There's no ruling; only a motion by the ACLU to drop the case . . .

How binding is the agreement?

Yeah, this is very interesting to talk about, and these cases have important implications, but whY I would find interesting is how many arrest and convictions have been made because of what TSOs have found at the checkpoints and baggage, compared to how many cases such as this? What is the ratio between successful and unsuccessful arrest and convictions? Are we talking less than 1%, and if so how much less? Or do you h
think it's higher? Or will you chose to look at it another way to go along with your convictions?

I'd make it even money that most of the arrests were based on illegally obtained evidence and the convictions would thereby be unconstitutional. Most aren't appealed to a level that would a determination about constitutionality.

If it wasn't WEI, I tend to believe it's likely the TSO overstepped his/her bounds. No real data, so no way to know. But that would be my guess.

~~ Irish

Are you suggesting in the most likely hundreds if not several thousand of instances where there was an arrest and charges pressed by he DA the defense lawyers for such peolpe were incompentent, that these lawyers didn't know or want or think they could appeal these things? I would find that very hard to believe.

Your first task to is try and support this statement.

You can start by arrests at your airport...

a) Your questions wasn't about "charges" -- it was about "convictions".

b) Are you suggesting there exist "in the most likely hundreds if not several thousand of instances where there was an arrest and charges pressed" for something other than WEI?* (If so, then, yes, I'm suggesting it's even money any particular charge was tainted and I'm suggesting a large number of those "charged" didn't go to trial, or were charged with misdemeanors, or were pled down or away, or were STET'd, or had any other of many outcomes that wouldn't justify the expense of an appeal.)

c) I'm also stating (not just suggesting) there's no actual DATA. So, it's all guesswork on either side.

~~ Irish
EDIT: *p.s. A LEO doesn't need a SA's approval to arrest and charge someone.

There is not any agreement that I know of . . . it is possible one exists, but there is no metion of one anywhere in the record.

I think the percentage of times the TSA oversteps their search limit is way higher than 1%. If you just count how many people were referred to LEOs for nothing more than cash and then an arrest stemmed from that, it has to be higher than 1%.

Just because you have an illegal arrest does not mean you will avoid conviction. A lot of the time it has to do with how much money and time you are willing to invest in defense.

Say a TSO illegally searches and finds a bag of weed. The DA offers a sweetheart deal of 6 months probation and $100 fine. Would you take the deal or spend thousands of dollars fighting the bad search?

I remember, or at least I think I do, that the lawsuit was dropped as long as the TSA held up their end. If I remember right I read that in a newspaper article. I will try and locate it. I was hoping it was in the record.

No, it's not my task, sorry.

Yeah, it is guess work. That was sort of my point in my first post. Glad you got it. ;)

True, but how many times when something like weed is found is the search illegal? I have found drugs; the searcha I did were not illegal.

And the answer to your question about a legal defense depends and more info than you provided.

Sort of hard to miss, since I made the statement in my original post to which you responded. Have a problem taking "yes" for an answer?

~~ Irish

Lol don't be stupid. This thread was started to highlight cases that TSA "messed up". My point is, so? It happens and it will happen with ANY agency. But uless you put it it perspective, as in hlout of how many total, then it becomes sort of pointless to talk about it. We have no data out of all the arrest and possible convictions because of what TSOs found; it's all a guess, thus, somewhat pointless to speculate about.

Edit: acually my original post was NOT to you. I post a statement/question to the threan in general. Where are you getting that my original post was to you?