEO at a checkpoint is a criminal investigation and those rules must apply 100% of the time from that moment on.

pmocek

You missed the boat. The average person is not allowed to search the inside of my DVD player. When in the course of performing a warrantless search of me or my belongings, your TSA luggage inspectors should (and I suspect do) lose the right to investigate or to cause the investigation of (by stopping what they're doing, holding my belongings, and contacting law enforcement) things that are seen which are not apparently weapons, explosives, or incendiaries.

I don't think we would have granted them this special power to search for dangerous items without warrant if it meant that they were also going to get to search for anything that any of them thinks might indicate wrongdoing.

What "appears to be something illegal"? A bag of powdered sugar? A bag of oregano? A bag of cannabis held by someone who has a doctor's recommendation to use it for medicinal purposes in a state where this is legal? A poppy? A stack of 9,800 $1 bills sandwiched between two $100s and a boarding pass for an international flight? Any amount of cash with a tag on it that reads, "$10,001" without a boarding pass nearby? Pictures of petite naked people on their 18th birthdays? A pet that is not presently wearing its license tag? One that does not have a vaccination certificate stapled to its collar? A digital music player without a stack of CDs and receipts for purchase of the CDs (inidicating that music on the player was not copied without permission)? A person with brown skin?

How about multiple passports, with the same picture, but with different names (each of which happens to be a name someone used before he had his name legally changed)?

Any of those things could indicate wrongdoing, but none clearly does. When you're pawing through our things looking for dangerous items [EDIT: and you find a non-dangerous item that might indicate other wrongdoing], you need to give us the benefit of the doubt in every single case.

When you find a severed human head in a bag, please call the police.

Boggie Dog

So your willing to give TSO's power to detain? I am not.

If a TSO thinks something might be an illegal subject I would hope a lawyer, if the case made it to trial, would determine why a TSO thought something was an illegal substance. If they are not trained in this area then it must be from some kind of personal experience which could lead to a claim of wrong doing on the part of the TSO.

I can identify marijuana and hashish from attending a drug awareness class while in the Navy which had a display of these items. I cannot ID any of the more current drugs of choice because as far as I know I have never seen any of them.

I would ask the TSO in court by what means they gained the expertise to ID whatever substance was at issue. If the answer was something along the lines of "I just know" I would try to discredit that person and call into question the very reason LEO was called. I would also try to suggest that the person might have gained this information from personal use/exposure of such substances. If one is not taught about drugs in some type of training then how else can one know anything about them except by hands on experience? If a person hangs out, past or present, with people who use drugs then I would question that persons qualifications to hold any kind of security clearance.

doober

OK, so a screener sees something he thinks is suspicious and he calls over a LEO. The LEO finds absolutely no reason to be involved - should the screener be charged with "filing a false report"?

I'm serious with this question as it is quite apparent that there are many, many paranoid screeners who seem to find anything out of the ordinary to be suspicious. When does the local PD tell them "enough is enough"?