Call to arms.

Old Jan 29, 2010, 7:49 am
  #406  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,010
Originally Posted by halls120
No, you aren't. that you think you are demonstrates a considerable lack of judgment on your part.



I agree that one does not need to be a LEO to have suspicion. Since you are no longer a qualified LEO, do you bring every bag of white powder to the attention of your supervisor?



If you do not call a supervisor every time you encounter a suspicious item, you in fact are exercising your discretion, correct? And since you are no longer a qualified LEO, when you exercise this discretion, aren't you in fact conducting an administrative search beyond the scope of your authority?
If small bags of white powders are possibly explosive in nature why would any TSA employee call for a LEO instead of a person with BOA skills? What is the actual threat being mitigated?

Doesn't the fact that TSA is calling in LEO's in these situations indicate what the suspicion actually is?

I think Ron has boxed himself and inturn TSA into a corner on this matter. There is no way out short of admitting that some at TSA are in fact engaged in illegal searches for items not related to WEI.

Seems like an OIG investigation is in order.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Jan 29, 2010, 8:00 am
  #407  
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
If small bags of white powders are possibly explosive in nature why would any TSA employee call for a LEO instead of a person with BOA skills? What is the actual threat being mitigated?

Doesn't the fact that TSA is calling in LEO's in these situations indicate what the suspicion actually is?

I think Ron has boxed himself and inturn TSA into a corner on this matter. There is no way out short of admitting that some at TSA are in fact engaged in illegal searches for items not related to WEI.

Seems like an OIG investigation is in order.
Here's what TSO Jacob said in response to a very similar question at PV:

Powdered explosives have different characteristics then the average powders that passengers carry. When we determine a powder is demonstrating any of these characteristics then we can conduct additional testing to determine if the item poses an actual threat or not. If the item does not teat positive then we allow the powder to fly. If the item does test positive then we call in the police or nearest bomb squad. Fortunately, we do not find explosives on a daily basis so there is no reason to have a bomb squad actually sitting at every checkpoint. Even though we occasionally discover drugs TSA does not search for drugs, nor do we have any testing equipment that will test for drugs, we only test for explosives.
I have no comment other than
doober is offline  
Old Jan 29, 2010, 12:53 pm
  #408  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,228
Ron, I am really confused now. In this thread, you claim that you are a qualified LEO.


Originally Posted by TSORon
Ahh but I am a qualified LEO. I just dont do it anymore.
Bot over in this thread - http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...-say-no-9.html - post #126 - you claim otherwise:

Im not a LEO anymore, and Im glad of that.
So, which is the operative statement, Ron?
halls120 is offline  
Old Jan 29, 2010, 1:07 pm
  #409  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,010
Originally Posted by halls120
Ron, I am really confused now. In this thread, you claim that you are a qualified LEO.




Bot over in this thread - http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...-say-no-9.html - post #126 - you claim otherwise:



So, which is the operative statement, Ron?
Isn't there something about questioning a person that suggests that asking the same question over time will usually get a differing answer if the person is being untruthful?
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Jan 29, 2010, 1:08 pm
  #410  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: CX MPC SL
Posts: 63
Haha, I can't believe this argument is still going on. Truly ridiculous that this Ron guy is still trying to argue that he's not looking for drugs. Some of you have done an excellent job of describing situations that can easily argue that he indeed IS looking, but he keeps avoiding the questions because he's pretty much cornered. Saying "well it wasn't my intent to look for drugs" helps him about as much as the underwear bomb guy saying "it wasn't my intent to blow up a plane...honest!"

If you have a list of items that require you to take an action, you are looking for those items, period. By the very act of making a decision to do something about the item, you're proving you were on the lookout for that item.
armandov9 is offline  
Old Jan 29, 2010, 10:03 pm
  #411  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 346
What part of "we are not actively looking for drugs" do you guys not understand? There is no way to tell if someone is carrying drugs in their bags from the xray, and when we do a bag check, we are not going into a bag with the thought of "WHERE ARE DEM DRUGGSSS????".

It's a different story if, during a bag check, we happen to see drugs. I mean, if I was going through a bag looking for water, and stumbled across some weed, I wouldn't go "hurp de derpty derp, I have no idea what that is".
senseker is offline  
Old Jan 29, 2010, 11:09 pm
  #412  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
Senseker is right

Originally Posted by senseker
What part of "we are not actively looking for drugs" do you guys not understand? There is no way to tell if someone is carrying drugs in their bags from the xray, and when we do a bag check, we are not going into a bag with the thought of "WHERE ARE DEM DRUGGSSS????".

It's a different story if, during a bag check, we happen to see drugs.
Thanks for jumping in, Senseker. I think you may have brought up a point some of us haven't considered. Now that you mention it, yeah, there's no way to tell if someone is carrying drugs in his bag simply by examining the content of his bag using an X-ray machine. Operators just see the density of things in the bag, represented in shades of gray, or on newer machines, colorized to bring attention to large differences, right? So they're not discovering anything they know is drugs at the X-ray machine console, which duh, is not typically when they find drugs anyway. Drugs are found during the hand bag check, not the X-ray bag check. Right?

If anyone disagrees with me on this point, please say so. I mean, someone at TSA might have a strong hunch from looking at the X-ray image that he's seeing drugs, but he really can't tell for sure. It's just an image on a screen, and under the X-ray, weed pretty much looks like some other things, like explosives, look like; they're all organics. He's just looking at densities, not what the stuff actually looks like, so before any decisions are made about reacting like there's a bomb or drugs in there, he and his associates will move on to a more accurate check of what's in the bag, probably by having someone hand-search the bag.

So Senseker, your TSA people basically ignore drugs they see in the X-ray except those that specifically look like explosives under X-ray, right? I don't mean that they're intentionally ignoring drugs, but that they can't tell for sure that something they're seeing is drugs, because it just looks, based on what they see, like it might be drugs, or that it probably is drugs. They can't tell for sure if something they see in the X-ray is drugs, just suspect so, and they may have good ideas, but they're not experts at detecting drugs just using an X-ray, so why would they bother to have someone, like a TSA hand bag checker person, take a second look?

Now let's take it one step further. Someone is looking at a bag with his own eyes, pawing through tit with his own hands. He sees something that looks like drugs, but he really can't tell for sure. It's just something he's looking at, and, weed pretty much looks like some other things, like other plants, look like; they're all dried green plant matter. He's just looking at them, not examining their chemical content, so before any decisions are made about reacting like there's a bomb or drugs in there, he and his associates will move on to a more accurate check of what's in the bag, probably by getting police involved.

Or will they? In either case, did the bag searcher detect what he knew to be drugs? In which case should he get someone who is better able to examine the situation involved? In which case should he just give the person the benefit of the doubt and move on to looking for dangerous items? In which case would doing so be aiding a criminal?

Are we simply quibbling over just how confident a TSA employee who sees something he or she thinks is drugs before he or she calls a law enforcement officer for closer inspection? I think they never know for sure, and they're only allowed this unusual authority to search us without warrant so that they can keep weapons, explosives, and incendiaries off airplanes, so they should always give us the benefit of the doubt, and move on to other things. TSA bag searchers never know when they've found drugs, or explosives. In either case, they decide to take the situation to someone with more training on identifying drugs or explosives. I'm all for them digging in when they think they see explosives. Why does TSA investigate further (or call police to do so) when they think they see drugs?

Last edited by pmocek; Jan 30, 2010 at 8:24 am Reason: fix typo: s/sees is/thinks is/
pmocek is offline  
Old Jan 29, 2010, 11:33 pm
  #413  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 346
It's not a matter of whether we think it's drugs. We have no way of telling. NOBODY looks at the xray for drugs; there's no actual shape that would say in your mind "I'm seeing crack rocks!!"
senseker is offline  
Old Jan 29, 2010, 11:41 pm
  #414  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: AUS
Programs: AA EXP; Marriott Gold: Hilton Gold
Posts: 535
Originally Posted by pmocek
Thanks for jumping in, Senseker. I think you may have brought up a point some of us haven't considered. Now that you mention it, yeah, there's no way to tell if someone is carrying drugs in his bag simply by examining the content of his bag using an X-ray machine. Operators just see the density of things in the bag, represented in shades of gray, or on newer machines, colorized to bring attention to large differences, right? So they're not discovering anything they know is drugs at the X-ray machine console, which duh, is not typically when they find drugs anyway. Drugs are found during the hand bag check, not the X-ray bag check. Right?

If anyone disagrees with me on this point, please say so. I mean, someone at TSA might have a strong hunch from looking at the X-ray image that he's seeing drugs, but he really can't tell for sure. It's just an image on a screen, and under the X-ray, weed pretty much looks like some other things, like explosives, look like; they're all organics. He's just looking at densities, not what the stuff actually looks like, so before any decisions are made about reacting like there's a bomb or drugs in there, he and his associates will move on to a more accurate check of what's in the bag, probably by having someone hand-search the bag.

So Senseker, your TSA people basically ignore drugs they see in the X-ray except those that specifically look like explosives under X-ray, right? I don't mean that they're intentionally ignoring drugs, but that they can't tell for sure that something they're seeing is drugs, because it just looks, based on what they see, like it might be drugs, or that it probably is drugs. They can't tell for sure if something they see in the X-ray is drugs, just suspect so, and they may have good ideas, but they're not experts at detecting drugs just using an X-ray, so why would they bother to have someone, like a TSA hand bag checker person, take a second look?

Now let's take it one step further. Someone is looking at a bag with his own eyes, pawing through tit with his own hands. He sees something that looks like drugs, but he really can't tell for sure. It's just something he's looking at, and, weed pretty much looks like some other things, like other plants, look like; they're all dried green plant matter. He's just looking at them, not examining their chemical content, so before any decisions are made about reacting like there's a bomb or drugs in there, he and his associates will move on to a more accurate check of what's in the bag, probably by getting police involved.

Or will they? In either case, did the bag searcher detect what he knew to be drugs? In which case should he get someone who is better able to examine the situation involved? In which case should he just give the person the benefit of the doubt and move on to looking for dangerous items? In which case would doing so be aiding a criminal?

Are we simply quibbling over just how confident a TSA employee who sees something he or she sees is drugs before he or she calls a law enforcement officer for closer inspection? I think they never know for sure, and they're only allowed this unusual authority to search us without warrant so that they can keep weapons, explosives, and incendiaries off airplanes, so they should always give us the benefit of the doubt, and move on to other things. TSA bag searchers never know when they've found drugs, or explosives. In either case, they decide to take the situation to someone with more training on identifying drugs or explosives. I'm all for them digging in when they think they see explosives. Why does TSA investigate further (or call police to do so) when they think they see drugs?
Wow. Seems like like the hard and fast rule would be, "dont fly with weed?"

Of course, one could always try to "fight the power," and work to disband he TSA. I mean it is my right as a traveler to travle with all the weed I want, right! Attica, Attica! Reminds me of the Sons of Anarchy.
Dan_E is offline  
Old Jan 30, 2010, 7:28 am
  #415  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
Originally Posted by senseker
It's not a matter of whether we think it's drugs. We have no way of telling. NOBODY looks at the xray for drugs; there's no actual shape that would say in your mind "I'm seeing crack rocks!!"
If you have no way of telling whether a particular substance is illegal drugs, or not ... then why are you required to notify a STSO or a LEO when you find something that you suspect is illegal drugs? If you have no way of telling whether it's drugs or not, how can you suspect something is drugs?
jkhuggins is offline  
Old Jan 31, 2010, 3:38 am
  #416  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
Originally Posted by halls120
Ron, I am really confused now. In this thread, you claim that you are a qualified LEO.




Bot over in this thread - http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...-say-no-9.html - post #126 - you claim otherwise:



So, which is the operative statement, Ron?
Oh, word games. Cool.

Lets put it this way, I am not currently a LEO, that does not mean that I am not qualified.
TSORon is offline  
Old Jan 31, 2010, 3:50 am
  #417  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
If small bags of white powders are possibly explosive in nature why would any TSA employee call for a LEO instead of a person with BOA skills? What is the actual threat being mitigated?
Its BAO, not BOA. And there is not always a BAO on duty. Even if we call one, and they determine that the suspect item is hazardous, they are going to call a LEO. After all, a BAO is not a bomb squad, nor does the TSA have any bomb squads (that I am aware of).

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
Doesn't the fact that TSA is calling in LEO's in these situations indicate what the suspicion actually is?
No.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
I think Ron has boxed himself and inturn TSA into a corner on this matter. There is no way out short of admitting that some at TSA are in fact engaged in illegal searches for items not related to WEI.

Seems like an OIG investigation is in order.
There are judges that take bribes, brokers that unlawfully use insider knowledge to purchase stocks, stock boys that lift the occasional banana, and little old ladies that J-Walk. None of these require a Congressional Investigation, an OIG investigation, or anyone other than a law enforcement intervention.

There are in fact TSOs who do not follow the rules. Its unavoidable, totally. In a work force as large as that working for the TSA there is inevitably a few rotten apples. The exact same can be said about every human endeavor throughout history. There are folks here who outright lie, or intentionally misinterpret what others write, should we call for a federal investigation of FT?
TSORon is offline  
Old Jan 31, 2010, 6:46 am
  #418  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,228
Originally Posted by TSORon
Oh, word games. Cool.

Lets put it this way, I am not currently a LEO, that does not mean that I am not qualified.
Gee, Ron, all I'm doing is trying to understand your own words.

If you aren't a sworn LEO, just what gives you the "qualification" you speak of?

Since you are no longer a qualified LEO, do you bring every bag of white powder to the attention of your supervisor - or BAO?

If you do not call a supervisor every time you encounter a suspicious item, you in fact are exercising your discretion, correct? And since you are no longer a qualified LEO, when you exercise this discretion, aren't you in fact conducting an administrative search beyond the scope of your authority?
halls120 is offline  
Old Jan 31, 2010, 7:28 am
  #419  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
Originally Posted by halls120
Gee, Ron, all I'm doing is trying to understand your own words.

If you aren't a sworn LEO, just what gives you the "qualification" you speak of?
13 years of experience in the field, graduation from a fully accredited Law Enforcement Academy, an Associates Degree in Criminal Justice. THAT qualifies me, but it does not certify me. Since I am no longer a sworn peace officer I am no longer certified. Qualified yes, certified and credentialed, no.

Originally Posted by halls120
Since you are no longer a qualified LEO, do you bring every bag of white powder to the attention of your supervisor - or BAO?

More word games?
No. We do test them all, within the limits of our capabilities, but not all qualify as being suspicious.

Originally Posted by halls120
If you do not call a supervisor every time you encounter a suspicious item, you in fact are exercising your discretion, correct? And since you are no longer a qualified LEO, when you exercise this discretion, aren't you in fact conducting an administrative search beyond the scope of your authority?
Yes, wrong, and no. Happy now, or are we going to play some more word games?
TSORon is offline  
Old Jan 31, 2010, 11:46 am
  #420  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,228
Originally Posted by TSORon
13 years of experience in the field, graduation from a fully accredited Law Enforcement Academy, an Associates Degree in Criminal Justice. THAT qualifies me, but it does not certify me. Since I am no longer a sworn peace officer I am no longer certified. Qualified yes, certified and credentialed, no.
thanks for clearing this up. That wasn't all that hard, was it?


Originally Posted by TSORon
More word games?
No. We do test them all, within the limits of our capabilities, but not all qualify as being suspicious.
Not word games, Ron, logic games.

A baggie of white powder could be cocaine, an explosive, or baby powder. You cannot tell by looking at them what they are. I'm assuming that you probably test them for WEI at the Ionscan. If they pass that test, you really have no other reason to alert a supervisor, correct?

Originally Posted by TSORon
Yes, wrong, and no. Happy now, or are we going to play some more word games?
Let's see what we have here, Ron.

You admit that if you do not call a supervisor every time you encounter a suspicious item, you in fact are exercising your discretion.

when you exercise this discretion, you say you aren't conducting an administrative search beyond the scope of your authority. However, since you are only empowered and trained to search for WEI, if an unknown white powder tests negative for WEI, and you either don't let it go every time OR you always refer it to a supervisor, you are conducting a search which may be found to be outside the scope of your authority and expertise.

Remember what the Court said in Fofana, Ron?

the evidence in this case shows that the extent of the search went beyond the permissible purpose of detecting weapons and explosives and was instead motivated by a desire to uncover contraband evidencing ordinary criminal wrongdoing. From their testimony at the suppression hearing it appeared that both [Transportation Security Agents] Mirow and Stroud considered Fofana to be suspicious based on the fact that he was carrying a large amount of cash, but that the suspicion was not based on a concern that he was a security risk.

Quite simply the Government failed to produce evidence from which this Court could conclude that the search of Fofanas luggage was no more extensive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives; or that the search was confined in good faith to that purpose. As the Government bears the burden of establishing that a search was constitutional, that failure is outcome determinative and the Court must grant Fofanas Motion to Suppress.
Oh, and just because you were once a credentialed LEO, that doesn't mean you are a currently qualified LEO.
halls120 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.