Court says TSA engaged in unlawful search. (Fofana)
Jun 24, 2009, 6:38 pm
#106
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,878
Yes, I am curious about this too. Having multiple passports is not illegal, nor is having multiple passports with different names. You can be a natural born citizen of Canada - John Smith - and then naturalize in the US and change your name to James Smythe, thus having two perfectly legitimate passports with different names.
Last edited by goalie; Jun 24, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Jun 24, 2009, 7:19 pm
#108
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Miami, FL
Programs: AA EXP/Marriott Plat/Hertz PC
Posts: 12,724
I teach my screeners that the search is valid as long as they are looking for a prohibited item or are searching to clear an unresolved alarm. Once they take action to search for something other than a prohibited item or the unresolved item is no longer an issue, then they need to stop and ask the supervisor for additional guidance.
When it comes to large amounts of cash, it is a gray area for many TSOs. As I've stated in another thread, I believe I know where the line is drawn. I think this case illustrates how easy it is for a TSO to cross that line.
I don't think it can be any clearer.
Jun 24, 2009, 8:34 pm
#112
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Toronto, ON, CANADA
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Bonvoy LTE
Posts: 1,881
I teach my screeners that the search is valid as long as they are looking for a prohibited item or are searching to clear an unresolved alarm. Once they take action to search for something other than a prohibited item or the unresolved item is no longer an issue, then they need to stop and ask the supervisor for additional guidance.
Jun 24, 2009, 8:45 pm
#114
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,114
I teach my screeners that the search is valid as long as they are looking for a prohibited item or are searching to clear an unresolved alarm. Once they take action to search for something other than a prohibited item or the unresolved item is no longer an issue, then they need to stop and ask the supervisor for additional guidance.
When it comes to large amounts of cash, it is a gray area for many TSOs. As I've stated in another thread, I believe I know where the line is drawn. I think this case illustrates how easy it is for a TSO to cross that line.
Contrary to the ill-informed sentiment expressed by some, I don't think any of this was done with any malicious intent. I think the language in the SOP leaves some room for misinterpretation of the true intent of that particular passage.
Again, I advocate removing that language from the SOP.
We'll see what happens.
When it comes to large amounts of cash, it is a gray area for many TSOs. As I've stated in another thread, I believe I know where the line is drawn. I think this case illustrates how easy it is for a TSO to cross that line.
Contrary to the ill-informed sentiment expressed by some, I don't think any of this was done with any malicious intent. I think the language in the SOP leaves some room for misinterpretation of the true intent of that particular passage.
Again, I advocate removing that language from the SOP.
We'll see what happens.
Why is simple possession of currency suspicious?
Jun 24, 2009, 8:55 pm
#116
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
I teach my screeners that the search is valid as long as they are looking for a prohibited item or are searching to clear an unresolved alarm. Once they take action to search for something other than a prohibited item or the unresolved item is no longer an issue, then they need to stop and ask the supervisor for additional guidance.
When it comes to large amounts of cash, it is a gray area for many TSOs. As I've stated in another thread, I believe I know where the line is drawn. I think this case illustrates how easy it is for a TSO to cross that line.
Contrary to the ill-informed sentiment expressed by some, I don't think any of this was done with any malicious intent. I think the language in the SOP leaves some room for misinterpretation of the true intent of that particular passage.
Again, I advocate removing that language from the SOP.
We'll see what happens.
When it comes to large amounts of cash, it is a gray area for many TSOs. As I've stated in another thread, I believe I know where the line is drawn. I think this case illustrates how easy it is for a TSO to cross that line.
Contrary to the ill-informed sentiment expressed by some, I don't think any of this was done with any malicious intent. I think the language in the SOP leaves some room for misinterpretation of the true intent of that particular passage.
Again, I advocate removing that language from the SOP.
We'll see what happens.
The only reason to leave language that allows for misinterpretation is the hopes that it will be misinterpreted for the "good" of the entity that wrote the language.
Jun 24, 2009, 9:06 pm
#118
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
It shouldn't be.
The intent is to address those situations when an administrative search stumbles upon something that should be referred to law enforcement for final resolution. Pretty simple when it comes to things such as illegal drugs (surprising how often people attempt to smuggle drugs through the checkpoint!). The gray area comes with undeclared cash in excess of $10k on international flights. I think some TSOs and STSOs get snagged up in the letter of the law without fully realizing the spirit of the law. It results in messes such as this case.
The intent is to address those situations when an administrative search stumbles upon something that should be referred to law enforcement for final resolution. Pretty simple when it comes to things such as illegal drugs (surprising how often people attempt to smuggle drugs through the checkpoint!). The gray area comes with undeclared cash in excess of $10k on international flights. I think some TSOs and STSOs get snagged up in the letter of the law without fully realizing the spirit of the law. It results in messes such as this case.
If your x-ray screener sees something that may or may not be a bag of pot but the screener knows it is not a WEI (weapon, explosive or incendiary) are they trained to call for a bag check?
Are TSO instructed on what looks suspicious?
Jun 24, 2009, 9:10 pm
#119
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,605
Well, you should know what to expect, and I don't mean to be cynical, but I think you'll understand. The court will come out with some sort of language saying that while TSA has the task of performing a screening function, it needs to know the limitations of that screening task. I don't think the courts will actually define it in the end because judges tend to want a little bit of wiggle room for the circumstance not directly addressed that may be affected.
I use the Guantanamo analogy here. The USSC gave the government a lot of room early on with regard to the detainees. When the government failed to act, they stepped in.
The Fourth Amendment applies to a total scumbag and to a model citizen equally. A crime may have indeed been committed. But when the scope of the administrative search that discovers this "crime" isn't rationally related to the purpose of designed intent of ensuring aviation security, it is IMHO unconstitutional. At least that's what I hope is the outcome. Otherwise we've lost another small chunk of our freedom - all in an out of proportion lust for greater security.
Jun 24, 2009, 9:11 pm
#120
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
What I would like to see is language like "You are legally obligated to search for prohibited items in the least intrusive way that can accomplish that goal. If, incidental to such a search, you observe an item that may be illegal, you must presume that such object is legal unless, without doing a more intrusive search, it's clear that it isn't. If you observe an item that you're certain is illegal, your role is the same as any private citizen: you may, but are not required to, report it to law enforcement."
I believe that the problem occurs when there's a requirement for a TSO to report suspicious but non-prohibited items, because it's just too easy for that requirement to become a mandate to search for such items.