---

---

---

In fact, approximately 2,400 children are found to be victims of child abuse each day, and each week Child Protective Services (CPS) agencies throughout the United States receive more than 50,000 reports of suspected child abuse or neglect (Prevent Child Abuse America, 2003).

---

---

---

---

(a) Definition.— In this section, “law enforcement personnel” means individuals—
(1) authorized to carry and use firearms;
(2) vested with the degree of the police power of arrest the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security considers necessary to carry out this section; and
(3) identifiable by appropriate indicia of authority.

---

---

Under the Fourth Amendment, searches “conducted without a warrant issued upon probable cause [are] per se unreasonable . . . subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967). The Government bears the burden of proving that a warrantless search was conducted pursuant to an established exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. United States v. Oliver, 686 F.2d 356, 371 (6th Cir. 1982). Administrative searches are an exception to the warrant requirement and are permissible if they “meet the Fourth Amendment’s standard of reasonableness.” United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 910 (9th Cir. 1973), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955, 960-61 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc); see also Board of Educ. of Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 92 of Pottawatomie Cty. v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822, 828-29 (2002) (noting that reasonableness is “the touchstone of the constitutionality of a governmental
search”); Camara v. Mun. Court, 387 U.S. 523, 536-537 (1967). Warrantless and suspicionless airport screening searches are administrative searches and,
therefore, exempt from the warrant requirement and constitutionally permissible if they are reasonable .2 See., e.g., United States v. Dalpiaz, 494 F.2d 374, 375 (6th Cir. 1974); Aukai, 497 2 The Supreme Court has not directly ruled on the reasonableness of domestic airport checkpoint
searches. F.3d at 958; United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174, 178 (3d Cir. 2006). This is so because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme to prevent passengers from carrying weapons or explosives onto airplanes rather than as part of a criminal investigation to obtain evidence of criminal activity. Aukai, 497 F.3d at 960; Dalpiaz, 494 F.2d at 375.

To determine the reasonableness of an administrative airport search, the Court must balance an individual’s right to be free of intrusion with “society’s interest in safe air travel.” United States v. Marquez, 410 F.3d 612, 616 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Pulido- Baquerizo, 800 F.2d 899, 901 (9th Cir. 1986)). Therefore, an airport security search is reasonable if: (1) the search is “no more extensive or intensive than necessary, in light of current
technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives;” (2) the search “is confined in good faith to that purpose;” and (3) a potential passenger may avoid the search by choosing not to fly. Aukai, 497 F.3d at 962. The mere fact that contraband other than weapons or explosives is found during an airport screening search, however, does not itself render the search unconstitutional.
Marquez, 410 F.3d at 616. The TSA is statutorily charged with developing and executing airport screening search procedures. 49 U.S.C. § 44901(a). More generally, the TSA is responsible for creating “regulations to protect passengers and property on an aircraft . . . against an act of criminal
violence or aircraft piracy.” 49 U.S.C. § 44903(b). Under 49 C.F.R. § 1540.111(a), individuals may not carry a “weapon, explosive, or incendiary” onto an airplane. Section 49 U.S.C.§ 44902(a) requires that the TSA prohibit commercial airlines from transporting “a passenger who does not consent to a search under section 44901(a) of this title establishing whether the
passenger is carrying unlawfully a dangerous weapon, explosive, or other destructive substance.”

---

---

(b) Protection Against Violence and Piracy.— The Under Secretary shall prescribe regulations to protect passengers and property on an aircraft operating in air transportation or intrastate air transportation against an act of criminal violence or aircraft piracy. When prescribing a regulation under this subsection, the Under Secretary shall—
(1) consult with the Secretary of Transportation, the Attorney General, the heads of other departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the United States Government, and State and local authorities;
(2) consider whether a proposed regulation is consistent with—
(A) protecting passengers; and
(B) the public interest in promoting air transportation and intrastate air transportation;[/quote

49 U.S.C. § 44903

The sole function of TSA is to, "to protect passengers and property on an aircraft operating in air transportation or intrastate air transportation against an act of criminal violence or aircraft piracy," which is the administrative search is limited to this function AND TSOs are not, by definition, law enforcement officers.


Whereas I can. In fact, it has happened -- the OP reported it. Are you suggesting that she is lying?

A goverment actor, i.e. a TSO, has a legal, moral and ethical obligation to comply with the constitutional limitations on the power of the government.

So what? What has that to do with TSOs exercising police powers that are expressly denied to them at law? Are you saying, violating the law and Constitution are okay if, "it's for the children?" That's pure BS and if you really think so, you need a civics refresher course.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

In most states, professionals who work with children in any capacity are identified as “mandated reporters” and are required by law to report suspected child abuse or neglect. Approximately 18 states define mandated reporters more broadly to include any citizen who suspects that a child is being abused or neglected.

---

---

The Supreme Court has not directly ruled on the reasonableness of domestic airport checkpoint searches. F.3d at 958; United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174, 178 (3d Cir. 2006). This is so because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme to prevent passengers from carrying weapons or explosives onto airplanes rather than as part of a criminal investigation to obtain evidence of criminal activity.

The mere fact that contraband other than weapons or explosives is found during an airport screening search, however, does not itself render the search unconstitutional.

More generally, the TSA is responsible for creating “regulations to protect passengers and property on an aircraft . . . against an act of criminal
violence or aircraft piracy.”

The sole function of TSA is to, "to protect passengers and property on an aircraft operating in air transportation or intrastate air transportation against an act of criminal violence or aircraft piracy," which is the administrative search is limited to this function AND TSOs are not, by definition, law enforcement officers.

Protection Against Violence and Piracy.— The Under Secretary shall prescribe regulations to protect passengers and property on an aircraft operating in air transportation or intrastate air transportation against an act of criminal violence

---

---

---

---

Quoting from the information you quote in your post, the below certainly does not seem to this individual to support your statements about limitations, most notably what I have bolded. Child abuse is a criminal act is it not and transporting an abducted child is also a criminal act is it not?

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Approximately 18 states define mandated reporters more broadly to include any citizen who suspects that a child is being abused or neglected.

---

---

---

---

And this has relevance to a TSA agent being concerned with the safety of an 11 year old child - how?

---

---

---

---

You are also stating persons acting in good faith on suspected child abuse are exceeded their legally justifiable acts - if you are, I strongly suspect you are the one who is wrong.

---

---

For the record, I am not an employee of any government agency.

---

---

---

---

---