I don't understand why SATTSO is having so much trouble explaining this, but I do understand the confusion here. As I understand it, the policy has changed significantly since Gilmore. It doesn't violate that case, but makes that case less relevant.

As I understand it, the policy in effect at that time was that there were two cases: you either showed "acceptable" (where the definition of the has changed slightly) ID or went through secondary screening. That policy has changed (and it had to or the NFL has no meaning).

The new policy, also as I understand it, mostly separates the issue of ID and secondary screening. Now, being able to identify oneself is a requirement to fly. That can be accomplished by showing the listed set of IDs or by showing other IDs, going through a verification process based on public records, or a combination of the latter two. If that's successful, then a secondary is not required, but may be needed in some cases. So I have the following questions for SATTSO:

(1) Is the above correct at the level of detail that I've presented it?
(2) Does the SOP state the mix of other ID vs. verification that's allowed or is that up to the discretion of the STSO?
(3) Is there a firm rule as to when a secondary is required?
(4) If #3 is "yes", is that SSI? If not, what is it?
(5) You implied that even if the verification wasn't successful, the passenger may still be allowed to fly. Can you clarify that?

What I found interesting here is that some of what's in this thread disagrees with what a checkpoint supervisor told me at TPA. After clearing, I asked him about what options I had while my passport was being renewed. I showed him a handful of other ID (most of which had pictures) and he said that wouldn't help. I asked about the ID verification and he said it was risky since "if you make a mistake, you won't fly". Most of that is at odds with what's been posted here and other threads. Perhaps you can comment on that issue too.

What your stating is what I also believe for the most part of what will happen. I still question the actions of TSA if a person willfully says they will not present an ID document. That in no way indicates they will not answer questions. I ask that one point because KHIAI clearly stated in a blog post that if a person had ID and did not show ID they would not be screened, an act that I believe violates all kinds of civil rights.

I again reiterate that any policy that an employee must carry out on daily basis must be clear and direct enough that the employee should be able to clearly explain said policy to another person. I don't think we have see that successfully done in this discussion.

I believe this is a TSA problem, not an individual employee problem.

Thanks to our CEO friends at big banks and insurance companies "better work" has become scarce. I'm sure there are people in TSA and the military who don't want to be there. But at the current unemployment rate, you take what you can get.

They could do the honorable thing by making a cardboard sign stating;

"Help, don't make me work for TSA"

then stand on street corners where responsible people would contribute to their well being.

Yeah, because we know those people get enough money to cover their medical insurance, money to put into retirement, they are given vacation time, sick leave, etc.

You must not be well educated, then. The recent jobs report showed an unemployment rate on the order of 4.5% for college-educated folks, and 13-ish percent for folks with lesser education.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm

If you're educated, the employment situation is not nearly as bad as the overall number indicates.

I've read carefully, and I believe that these four questions (three of which require only a simple "yes" or "no" to answer) have not been answered. Could someone please point me to the answer(s) if I missed it/them? SATTSO, could you please answer if you have not (or point me to the answer(s) I missed if you have)? Thanks for continuing to discuss this with us.

Also, SATTSO, I think I may understand where some of the confusion is coming from. When someone asks a question that requires a "yes" or "no" to answer, and you feel like the answer begins with "Maybe, but..." or "That depends," stating such is not the same as answering the question. You really could keep the discussion moving by instead saying, "Without more information, I cannot answer that," then explaining what additional information is needed. Please consider doing so in such cases.

And when someone repeats a yes/no question you think you've already answered, even if you're tired of answering it, please just type the two or three letter answer again. That's much more useful than notice that you have previously stated "yes" or "no". You can, of course, still tell us you already answered it, but please just repeat it for clarity.

Hmmm... What else coukd I explain? I went into great detail about the process. It's not that I will not go into more detail, I can not. In multiple post I have fully described the entire process.

And if someone is asking/demanding a yes or no answer on the middle of the process, well, they will not get a yes or no.

And BD is wrong in one of the quotes you cite: previous rulings ave NOT stated alternative screening had to be offered. Previous ruling have simply stated TSA policy at the time and said they agree.

Okay, let's focus on the other three for now, then. For each, I'll list the two possible answers, and also suggest how you might respond if you are unable to answer:

1. Is it TSA's policy to refrain from offering "passenger screening" (i.e., searching and questioning of a passenger) to a person if that person has ID on his or her person and refuses to show TSA that ID?
   "Yes, that is TSA policy" "no, that is not TSA policy," or "cannot answer; more information needed"
2. Previous rulings had stated that a passenger had the choice of not showing ID if they agreed to enhanced screening. Is that the case today?
   "Yes, that is the case today" "no, that is not the case today," or "cannot answer; more information needed"
3. If I, a passenger, have a form of ID on my person and simply state that I do not wish to show ID will the process of alternative screening begin?
   "Yes, it will" "no, it will not," or "cannot answer; more information needed"

1. Would ask you then, "ok, how can we identify you." decision wouldn't be made until that question is asked and or/answered.

2. I d not agree with your understanding o the previous rulings (as far as I understand how you stated your question). TSA was not ordered by the court to offer alternative screened. The court simply said TSA DOES at the time offer it.

3. Refer to answer 1

Correct. One might speculate on how the Gilmore court might have ruled on the present situation, but it would be just speculation.

Also, can you please answer the few questions I asked in my earlier post? I think they're well-formed and not redundant with anything else that's been asked. Thanks.

Yes, I was talking about how the court ruled I gilmore. I ave no idea war another ruling might state.


Eh, what questions. I think I missed them.

I don't work for TSA. But how ever that percentage impresses you, it is a LOT of bodies with bills and occasional health insurance needs who have to get it covered somewhere. And what is the college degree required for TSA? Because if the pool for hiring is those without college degrees, then that's MILLIONS of people who are potential recruits. "Get a better job" is a joke to them. Maybe in Bill Clinton's last year, you could have credibly said that, but when George Bush left office, the total employed was roughly what it was when he was sworn in the first time. And a few extra folks entered the job market. So I don't think a person needs to be Einstein to draw the appropriate conclusion. Government has been the ONLY area of job growth. Meaning the people getting killed in Asia and TSA. Damn good thing they decided to spend the $70 billion so these people could feed their families.

So when the opposition party says "No", that's just insurance of more people hassling you in TSA. You might be one who celebrates congressional gridlock, but I say it is coming back to bite you in the ....

Post #106 in this thread. Top of page 8.

1. No, there were 3 options: provide identification, receive secondary, do not fly
2. Acceptable IDs are list, and you have access to them too. But it is an incomplete list, as there are other IDs that are acceptable. I have seen IDs from federal judges, and as far as I know that is not list, but it is acceptable. Correct me if I am wrong.
3. No
4. N/A
5. I did not imply it, I stated it. And this is also post on the TSA web page to which you have access. If someone does not have ID, we ask th to provide information to the BDO to verify their identity. This process might be unsuccessful, for various reasons, perhaps memory issues (medical reason). If the identity can not be verified, and if you do not have ID on you, if you cooperated and attempted to assist in the process, the STSO has the authority to allow you through the checkpoint.

Edit: I am not a lawyer, nor a legal expert, but since the new policy - and knowing about gilmore - this last thing has stuck with me. When it really comes down with it, it is not absolute that your identity is confirmed or verified. And I wonder, when TSAs ID policy gos to court, what role will this play? I kind of wonder if TSA added this for a reason... Again, I am not a legal expert at all. But it still sticks out to me. Any lawyers on this site have am opinion?

Edit 2: this is from the TSA web site. You should read it carefully.

"Passengers who do not or cannot present an acceptable ID will have to provide information to the Transportation Security Officer performing Travel Document Checking duties in order to verify their identity. Passengers who are cleared through this process may be subject to additional screening. Passengers whose identity cannot be verified by TSA may not be allowed to enter the screening checkpoint or onto an airplane."

notice it says "passengers who do not or cannot present...". Hmmm what do you think that means? I know you were told by a STSO that if you refuse to so ID you will be refused...let's look at something else.

The last part about "MAY not be allowed to enter...". Another hmmmm moment. If you reverse that it says even if we can't verify your ID you may be allowed to enter anyways.

So why did the STSO tell you what he told you? It's a supervisor discression. Read the entire passage again, and then consider this:

if you DO not provide ID we will attempt to verify your identity another way, and if we can not verify it that way, you still may be able to fly. It's up to the STSO. (I'm not sure what other IDs you showed the STSO)

Hope this clarifies the issue for you.