IAH TSA: Interrogating A Child?
#91
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Newport, NJ, USA
Posts: 2,114
And you do? The article from the National Middle School Association below says there are 2,400 reported cases of child abuse each day. Can you not even conceive of the possibility the TSA representative was simply acting in good faith? The inability to even conceive a TSA representative acted in good faith is an idication of one's ability to "... get it ..." by my standards.
http://www.nmsa.org/Publications/Mid...6/Default.aspx
http://www.nmsa.org/Publications/Mid...6/Default.aspx
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).
#92
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: IAH & PHL
Programs: United Premier Silver
Posts: 326
gringito,
My sister exhibited no signs of child abuse. There was nothing out of the ordinary. Unless you call crying out of the ordinary.
You mentioned that in your 40yrs of traveling that you've rarely run across crying children in an aiport; that is hard to believe. I see them not only in airports but in malls and other public places a lot.
I gave her a hug before they walked up to the counter. She started to cry, for the most part silently and just kept wiping her eyes. After I left they checked their luggage and went through the TSA line and that's where they were stopped and pulled aside.
I grew up as a military brat and that meant a lot of summer trips home and then leaving the whole family to come back to wherever we were stationed. That led to a lot of tears on my part until I was about 12. I hated leaving my family. There's nothing wrong with that.
My sister exhibited no signs of child abuse. There was nothing out of the ordinary. Unless you call crying out of the ordinary.
You mentioned that in your 40yrs of traveling that you've rarely run across crying children in an aiport; that is hard to believe. I see them not only in airports but in malls and other public places a lot.
I gave her a hug before they walked up to the counter. She started to cry, for the most part silently and just kept wiping her eyes. After I left they checked their luggage and went through the TSA line and that's where they were stopped and pulled aside.
I grew up as a military brat and that meant a lot of summer trips home and then leaving the whole family to come back to wherever we were stationed. That led to a lot of tears on my part until I was about 12. I hated leaving my family. There's nothing wrong with that.
#93
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Please assist me by providing a reference that states the limitations on the role of the TSA representatives - I not only have not been able to find such references but believe the references I have documented in fact do not indicate such limitations. Your simply repeating yourself in my estimation adds little validity to your statement(s).
We'll start here:
(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.
(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.
Next, we'll go here:
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.”
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.”
And finally:
(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.
(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.
TSO's may second guess often, my comment if you reread it, was that I cannot imagine a TSA representative subjecting THEMSELVES to the second guessing that would result for stopping and question a child over a few tears.
A citizen or TSA agent has at least a moral responsibility to report a suspected act of kidnapping or abuse.
As previously referenced, there are in fact laws protecting those who intervene in good faith where abuse or kidnapping is suspected, you might have missed this so I'll repeat it below.
http://www.nmsa.org/Publications/Mid...6/Default.aspx
http://www.nmsa.org/Publications/Mid...6/Default.aspx
#94
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Newport, NJ, USA
Posts: 2,114
"Oh please" to quote you, making an 11 year old the pawn? In a public arena with the parent / guardian present? You must really hate the TSA.
#95
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: IAH & PHL
Programs: United Premier Silver
Posts: 326
And you do? The article from the National Middle School Association below says there are 2,400 reported cases of child abuse each day. Can you not even conceive of the possibility the TSA representative was simply acting in good faith? The inability to even conceive a TSA representative acted in good faith is an idication of one's ability to "... get it ..." by my standards.
http://www.nmsa.org/Publications/Mid...6/Default.aspx
http://www.nmsa.org/Publications/Mid...6/Default.aspx
You're driving this abuse angle hard. Again, if there were signs of abuse then I would agree with you.
But simply crying is not a sign of abuse.
#96
FlyerTalk Evangelist




Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,678
Please assist me by providing a reference that states the limitations on the role of the TSA representatives - I not only have not been able to find such references but believe the references I have documented in fact do not indicate such limitations. Your simply repeating yourself in my estimation adds little validity to your statement(s).
#97
FlyerTalk Evangelist




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marriott or Hilton hot tub with a big drink <glub> Beverage: To-Go Bag DYKWIA:SSSS /rolleyes ☈ Date Night:Costco
Programs: Sea Shell Lounge Platinum, TSA Pre✓ Refusnik Diamond, PWP Gold, FT subset of the subset
Posts: 12,523
If a TSO suspects child abuse, they should contact a LEO. They have no authority to do anything else. Same goes if they find what appears to be illegal drugs while conducting an administrative search. Even the TSA employees on this forum agree on this.
#98
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
And I've read about TSOs doing much worse. Shall we talk about the (former) TSO in PHL who decided back in January that planting drugs in a passenger's carry-on was "funny"? Shall we talk about the TSO who stole money from a passenger in a wheelchair, who was powerless to stop it, and then tried to cover it up later? Shall we talk about the TSO who confiscated the two-inch toy gun from a child's GI Joe toy as a "dangerous weapon"?
So, is the OP's scenario plausible? Absolutely. Common practice? I would hope not. But, as a rule, I don't rule anything out.
#100
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Newport, NJ, USA
Posts: 2,114
Wrong. These laws apply to teachers. Teachers are professionals who are trained to recognize the signs of child abuse. They are also assigned this responsibility by statute. TSOs are not professionals who are trained to recognize the signs of child abuse, and they are NOT assigned this responsibility by statute. And they are not indemnified in the event of good faith intervention.
http://www.americanhumane.org/about-...e-neglect.html
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
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
#101
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Dealing first with your last paragraph in your post, are you stating the American Humane organization is "wrong" as quoted below?
http://www.americanhumane.org/about-...e-neglect.html
http://www.americanhumane.org/about-...e-neglect.html
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?
violence or aircraft piracy.”"
I have no intention of giving you a lesson in Statutory Construction 101 -- frankly, I should charge you for my time to do the minimal research that I did. I couldn't care less what the meaning of the statute is to you. It means what I said it means. Your opinion of its meaning is that of an uninformed layman and therefore irrelevant.
I see you also have conveniently ignored the other material that I provided that clearly defines the limited scope of non-police authority afforded to TSOs. I don't know what your deal is -- whether you are a TSO, or just one of those, "anything for the children," people -- but you are simply wrong.
#102
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Newport, NJ, USA
Posts: 2,114
The evidence obtained by search procedures that exceeded normal procedures to protect protection of passengers from criminal activities was suppressed. And this has relevance to a TSA agent being concerned with the safety of an 11 year old child - how?
The reason is simple - I deplore child abuse, which is really not a difficult concept to comprehend I would think.
Then you are stating they are wrong in their statement:
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.
The reason is simple - I deplore child abuse, which is really not a difficult concept to comprehend I would think.
I am stating that the American Humane organization's opinion is irrelevant to the law.
First of all, the statute doesn't say, "criminal act," it says, "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.”"
I have no intention of giving you a lesson in Statutory Construction 101 -- frankly, I should charge you for my time to do the minimal research that I did. I couldn't care less what the meaning of the statute is to you. It means what I said it means. Your opinion of its meaning is that of an uninformed layman and therefore irrelevant.
I see you also have conveniently ignored the other material that I provided that clearly defines the limited scope of non-police authority afforded to TSOs. I don't know what your deal is -- whether you are a TSO, or just one of those, "anything for the children," people -- but you are simply wrong.
First of all, the statute doesn't say, "criminal act," it says, "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.”"
I have no intention of giving you a lesson in Statutory Construction 101 -- frankly, I should charge you for my time to do the minimal research that I did. I couldn't care less what the meaning of the statute is to you. It means what I said it means. Your opinion of its meaning is that of an uninformed layman and therefore irrelevant.
I see you also have conveniently ignored the other material that I provided that clearly defines the limited scope of non-police authority afforded to TSOs. I don't know what your deal is -- whether you are a TSO, or just one of those, "anything for the children," people -- but you are simply wrong.
Approximately 18 states define mandated reporters more broadly to include any citizen who suspects that a child is being abused or neglected.
For the record, I am not an employee of any government agency.
Last edited by essxjay; May 19, 2010 at 11:56 pm Reason: merge consecutive posts
#103
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
And this has relevance to a TSA agent being concerned with the safety of an 11 year old child - how?
As I said, don't play lawyer. You're in way over your head.
I am stating that I couldn't care less what the Humane Society has to say about law.
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.
Last edited by essxjay; May 20, 2010 at 12:00 am Reason: merge consecutive posts
#104
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: FrostByte Falls, Mn
Programs: Holiday Inn Plat NW gold AA gold
Posts: 2,157
If I were a TSO in that situation I would have summoned a LEO to deal with it because it interfered with my primary job function of keeping WEI off of the aircraft and out of the sterile area.
#105
FlyerTalk Evangelist




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marriott or Hilton hot tub with a big drink <glub> Beverage: To-Go Bag DYKWIA:SSSS /rolleyes ☈ Date Night:Costco
Programs: Sea Shell Lounge Platinum, TSA Pre✓ Refusnik Diamond, PWP Gold, FT subset of the subset
Posts: 12,523

Bingo! In this instance we had 4 TSOs that were distracted from their screening duties. Is it any wonder we have so many things get past them that lead to terminal dumps, recalled aircraft, etc?

