If there was a single high heel, it was most likely not returned to a carry on after the TSO was done rummaging through it. I have witnessed TSO's spilling the contents of passengers carry ons on more than one occasion.

As a reminder, the OP in this case was at a gate, not a checkpoint. It is possible he left something behind, but it wasn't like he was divesting items from his bags and pockets.

Waiting for the other shoe to drop, LOL.

I don't know the law well enough in that area, but none of that changes the TSA's statement on the issue; what I said is what they said. I am not taking a position on the constitutionality of any local restrictions because I do not know the law well enough in that area, but just clarifying what the TSA said on the matter.

I know what TSA said. And it's wrong.

Looks like someone has a reading disability. The OP was at a gate, not a checkpoint.

Do you make this kind of material mistake when you do your job, too? Or doesn't it matter because TSA screeners aren't held accountable?

Thank you. I was doing what I do best, which is cause extreme and blinding irritation to assclowns. A number of individuals have experienced this feeling ;)

I just looked at the photograph carefully for the first time. It actually captures the chubby TSO who chased after me looking straight at me, so he must have seen me just as I was about to take it, rather than just after the flash went off. It also shows a second TSO, whom I did not notice at the time, standing at the other side of the gate looking directly at me with his arm moving as if he is about to point at me, and his face and mouth in a very unnatural contortion, as if he is about to shout. I now think that he is the one who shouted. The shout then caused the tubby TSO to reflexively begin the chase.

I'll take your word for it since I don't know the law well enough in that arena.

Non-commercial photography is protected under the First Amendment. There are no lawful local rules against photography in public places.[/QUOTE]


Commercial shopping malls are often believed to be 'public space' when in fact it has been ruled, if privately owned as most are, then it is not 'public space'. Photography e.g. can be prohibited.

Therefore, as many airports are privately owned by corporations and such then photography can probably be banned throughout the facility if they so wish.

Any attornies on board wish to elaborate?

All airports at which the TSA is located are government owned and are thus subject to the restrictions imposed by the Constitution, which includes the right to take photographs in publicly accessible spaces. Private shopping malls are not owned by the government and, for the most part (California being one of the exceptions if I recall correctly), are not subject to the restrictions imposed by the Constitution on prohibiting photographs.

As an aside, the TSA has said in its discussions about photography that we are not permitted to take pictures of the x-ray monitors. I have read the implementing regulations and have discussed the same with a TSA attorney and know this is not the case. The x-ray monitors are considered to be SSI, so "covered persons" are not permitted to take pictures of them and are to protect that info. However, regular passengers do not fall under the "covered person" definition and, as such, are not subject to the requirement. So a TSO (or an aircrew member) would not be permitted to take a picture of an x-ray monitor, but the general public can without restriction.

I already did.

Except airports are government owned, so this really doesn't apply.

IANAL, but IAAIP (I Am An Informed Photographer) who picks battles, but will fight them hard.

Thanks for the clarification....I was under the impression some airports were privately owned.

Reference, please? I remember blogger Bob Burns stating so once, but only after he stated such was simply discouraged, and after multiple TSA representatives at airports confirmed his first statement. I admit that it seems likely that those representatives mistakenly thought "we ask that you not" means the same thing as "you must not". Regardless, none of those who responded to my request for information from 50 airports said that such photography was prohibited.

Thanks!

The TSA site does say that it is a request not to take pictures of monitors, but as you noted, Blogger Bob came out after beating around the bush and said we are not to. Then as the link to your photography thread notes, there are a number of airports that spout the same prohibition.

US airports are (mostly) government owned. Plenty of privately-owned (or publicly traded, as in the case of my home airport AKL) commercial airports in the world.

There are privately-owned airports and airstrips in the US, but I don't believe there are any (certainly not many, anyway) that provide scheduled commercial flights with any of the major carriers.

[bolding mine]
Spoken like a true FTer! :)

Nope, there is actually one in Branson, Missouri. It has scheduled commercial passenger service and is staffed by the TSA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branson_Airport

Branson Airport (IATA: BKG, ICAO: KBBG, FAA LID: BBG) is a public use airport located eight nautical miles (15 km) south-southeast of the central business district of Branson, a city in Taney County, Missouri, United States. It is privately owned by Branson Airport, LLC.[1]

Although most U.S. airports use the same three-letter location identifier for the FAA and IATA, this airport is assigned BBG by the FAA and BKG by the IATA[2] (which assigned BBG to Butaritari Atoll Airport in Butaritari, Kiribati[3]).

The airport opened on May 11, 2009. It is currently the only privately owned, privately operated commercial service airport in the United States[4][5][6] as National Express Group Plc. reverted control of Stewart International Airport to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. As part of the negotiations to create the airport, as a liability shield, and obtain financing, Branson Airport, LLC had to "gift" the land they owned to Taney County, Missouri in order to lease and operate the airport privately.[6]

I knew that once Stewart was sold to the Port Authority, that took it out of being a private airport. I did not realize that about Branson. Though classified as private, it is interesting that the county owns the land and a transportation district was set up to sell tax-free bonds. I wonder how that will impact First Amendment rights on the property.

Can you post the picture somewhere? (Would you be willing to? I'd like to see it...)

I would love to share it! However, that largely depends what the outcome of posting this is.

OP was lucky not to have been pelted with applesauce confiscated from a 93 year old.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/newss...sauce-tsa.html

I guess the $20 bill that fell out of your coat as you ran away serves as a suitable reward for at least attempting to give it back to you.

:D

IMHO, your sense of humor needs some adjustment. I was funnin ya dope.

Geez, some peoples kids now days .... :D

A piece of free advice - don't quit your day job. ;)

You want him to be a TSO? :confused:

Only because he won't be able to make a living in comedy based on his attempts at humor. :)

I hear it's a pretty rigorous screening process. One would have to be fairly intelligent, honest, and since it is a federal job, one would implicitly have to uphold the constitution in the performance of ones duties.