Getting selected anyway, should I refuse to show ID?
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Miami, FL, USA
Posts: 4,049
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?
#2
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
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.
#3
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
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.
It's your choice, of course. But the consequences of not showing ID aren't limited to a secondary screening anymore.
#4
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
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.
#5
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
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.
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.
#6
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
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.
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.
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.
#7
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Miami, FL, USA
Posts: 4,049
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.
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,130
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.
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.
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.
#9
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2002
Location: NYC, USA
Programs: AA EXP 3MM, Lifetime Platinum, Marriott Titanium, HH Gold
Posts: 10,968
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.
#10
Suspended
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 418
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.
#11
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Cholula; Feb 6, 2010 at 8:49 pm Reason: Merging multiple, successive posts
#12
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: FrostByte Falls, Mn
Programs: Holiday Inn Plat NW gold AA gold
Posts: 2,157
Improper attitude is defiantly standing there, standing your ground because the ID check has no actual bearing on any security.
#13
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: SW Rapid Rewards, Hilton Honors, Marriott, Avis First
Posts: 4,831
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.
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.
#14
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 22,778
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.
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?
#15
Join Date: Jul 2007
Programs: QFF
Posts: 5,304