Except that, in our particular brand of jurisprudence, we place a higher value on making sure that the rights of individuals are preserved. Hence, the fact that we (as a society) are willing to let guilty people go free if those involved in their arrest were not scrupulous in preserving the rights of the accused --- because it's the preservation of those rights that helps ensure that the innocent aren't falsely convicted.

Sure, we can play a relative numbers game if you want. But then, let's play fair. TSA publishes on its home page, every week, the raw number of passengers who were arrested, tried to bring a firearm through, artfully concealed a prohibited item, or caused a checkpoint breach. But it doesn't publish the raw number of passengers who did none of those things, so there's no way to evaluate what those numbers mean. Right?

Technically illegal? I would bet more times than not.

Any search that was caused by ID or lack thereof would be illegal. Any search that was initiated without alarm would be illegal. Any search that was initiated because the TSO saw something on the x-ray that it was known the object was not a WEI would be illegal. Any search that continued after the alarm was cleared would be illegal.

Yeah, I think TSAs "count" is fairly useless myself, bu I do understand what they are trying to do, just as I understand why this thread was started. I just dot agree with either

I believe before the econom went to crap it average out to about 2 million pax a day. So a very very small percentage were arrested daily. Almost enough to make such a percentage miniscule. But I believe, personally, the same is true of illegal searches that end in the arrest of a pax. I can only respond to what I see with my own eyes. I have seen dozens and dozens o people arrested ove the years, and knowing the reasons behind how the searches happen, in my opinion they were legal (one example, a pax alarms the WTMD and claims they have no more metal to remove. They are screened with a HHMD, which I will assume you agree with. During the screening the TSO notices their hand is closed, the pax refuses to open it. The TSO calls a STSO, the pax still will not open his hand. His bare skinned hand alarms the HHMD. The LEOS are called, force him to open his hand. He has some illegal drugs wrapped in foil in his hand. Was that an illegal search? I do not believe so.)

The ACLU moved to dismiss under FRCP 41(a)(2), so the dismissal would be without prejudice. If the TSA changes their policy back, the ACLU can re-open the matter. I guess that's the fallback. How the ACLU would know if the TSA were to make a secret policy change back to their old ways, I do not know.

I disagree with some of what you say. If someone does not have ID I think it is very reasonable to search that person and their property. I believe you agreed with this, before? Has your opinion changed since Gilmore (I believe your stance was allow someone not to show ID and allow them to be screened as a selectee).

What is an "alarm"? That's very vague. The x-ray never alarms, ever. The person working the x-ray sees something, or can't see something (think clutter, or something very dense). What do you call an alarm on the x-ray considering there is no actual alarm, but only the interpertation of th. X-ray operator, people who may very well see different things looking at the same image?

What if a person checking the bag "alarms", not for contraband, but another possible prohibited item or an WEI? At one point checking a bag I was going for one item in a multi-pocket briefcase when what might have been a knife poked me through the fabric of another pocket which the x-ray operator did not see. There were many cables in the bag. At that point I can honestly say that I wondered if the bag was too cluttered to be x-ray screened properly, and searched the compartments of the bag for other prohibited items and possible WEIs - not contraband. Was the fact that my search continued beyond the original item illegal? ccording to fofona, it was not.

I can certainly respect that; it's a logically consistent position.

Which leads to another beef I have with the TSA. TSA insists on perfection from its passengers: 100% compliance with all rules, written and unwritten. It doesn't matter if the last twenty times through the checkpoint, you complied with the rules; if you're caught the next time with a prohibited item, no matter what your motivation might be, you're subject to TSA sanctions (ranging from a verbal warning to referral to a LEO for possible arrest).

Well, if TSA expects 100% compliance from passengers, it should also expect 100% compliance from its own employees. When a TSO fails, there shouldn't be a huge chorus of "well, he does a good job most of the time" or "nobody's perfect". Rather, there should be a clear statement of "this was wrong," without attempts to justify the action. If the standard for passengers is perfection, the standard for TSOs should be perfection as well.

TSA does not expect 100% compliance. Many people here have post that that they have left their LGAs on their bag, and it went through.

I agree that a secondary screening for those that have no ID or choose not to show it is reasonable. But the courts have not ruled that way and the one time the TSA had to prove that IDs are important they abandoned the "novel argument in its post-suppression". Maybe I am reading too much into it but is sounds like the courts would not have bought that argument.

What the courts have ruled is the search must be �no more extensive
or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives;� and that the search was �confined in good faith to that purpose.�

A "random" search after the bag has been through the x-ray would be more extensive and intensive than necessary. If the TSO on x-ray sees a prohibited item like a multi-tool and that causes the "alarm" (for lack of a better term), once you locate the alarm and clear it you are done. Any more searching would be more extensive and intensive than necessary.

On the example you gave of the overly crowded bag, the search would not have been more extensive or intensive than necessary due to the limitations in the x-ray machine.

But as a policy and you correct me if I am wrong, once you have an alarm or decide to hand search a bag for any reason, you must check in every nook and cranny. The extensiveness of the search due to that policy would be illegal.

And plenty of other people here have posted that the one time that they forget to leave their prohibited item at home, and the item is detected by a TSO, they're soundly condemned for it, no matter how many times they remembered to leave it home in previous trips.

Nor does the TSA ever publish any info about the disposition of those cases in which someone was arrested. For all we know, 98% of the charges were dropped.

To answer the last part of our statement, it depends on the bag. Bag that are considered cluttered, yes. Red teams and our own ASI test have found that if you place something prohibited in one part of a bag, such as a knifte, and have another part of a bag somewhat cluttlered, the TSO goes for the knife, and misses the other possibly more dangerous WEI in the cluttered area. In other words, the one prohibited item is used as a decoy.

But ever since I have worked here, you are required to search a certain area around a found WEI or prohibited item because of the recognition that x-ray is a skill and an interpertation.

So what happened to crabtree? Did the DA press charges?

Are you going to comment on the rest of my post? Is a random search after the bag has been through x-ray more extensive and intensive than necessary?

Looking at the court ruling they did not take into account the skill of the operator. They only took into account the level of technology available. Going past the "alarm" item is more intensive and extensive than necessary in light of available technology.

No I don't believed he was ever charged nor fined by the TSA for the whoopsie.

Then why not? Do we have all the info regarding him and his situation?

You can't make the argument that the DAs office anywhere does what TSA wants, or by that argument, no charges against passengers would be dropped, right?