I can support it.
Edit: sorry Tom I forgot to quote your question, but this was in response to you.

OK, then support it...

So you are saying the x-ray is worthless for finding WEI. Look at the court ruling again. It does not mention the operator at all it strictly mentions the technology.

You can toss in the other topic, this thread has made a huge departure from where I intended to go, but such is life.

Can you cite one that holds up random screening?

Duly noted. Why can't you use the ones in baggage at the checkpoint?

Part of the answer is found on usajobs.gov when you look up the duties of these inspectors, who have 2 roles, one of which is to ensure SOP agrue checkpoint and baggage, or to consider it another way, "test" TSOs.

Quote:
Responsible for reviewing and analyzing assessment reports and
testing results with special attention to identifying unusual trends
or action that appear to have potential for developing a security
problem.


Formulates recommendations or alternative courses of action to
be pursued.


Assists in the development of security mitigation measures for
transportation systems.


Evaluates the integration of the new technology, traditional
security measures, and human factors to assure operational
effectiveness and efficiency of the overall security system.


Establishes and maintains partnerships among public and private
stakeholders to accomplish objectives.


Coordinates with the Headquarters Program Office to develop and
implement Standard Operating Procedures, field guidance, initiatives,
and standards to ensure consistency.


If you read through this it details that part of what they are to do is seek out weeknesses within SOP.

An example of my personal experience: an inspector came through the checkpoint, claimed a medical reason they could not remove their shoes. Fine, hey get additional screenig. They did NOT alarm, so their hands and shoes are ETD. They pass. They received a certain type of patdown that only touches Specfic parts of the body. After, they said the TSO failed. A small object was taped to a part of the body that would not be touched according to SOP.

What happens when red teams and ASIs come through is after, whether you catch them or not, they analyise your peformance. They do this everytime. And they tell you what you did wrong, what you did correct.

In this case, nothig was done incorrectly, there was no corrective action the ASIs recmmended. The TSO was upset because they were told they failed, were decertified, and they did everything correctly, according to the inspector. The STSOs attempted to argue with the ASIs that the TSOs should not be decertified, as there was no way he patdown would hav found the item. The ASIs (they come in groups, never alone) said that was the point.

BTW, this paticular patdown has been changed a year or so ago. It covers more of the body. Part of the reason for this change was because red teams a d ASIs found there was a paticular hole in SOP, and that paticular test was to provide evidence of it.

Ok I found one case where the random was not deemed to more extensive or intensive than necessary in light of current technology.

http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-...10/612/574348/

Before you get too happy that case involved using a hand held magnetometer, not a hand search.
Still reading but I wanted you to be able to follow along.

Sorry busy today with work and family. I read through the case quickly, and I am VERY satisfied that additional random searches are legal. Yes, this case involved the use of a HHMD, but the principle is the same.

Quote:

It is hard to overestimate the need to search air travelers for weapons and explosives before they are allowed to board the aircraft. As illustrated over the last three decades, the potential damage and destruction from air terrorism is horrifically enormous. See, e.g., Davis, 482 F.2d at 910; Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d at 901. However, even with the grave threat posed by airborne terrorist attacks, the vital and hallowed strictures of the Fourth Amendment still apply: these searches must be reasonable to comport with the Constitution.

23
The random, additional screening procedure in this case satisfies the Davis reasonableness test for airport searches. The procedure is geared towards detection and deterrence of airborne terrorism, and its very randomness furthers these goals. This was a limited search, confined in its intrusiveness (both in duration and scope) and in its attempt to discover weapons and explosives.3 Given the randomness, the limited nature of the intrusion, the myriad devices that can be used to bring planes down, and the absence of any indicia of improper motive, we hold that the random, more thorough screening involving scanning of Marquez's person with the handheld magnetometer was reasonable. The district court properly denied Marquez's motion to suppress the contraband found during TSA screening.


I think I can correctly say that additional screening of a pax bag, to detect WEI, if conducted as described above, would also stand up in court.

It is interesting to note the following:

Quote:

In their briefs and at oral argument, neither party suggested that there was any purpose or goal in the instant search other than to detect weapons or explosives. TSA screener Petersen stated that he was trained to look for "anything that would bring a plane down" and that the search of Marquez was in accordance with this goal. He further testified repeatedly that he was not trained, nor told, to search for anything other than weapons or explosives, and he said explicitly that he was not trained to look for drugs: "Our job is to make the passengers in the airplanes safe, and we don't look for drugs." Moreover, nothing in the record indicates that he was looking for drugs or criminal evidence; rather, the record supports his assertion that he was trying to "ferret out firearms and explosive devices[.]"

The principle is different. If you used a better x-ray to search a randomed bag after it went through the first x-ray you would have a similar case.

Notice the Court made note that the method of detection was the same, metal detection, and it relied on the same information, the presence of metal. It also said it could not "sustain a subsequent search that differs in material respects from the search initially approved".

I think that a hand search would be different in material respects than an x-ray.

Remember as part of the argument is the "current technology" bit. Are you claiming that a hand search is "current technology"?

I believe it is the same in principle. There are many different searches conducted at the checkpoint. Yes, one is a metal detector. Others are not.

As I have been told when we receive the new whole body imagers here those who go through these machines will NOT go through a metal detector, as the pilot programs have ended.

There will eventually be better x-rays at the checkpoint, but only in the sense as they are in checked baggage. They help to detect certain components of IEDs, not other prohibited items, such as knives or guns, etc. And then only very specific parts of components. When we get such x-rays they will do little to enhance the screening for knives, guns and other items that are WEIs.

Considering that other cases cited by the case we are discussing here have uphelp the various means by which a checkpoint employees conduct searches, I believe the principles upheld by this ruling specifically apply to the various searches we conduct. Or course, under the assumption such searches are only to find WEIs and other prohibited items.

I'm sorry, but a personal experience that cannot be corroborated is not support.

Hopefully, one day a court will find WBI to be unreasonable and too intrusive.

What agreement? Near as I can tell it's just a motion to withdraw the lawsuit. No agreement, no consent decree. There will be nothing enforceable for a judge to retain jurisdiction over, so there is nothing to prevent TSA from returning to status quo ante.

Which is why I would have preferred to see a formal consent decree.

Lol yet people use them here all the time to tell of horror stories about TSA... We hav some great double standards here!

Regardless, if you read their duties, it basically says part of their job is to evaluate procedures. Obviously, their evaluation of procedure could sometimes be that procedure does not work.

But hey, you believe what you want to believe.

That won't happen if the new machines generate stick figures.

SATTSO, I most likely won't be able to argue much today. My PC has picked up a virus that is wonking me hard. Try to boot in safe-mode and it just reboots. Good thing I also had Linux loaded. WEEEEEEEEEEEEEE FUN