Getting selected anyway, should I refuse to show ID?
 

At SFO, I am subject to selected screening every time, since I won't go through the nude-o-scope. Is there any reason I shouldn't refuse to show my ID? My understanding is that all that means is I will be subject to the same selected screening, or has that changed?

There is a difference between refusing to show ID and not having ID, maybe lost or stolen. If you refuse the good news is you won't receive any additional screening! But that's because you won't fly. If you have lost your ID it will most likely just take longer to get through.

Things have changed dramatically. Declining to show ID means that you'll be subjected to a long procedure in which you'll be asked to prove your identity by answering a number of invasive questions about yourself (that presumably only you would know the answers to). This is before you actually approach the checkpoint and have your luggage and person searched.

It's your choice, of course. But the consequences of not showing ID aren't limited to a secondary screening anymore.

I really hope Phil's court case changes that asinine policy. :td:

May, may not. Shrugs...

I haven't kept up with it to be honest. Bu personally, I doubt the policy will change, if at all. Too many "events" have happened that TSA lawyers can whip out of the bag to help argue their case before the Courts - butTSA's track record seems to be they do not disclose such events or SOP to lower courts; correct me if I am wrong, but TSA has always argued lower courts do not have jurisdiction.

Techincally, TSA thinks that any court doesn't have jurisdiction over them.

I wouldn't place a lot of faith in TSA's lawyers though. Francine has screwed up cases (almost blew the Moussaoui case) and clearly shows a lack of understanding for the law. Her deputy doesn't seem to be any better. In many cases, a lot of gov't lawyers aren't there to determine if a practice is legal but how it can be defended if challenged.

Okay, that's too bad. By the way, despite the flaming you got, I was really happy to see that if you're not sure that something is illegal, you don't involve yourself in it (the ivory, as a good example). I don't think TSOs should get involved in anything outside of those specific things they should be looking for, but at least you are not like some others here.

I always wondered about lawyers and such working for government.

In private practice it would seem the sky is the limit money wise. However, signing on with government has definite, while very generous, limits on income.

It's worth noting that TSA does not conduct passenger screening at SFO. It has been outsourced. Look carefully and you will see that the personnel are not TSOs and do not wear TSA uniforms.

That said, they probably operate under guidelines provided by TSA, so the "interview" process to prove identity might still apply.

Ah, yes, because TSA thinks there's a difference between someone who's lost ID and someone who declines to show ID. Why is TSA so stupid, anyway?

I have NOT read mos of the court cases involving TSA. In fact, I have read only a dozen or so. So I am not an expert. I can remember from some of the cases that I have read from the lower courts, TSA has clearly stated their opinion such courts did not have jurisdiction, thus TSA has refused to allow the court access to SOP. In higher courts, TSA has allowed access to SOP in private, as thy have argued such courts do hae jurisdiction.

Can you please site to me where TSA has stated courts in general, no matter their stature, do not have jurisdiction. I am interested in reading their opinion why; and just to let you know, if TSA has made such annartument, I disagree.

Thanks.

There are other reasons. This is my first government job. To an extent, it shocked me. The benefits are quiet amazing; much better than I ever received in private industry (not a lawyer; worked in the insurance industry, finished in the government affairs office of a large insurance company). Incredible time off each year, great medical, very good retirement.

A quick story: when I first started my shift ended and we would still be busy, even though the new shift was now on. I would stay to help with the shif change, maybe 10 to 20 minutes. When the supervisors found ou I was doing this, I was told - very pleasantly, I might add - that though the extra help was appreciated, my shift was over and I had to leave. I had put in my hours, the day was over. Huh. That took a while getting used to, but now I like the fact that when they day is over, it's over. Gone are the 12 hour days, working extra on the weekends... I've learned it's nice to rest, sometimes. But don't call me lazy!! I still work as hard as I can while I am here. But you can see why some people might perfer that. It's all about externalities.

Someone else on this thread stated the differences, so I won't repeat. Be sure to read every post here to learn the differences. ;)

Attitude. Proper attitude is hat in hand, standing with head down, no eye contact, and pleading that you be allowed through the checkpoint to catch your flight because you don't have any identification.

Improper attitude is defiantly standing there, standing your ground because the ID check has no actual bearing on any security.:)

I am almost positive this statement or similar was made by TSOs during the Fofana proceedings.

Why do you think checking ID of passengers is necessary, especially when you guys have missed materials considered dangerous. Would it be a less serious tragedy, in case something does happen, if you have checked ID's?
The only thing checking an ID does is that a person has to show an ID which bears a picture that is likeness of the passenger and a name that matches the boarding pass. A CPB associated person stated on another thread that you can't expect CBP to be able to tell whether a U.S. passport presented by an arriving passenger is authentic. So they have to ask questions, read harass the passenger, to ascertain whether the person is really a U.S. citizen. Do you think the ID checkers can tell a genuine ID from a fake ID?

Nor allowed by US law.
One has to wonder how many times TSA has to break US law (ID checks) before SCOTUS does something about it.