Playing "Fun with TSA" -- anyone can do it
Jun 21, 2010 | 5:19 am
#31
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DCA / WAS
Programs: DL 2+ million/PM, YX, Marriott Plt, *wood gold, HHonors, CO Plt, UA, AA EXP, WN, AGR
Posts: 9,386
According to 49 CFR § 1540.105 (a)No person may; (1)Tamper or interfere with, compromise, modify, attempt to circumvent, or cause a person to tamper or interfere with, compromise, modify, or attempt to circumvent any security system, measure, or procedure implemented under this subchapter.
Jun 22, 2010 | 1:00 am
#32
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Chicago
Programs: DHS/TSA
Posts: 100
I never said it was criminal law. Regulatory = Administrative law. Excerpt from Wikipedia on "Code of Federal Regulations":
Well of course the CFR is up for interpretation, and you will interpret it differently than I do but here's what I believe is a good example. 49 CFR § 1540.107 (a)
I can say that this means that the TSA can introduce any ridiculous rules about how to come through the checkpoint they want, because it says you may not enter the sterile area without submitting to whatever screening and/or inspection of your person and accessible property that the TSA chooses to conduct at that time. Basically you must comply with whatever screening is being done in order to come through the checkpoint. You may say that it means something completely different. And I know you will. It's a two way street and I may be one one side and you are on the other, although sometimes we are on the same side, looking across and saying "WTH were they thinking"...
Administrative law exists because the United States Congress often grants broad authority to executive branch agencies to interpret the statutes in the United States Code (and in uncodified statutes) which the agencies are entrusted with enforcing. Congress may be too busy, congested, or gridlocked to micromanage the jurisdiction of those agencies by writing statutes that cover every possible detail, or Congress may determine that the technical specialists at the agency are best equipped to develop detailed applications of statutes to particular fact patterns as they arise.
...
The regulations are treated by the courts as being as legally binding as statutory law, provided the regulations are a reasonable interpretation of the underlying statutes.
...
It is important to understand that the CFR itself is written by lawyers for interpretation by lawyers and judges, and like statutes, must be carefully drafted in highly technical language to have effective broad application, yet limit the availability of loopholes. Unfortunately, the vast majority of employees of the federal government are not lawyers, and it would ask too much to force them to directly read, interpret, and apply the convoluted content of the CFR on a daily basis. Therefore, nearly all federal agencies have in-house counsel draft one or more internal manuals in plain English which set out daily internal operating procedures in very simple language that any layperson can follow. While such manuals do not really have the force of law, they are often the law as far as most employees and customers of such agencies are concerned, unless and until a dissatisfied customer of an agency appeals to a supervisor who does understand the CFR and the U.S.C. (or eventually sues the agency in court).
Oddly, despite the informality of such manuals, the U.S. Supreme Court has occasionally cited them as authority when confronted with situations not precisely addressed by the U.S.C. or the CFR.
...
The regulations are treated by the courts as being as legally binding as statutory law, provided the regulations are a reasonable interpretation of the underlying statutes.
...
It is important to understand that the CFR itself is written by lawyers for interpretation by lawyers and judges, and like statutes, must be carefully drafted in highly technical language to have effective broad application, yet limit the availability of loopholes. Unfortunately, the vast majority of employees of the federal government are not lawyers, and it would ask too much to force them to directly read, interpret, and apply the convoluted content of the CFR on a daily basis. Therefore, nearly all federal agencies have in-house counsel draft one or more internal manuals in plain English which set out daily internal operating procedures in very simple language that any layperson can follow. While such manuals do not really have the force of law, they are often the law as far as most employees and customers of such agencies are concerned, unless and until a dissatisfied customer of an agency appeals to a supervisor who does understand the CFR and the U.S.C. (or eventually sues the agency in court).
Oddly, despite the informality of such manuals, the U.S. Supreme Court has occasionally cited them as authority when confronted with situations not precisely addressed by the U.S.C. or the CFR.
No individual may enter a sterile area or board an aircraft without submitting to the screening and inspection of his or her person and accessible property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access to that area or aircraft under this subchapter.
Jun 22, 2010 | 8:22 am
#33
Join Date: Nov 2006
Programs: AA Plat/1MM
Posts: 546
I never said it was criminal law. Regulatory = Administrative law. Excerpt from Wikipedia on "Code of Federal Regulations":
Well of course the CFR is up for interpretation, and you will interpret it differently than I do but here's what I believe is a good example. 49 CFR § 1540.107 (a) I can say that this means that the TSA can introduce any ridiculous rules about how to come through the checkpoint they want, because it says you may not enter the sterile area without submitting to whatever screening and/or inspection of your person and accessible property that the TSA chooses to conduct at that time. Basically you must comply with whatever screening is being done in order to come through the checkpoint. You may say that it means something completely different. And I know you will. It's a two way street and I may be one one side and you are on the other, although sometimes we are on the same side, looking across and saying "WTH were they thinking"...
Well of course the CFR is up for interpretation, and you will interpret it differently than I do but here's what I believe is a good example. 49 CFR § 1540.107 (a) I can say that this means that the TSA can introduce any ridiculous rules about how to come through the checkpoint they want, because it says you may not enter the sterile area without submitting to whatever screening and/or inspection of your person and accessible property that the TSA chooses to conduct at that time. Basically you must comply with whatever screening is being done in order to come through the checkpoint. You may say that it means something completely different. And I know you will. It's a two way street and I may be one one side and you are on the other, although sometimes we are on the same side, looking across and saying "WTH were they thinking"...
Yeah, we all know that Wikipedia is the authority on everything.
Jun 22, 2010 | 9:14 am
#34
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DCA / WAS
Programs: DL 2+ million/PM, YX, Marriott Plt, *wood gold, HHonors, CO Plt, UA, AA EXP, WN, AGR
Posts: 9,386
I never said it was criminal law. Regulatory = Administrative law. Excerpt from Wikipedia on "Code of Federal Regulations":
Well of course the CFR is up for interpretation, and you will interpret it differently than I do but here's what I believe is a good example. 49 CFR § 1540.107 (a) I can say that this means that the TSA can introduce any ridiculous rules about how to come through the checkpoint they want, because it says you may not enter the sterile area without submitting to whatever screening and/or inspection of your person and accessible property that the TSA chooses to conduct at that time. Basically you must comply with whatever screening is being done in order to come through the checkpoint. You may say that it means something completely different. And I know you will. It's a two way street and I may be one one side and you are on the other, although sometimes we are on the same side, looking across and saying "WTH were they thinking"...
Well of course the CFR is up for interpretation, and you will interpret it differently than I do but here's what I believe is a good example. 49 CFR § 1540.107 (a) I can say that this means that the TSA can introduce any ridiculous rules about how to come through the checkpoint they want, because it says you may not enter the sterile area without submitting to whatever screening and/or inspection of your person and accessible property that the TSA chooses to conduct at that time. Basically you must comply with whatever screening is being done in order to come through the checkpoint. You may say that it means something completely different. And I know you will. It's a two way street and I may be one one side and you are on the other, although sometimes we are on the same side, looking across and saying "WTH were they thinking"...
this is no secret. And it is a key reason that agencies LOVE administrative law. It allows them to make arbitrary rules, operate as the "police", and adjudicate the "violations" with very little oversight. And your agency and it's parent - DHS & TSA - are especially in love with administrative law because they can hide behind the secrecy of "it's for security".
Jun 22, 2010 | 9:19 am
#35
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
Okay, now we're back to questioning why the police would be called in the event that TSA bag checkers see something concealed and believe that it was concealed in an artful manner. Is such a discovery grounds for arrest and prosecution? Do TSA simply call the police to intimidate passengers?
Jun 22, 2010 | 9:36 am
#36
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: IAD
Programs: *wood Gold
Posts: 1,780
Jun 22, 2010 | 6:40 pm
#37
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: USA
Programs: AA Plat; HH Diamond; IHG Plat; SPG Plat;Hertz Pres Circle; Jelly of the Month Club - Marmalade Level
Posts: 167
Okay, now we're back to questioning why the police would be called in the event that TSA bag checkers see something concealed and believe that it was concealed in an artful manner. Is such a discovery grounds for arrest and prosecution? Do TSA simply call the police to intimidate passengers?
But, "artfully concealed" isn't a criminal law term. The fact that an item merely restricted from being carried aboard an aircraft is "artfully concealed" doesn't make it a criminal matter. On the other hand, if the item is not merely restricted, but criminally prohibited, then "artfully concealed" takes its place in the narrative of the police report, serving the same anti-alibi purpose as it does for civil penalties.
Last edited by OrvilleWright; Jun 22, 2010 at 6:42 pm Reason: context correction
Jun 22, 2010 | 7:05 pm
#38
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 15,788
My god man. I could garrote a cute FA with the laces from my hiking boots while a co-conspirator demands access to the cockpit*.
Any blade allowed pre-9/11 isn't a threat to a flight.
*Well, I couldn't since I weigh less then most of the cute flight attendants, but my cousin Vinny-Abdul certainly could, so there.
Jun 22, 2010 | 9:31 pm
#39
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
TSO1973?
Direct quote from a LEO, "We get involved in artful concealment situations because it shows intent to get an item past the checkpoint into the sterile area. Whether we pursue charges or citations is on a case by case basis after interviewing the passenger".
You didn't answer my question. Is artful concealment unlawful?
Well since I am not a LEO or a lawyer, that's not for me to answer. I gave you the answer I was given.
Oh, okay. New question: Do you think artful concealment is unlawful?
Originally Posted by pmocek
Jun 22, 2010 | 9:47 pm
#40
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 72,334
Then you must also realize that decisions related to administrative rule violations are not subject to arrest of a "suspect" for violations. Adjudication of administrative laws are done by a kangaroo court within the same agency that alleges the violation. That is a distinct conflict of interest and an outright violation of the principal of separation of powers. It is a very expensive, and very lengthy process to even try to get administrative rules challenged in court. And even lengthier to try and appeal an adverse agency/kangaroo court decision into the regular court system.
this is no secret. And it is a key reason that agencies LOVE administrative law. It allows them to make arbitrary rules, operate as the "police", and adjudicate the "violations" with very little oversight. And your agency and it's parent - DHS & TSA - are especially in love with administrative law because they can hide behind the secrecy of "it's for security".
this is no secret. And it is a key reason that agencies LOVE administrative law. It allows them to make arbitrary rules, operate as the "police", and adjudicate the "violations" with very little oversight. And your agency and it's parent - DHS & TSA - are especially in love with administrative law because they can hide behind the secrecy of "it's for security".
Jun 23, 2010 | 10:36 am
#42
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 30,992
Jun 23, 2010 | 10:49 am
#43
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
Originally Posted by pmocek
Jun 24, 2010 | 2:18 pm
#44
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,496
That is a good point as well (and I would HOPE that the vast majority of pilots would do so!), but most pilots would take action as a last resort (or at least give the flight crew a chance to quell a situation). I think maybe that most pilots wouldn't take action unless they were certain that there was a "bad" situation going on, and watching in a rearview/through a peephole/waiting on some info would be the logical course of action. In the time it takes for a pilot to get enough info, make a decision and perform manuevers, it could be too late for Joe passenger beside Joe knife-wielder/bad guy.
Jun 24, 2010 | 2:23 pm
#45
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Grand Cayman
Posts: 18,740
Might I suggest that the TSA's job is to protect against a terrorist gaining control of or attempting to destroy the plane.