PTravel

Well, I really don't get it -- if all these children of FFs are so fast through security, why do I always see families holding up the elite line? At any rate, I don't want to make this thread about kids -- I'd rather stay focused on what TSOs can and cannot do, and the simple fact is that they can't order you to do anything.

RichMSN

The parents that aggravate me are the "we're special -- look at my kids -- they're FLYING!" Once, when traveling by myself on business, I seemed so impatient, apparently, that one of them said something like "if you had children, you'd get it" and that's when I said something like that my child's clearly done this more than you have, cause she'd be through by now.

I love being a dad and my kid's important to me, but I sure don't see myself or her as special in the grand scheme of things.

RichMSN

You know the answer:

They're Kettles flying with children. So it becomes slow to the slow, which translates to glacial. If people like me have kids, it's fast, but you (like I) prejudge who's going to be slow and the family of four will always be thrown (initially) into the Kettle bucket.

PTravel

That makes sense. Point taken.

RichMSN

And I see your point, too. If I have to choose between two lines, I'll always pick away from the family of four or the 80-year old husband/wife.

Of course, I always tell the person behind me that choosing the line I've chosen is a huge mistake as it will (inevitably) be the slower line. Not cause I'm slow, but it just seems to work out that way.

CDTraveler

Kid just turned 10, and has been flying since age 4 months. He's in the airport enough to have the "All shoes must go in the bin! All electronics ..." speech memorized.

"Kid" does not equal slow or unable to follow instructions. So we should we, as frequent flyers, be relegated to what should be called a "newbie line" or words to that effect?

Also, what airport gives you that many choices of line? Last few flights we've had, there's one line only until you get to the point where they scream at you "Line 4!" for the WTMD section. This was PHL, ATL, SJC, and Vegas. Only place I've ever seen a family line was in that mess called Orlando International Airport. (next trip to Florida, we're driving, I don't care if it's a 1,000 miles each)

I agree with the OP: if you know what you're doing, you shouldn't be forced into the longest, slowest line.

PTravel

My question had to do with relative goring of oxen.

However, as I indicated, I'd prefer to focus on the, "what can a TSO do," aspect of this. I've had TSOs direct me to various lines and I have always, and will continue, to simply ignore them if I spot a line that I think is shorter or will move faster.

RichMSN

Reminds me of my trip to the Kohl Center yesterday to see a D-I basketball game.

I had a friend's ticket. I went in the wrong section and could see my seat a section over. 80-ish usher asked me to see my ticket and she started this long spiel about going out, down the steps, over, and I stopped her and said....

"That way, right?"

And she said, "Yes, but you need to..." and looked towards the exit.

And I said "Thanks" and walked across a completely empty row to my seat about 50 feet away. I could hear her trying to stop me, but she gave up quickly, like I knew she would.

There's no common sense in jobs like this, and an arena usher is a lot like a TSO in this regard (among others).

QUERY

Regarding your 1st paragraph, I'm not missing your point. You're making assumptions that are incorrect. You are assuming that LEOs are going to make an arrest every time a situation develops between a pax and a TSO. It didn't happen to the OP and it didn't happen to the guy with the $4700, although the latter was a near miss but never was he SOL.

Regarding your 2nd paragraph, you're using your words(except agenda), not mine, and missing my point. This guy had a plan of action PRIOR to going through the checkpoint. His calmness while being interviewed and his continued insistence about whether he had to answer the question regarding whose money that was, was not the norm. Most paxs would have answered the question before it was escalated to the LEOs. To me, he was baiting TSA and the LEOs and they bit but he prevailed. I have mixed feelings about this as that guy created an unnecessary incident but, at the same time, it may have ended the career of a STSO who should never have risen to that rank in the first place, with the attitude he had. I hope the LEO involved rec'd disciplinary action as well.

Regarding your 3rd paragraph, I don't know what disciplinary action the supervisor rec'd, I just stated what I read though I doubt whatever it was would qualify for your term, 'meaningfully disciplined'.

pmocek

Yes. If that person calmly and respectfully refuses to follow directives of TSA staff that those staff have no authority to issue, I'd say there's a good chance that the police officer TSA summon in response will arrest the person. Police tend to penalize people who assert their rights.

The police officer would probably charge the passenger with the usual catch-alls: disturbing the peace, refusal to obey an officer, and obstruction. (Note that frequent FT commenter SgtScott31, a police officer, is familiar-enough with "obstruction" to say when he'd charge someone with it, but when asked recently what, precisely, the act of obstruction is, fell silent.) The police officer in your hypothetical situation would probably throw in a trespass charge for good measure.

Don't count on that.

And if not, then what? Do you know of any law that compels us to grant requests made by police? We're not talking about orders or demands, but requests. Typically, if a police officer has the authority to make you do something, he'll order you to do it, not ask you. Unfortunately, determining if something is a request or a demand often comes across as a challenge to police authority, and that will typically make the situation worse in the short-run for the person being detained. Police tend to penalize people who assert their rights.

They did not have to release him. They could have charged him with a number of crimes and sent him to jail until a judge was able to speak with him, or they could have continued to question him.

I don't remember reading that. Did you mean a very general plan like, "Don't do anything wrong, know your rights and responsibilities, don't say anything that could be used against you, and record your interaction with TSA and police in case they lie about it later"?

How was he baiting them?

He didn't create it. He was just going about his business, doing nothing wrong. TSA and St. Louis Police created it.

QUERY

Regarding your 1st paragraph, your opinion, not mine. Especially when we talking about the OP's situation regarding choosing a lane rather than following the TSO's direction. Ditto for the guy with the $4700 as there is no law that requires any disclosure of an amount under $10K.

Regarding your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, again, your opinion, not mine. I don't see any comments from your SgtScott31 on this thread so whatever you are saying about him is being taken out of context because his statement probably concerned a different situation, certainly not this one.

Regarding your 4th paragraph, it depends upon the jurisdiction. Here in MKE, the county Sheriff's deputies enforce both Federal laws regarding airports and County laws regarding everything else. For example, if you tried to take a knife through a checkpoint that had a blade 3" or longer, you would be arrested for a CCW charge under a County ordinance. If caught with the same knife on board an aircraft and you'd be looking at additional Federal charges. As for requests, if the MPD pulled over and asked you for ID on the street, I would recommend that you comply with that request. I don't know what would happen if you did not. However, LEOs have discretion when it comes to reasonable suspicion and probable cause, both under the 4th amendment. If you took them to court over it, and accused them of harassment or some other like charge, they would have to tell the court why they requested ID from you. As for police officers demands, most will ask you to comply. If that doesn't work, they will use a "command voice" to get you to comply. If that doesn't work, they can arrest you for noncompliance(assuming a law has been broken). If you resist while you are under arrest, they can use less-than-lethal force to subdue you and can escalate that to deadly force if circumstances warrant it. In either case, the court will hear the officer's testimony and yours. As for the rest of the paragraph, your opinion, not mine.

Regarding your 5th paragraph, I disagree with your statement. They had to release him as he had not broken any laws. That's why the LEO did not charge him though he did threaten him with arrest. He was questioned for a half hour with no results. Had they continued, and had he missed his flight, and if missing that flight resulted in any pain or suffering, his suit might look for punitive damages as well.

Regarding your 6th and 7th paragraphs, I've already answered that in my previous post in response to jkhuggins and it is IMO.

Regarding your 8th paragraph, I disagree with the 1st sentence but agree with you on the other 2 following sentences. He could have complied with the STSO's requests but CHOSE not to.

pmocek

Assuming you meant to describe a situation in which someone is operating a motor vehicle on a public road, then that's a very different situation. In that case, we're required to carry proof of being licensed to drive and to present that proof to a police officer upon demand.

Let's say that you're walking on the street instead. Do you believe that MPD has the right to stop you and compel you to present a driver license or any other form of proof of identification? I don't believe so. U.S. citizens are not even required to have such papers, much less to present them upon demand.

At what time do you believe that they were required to release him? If he had not broken any laws (and that's up to a judge or jury, not to police or to airport bag checkers), and if you assert, this means that he cannot be detained, then how was he ever detained?

You just said they were required to release him. I contend that they were not. Do you believe there is a 90-minute limit?

Don't you suppose that 90 minutes of detention -- particularly with no basis for such, only a man carrying more cash than some TSA bag checker thought he ought to carry -- resulted in any suffering of the sort that missing a flight might?

What's your point? You wrote, "I have mixed feelings about this as that guy created an unnecessary incident." He did not create the incident any more than anyone else going about their business who is stopped by government agents without just cause creates an incident. Had he done exactly the same thing but without encountering the misbehaving TSA staff and police, the incident would not have occurred.

Imagine that some rogue police officer began going door-to-door, simply asking people to let him take a look around their homes, in case of finding evidence of wrongdoing, and while most people complied with the unwarranted searches, some declined, and when they did, the cop raised a big stink, called in other investigators, and continued badgering those people for 90 minutes, then left. Would you say that the people who declined to participate in a search the cop had no right to perform "created an unnecessary incident"?

I contend that Mr. Bierfeldt did exactly what he needed to do for the good of us all. Had he participated in the interrogation, attention would not have been brought to the unconsitutional behavior of TSA staff and St. Louis police. I'm grateful to him for taking the time to stand up for our rights.

QUERY, in what way was Bierfeldt's compliance with all laws, carrying money from a political event, and declining to answer questions he was not required to answer, baiting? Would the people in my hypothetical situation above -- those who simply asserted their right to protection from unlawful search -- baiting the cop who was performing the door-to-door fishing expedition?

Do you know of any law that compels us to grant requests made by police in the United States? You've implied that declining to cooperate with police officers' requests is illegal, and I don't believe that it is.

hgdf

I think there's a misconception amongst a lot of law and order types that the 4th & 5th amendments only apply to guilty people. After-all, if you're innocent you have nothing to hide right?

If you choose to grant the government permission to search and interrogate you without any legal reason then that's your call, however that doesn't give them the right.

Going through an airport security checkpoint is not the same thing as submitting to a police search where probable cause may be involved. The TSA has a limited search power to screen out threats to aviation security, not to conduct broad criminal investigations, after-all they aren't police officers. If they happen to come across something illegal (like drugs), then they can alert law enforcement. This is where they screwed up in the Bierfeldt case, they exceeded the scope of their security screening role. There's nothing either threatening or illegal about carrying $4,700 cash.

Sure, the police can try to compel you to cooperate by using intimidation or by threatening to arrest and charge you with whatever nonsense they can think of. You can also sue them for violating your civil rights, which is not something any cop wants to sit in court and try to defend. Bierfeldt did us all a great service by calling the TSA out for overstepping its authority.

QUERY

Regarding your 1st and 2nd paragraphs, MPD can call you over to their vehicle to request ID, even if you are walking on the street. Again, if they have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to do so, they are not violating your rights.

Regarding your 3rd paragraph, and assuming you are talking about the Bierfeldt case, IMO, it should have been escalated to the LEO right away. Bierfeldt kept asking the same question so if he chooses to be uncooperative, which is his right, the STSO should have asked him one more time if the amount exceeded $10K and then call for the LEO. None of this threatening Bierfeldt with incarceration and other LE involvement.

Regarding your 4th paragraph, I didn't state that. I said this, "They had to release him as he had not broken any laws." He could have forced the issue by saying either charge me or I'm leaving. However, LE can hold you without charging you for a short period of time. I'm not sure how long and if that applies nation-wide or is jurisdiction-specific.

Regarding your 5th paragraph, it does not matter what I believe but what Bierfeldt will be able to prove in a court of law.

Regarding your 6th paragraph, I've stated my opinion on this but I agree that this would not occur at all checkpoints because not all STSOs are that arrogant as the one he confronted.

Regarding your 7th paragraph, your analogy is not similar. Searches in a checkpoint are covered under the 4th Amendment, under Administrative Searches. Anyone entering a checkpoint gives implied consent to search both themselves and their carry-on items. For homes, you would need a search warrant unless there was reasonable suspicion or probable cause involved. Better to have a warrant in that situation.

Regarding your 8th paragraph, I pretty much agree with you here. However, as I stated, based upon what I heard, IMO, he had a plan of action before going through the checkpoint.

Regarding your 9th paragraph, it's just my opinion. As I stated before, he could have complied but didn't. By not complying, he created the situation which escalated quickly due to the arrogant STSO who was totally out of line and the responding LEO, who was nearly as bad in his treatment of Bierfeldt.

Regarding your 10th paragraph, there is no law to compel a citizen to talk. Everyone, including criminals, have the right to remain silent. That doesn't stop LE from exercising their arrest powers, especially if they already have evidence of a crime.

DevilDog438

Any cop can request anything they want. Do you have a cite for a law that requires citizens of the locality served by MPD to carry physical forms of identification and provide them on demand at all times?