You're welcome. What do you mean by "TSA specific document"? If you look at the link in that very post you refer to, there is the wording right there. They even repeat it in the Q&A below the rule. The rule itself is right below the grey text box.

If you are talking about the Standard Operating Procedure document, then I am sorry. I would love to see that, too. But, of course, that is only made available to people inside the TSA. I doubt any ACLU lawyer even ever saw it. There is a reason they keep it under wraps.

Till

to clear things up
 

If you are refusing the whole body imager or you are asking for a pat down search for some reason, YOU WILL GET THE EPD. The link about the LEO training /search is absurd. The thing about the wand touching you and causing an alarm is something that I wrote to the manufacturer about and they sent it to their engineers YEARS ago. Suffice it to say that a ferrite core becomes loose after a time. In order for it to be a sexual assault you have to have intent. Dont object too much to what is taking place or you may be turned away from screening.

Eyecue, I must admit that this decreases your credibility in my view. You have been one of the TSO here on FT that has been objective, in my opinion, until this post. This is just another way of saying "shut up, bend over and take it or pay the price." I would request that you post the specific, publicized federal rule that applies to passengers and permits the TSA to deny access to screening to passengers who "object too much."

As a citizen of the state of Maryland, I have a constitutionally-protected right to object, in any non-riotous form I deem appropriate and said action is protected by the 1st Amendment.

Was this the LEO training /search link you were referring to?
http://www.sccja.org/video/oss-patdown1.wmv

If it is why do you say it is absurd?

Bolding mine.

Can you refuse only half the scanner of go through only half?

There is a difference between a normal pat down and the enhanced pat down which is too intrusive.

The rules linked to above are clear. Enhanced pat down is only a means of last resort NOT an alternative for the scanner. Asking for a pat down instead is not the same as asking for the EPD. That's like date rape. She asked you to come have a drink, not to violate her. Not the best analogy but still somewhat fitting for the situation.

Besides, if a passenger deems the scanner to intrusive he/she will most likely deem the EPD to intrusive as well. So this is akin to offering citizens (and non-citizens) the choice of saying would you like to be burned alive or skinned.

Both methods are too intrusive and both methods should only be allowed when and IF there was an alarm with other methods. That's what the TSA website states in regards to the EPD.

Till

but going back to earlier posts, it's an alarm which cannot be resolved which triggers the epd. if i choose not to go thru the san fernando valley machine ;) and do not alarm, no epd, right? now on the other hand, if you could guarantee me that my epd would include a brunette, about 5'-6"/5'-7", say about 140lbs, dark brown eyes, with bangs and a ponytail, i'd volunteer for an epd every time :D

I do not like this "enhanced" pat down (nor do I like the plexiglass cells :mad:), but I also think if you read that document in full, that one sentence is out of context and is dated (referring to before the scanners were installed on a wide scale). It is also not a legal document, but a PR piece. Note that this sentence is also in that story:

Current TSA information put out in the media and on their pages says that if you refuse the body scanner, you get the "enhanced" pat down (the enhanced pat down is referred to in news stories and I think the following TSA page info makes it clear they believe the "equal level of screening" would be the "enhanced" pat down.

I point this out only because, much as I would like it to be, I don't think anyone's going to get out of this at an airport with an out-dated PR piece.

Thanks for the update. Can you provide us with any more recent verbiage or even something legal? That would be VERY helpful. I will look into the TSA site again.

I am not lawyer but I would think that the information the TSA spreads to the public over its own official site does have some binding value. After all, this is the first place people will look and it can be said that this is info direct from the horse's mouth and thus should be correct and up-to-date. After all, the matter of civil liberties and human rights that is at stake is no laughing stock, even if they treat it like one.

Till

wrong wrong wrong its waved over a ring or watch

then how come i have seen tso's (on numerous occasions) just prior to wanding me have the hhmd make physical contact with their palm? if passing the hhmd over a watch or ring (or belt buckle?) is sop, can we correct them ;)

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. How comes it can alarm when touched on a piece of pure leather?

Hmmm, the wands, depending on design, have a primary coil (transmitter) and as secondary coil (receiver) and again depending on the design alarm when a piece of metal couples the output of the primary coil to the secondary coil. That is the normal operating mode. Press one of the coils against something and you momentarily change the coupling between the primary and secondary coils and the thing alarms.

A PDF from the Department of Justice dealing with HHMDs.

A look at HHMD from Garrett and take a look at the specifications.

A PDF from the UK dealing with implants and metal detectors.

Guys, just ask them to demonstrate it. Google Garrett Wands and there is no place that it states by touching an object (or passing over) other than metal will the wand alarm. There are false alarms that can occur near the floor due to rebar in the concrete.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/184432.pdf

Hand-Held Metal Object Detector
The hand-held metal detector (HHMD) is a commonly used device for detecting metal weapons and
contraband items. These devices are light-weight and are used in close-proximity situations. HHMDs
can be used to search for objects concealed on the body and, with some HHMDs, in body cavities.
HHMDs can also be used to find metal objects in the yard of a correctional facility or in the quarters of
an inmate. They are lightweight, can be easily carried, are low cost (range in price from around $200
to $500), easy to use, and have many commercial sources.
7.3.1 Theory of Operation
HHMDs are metal detectors that use the interaction of the time-varying magnetic field they produce
with nearby objects for finding metal objects. The theory of operation of the HHMD is identical to the
WTMD described in section 7.2.1. See reference 2 listed in section 9, which provides information on
the operation of hand-held metal detectors.
7.3.2 Considerations for Use
HHMDs are used in close proximity situations. In fact, the hand-held metal detector must be held
within a few inches of a metal object if the object is to be detected. The performance of many (at the
time of this writing) metal detectors varies on a daily basis and must be accommodated by frequent
adjustment, if provided. This variation in performance is not a limitation of the technology but of the
quality control used to fabricate the HHMD. The recent revision in the National Institute of Justice
standards takes steps to improve the performance of these devices. The HHMD is basically a metal
detector and cannot be used to find weapons or contraband items made of other materials.

Went to the Garrett site for HHMD and found the site sadly lacking in much real information. The DOJ PDF I found had significantly more information in it and actual requirements for HHMD being used at correctional facilities - something IMHO requiring much more capabilities than airport security.

Pressing the coil against your arm might set the HHMD off since you've effectively changed the coupling between the output coil and the receive coil by minutely deflecting the output coil.

When a screener smirks while slowly going over certain areas of the body, the intent is rather clear.