I apologize for not being explicit earlier. I assumed you would evaluate the question in the context of this discussion. Regardless, I have since explicitly asked whether you think it is unlawful for someone to artfully conceal something, in a situation like that to which you earlier referred as "something like this," while he attempts to cross the TSA barricade at the airport where you work. Do you?

Phil:

Do you think it is unlawful for someone to artfully conceal something, in a situation like that to which was earlier referred to as "something like this," while he attempts to cross the TSA barricade at the airport where TSO1973 works?

No, I'm not aware of any law prohibiting such.

Much more interesting than my opinion on the matter is that of a TSA bag checker who claims that such activity will result in police involvement, presumably due to his or his associates' request for such involvement.

As was stated earlier, LEO's are informed because that is what the SOP says to do. Whether or not any laws have been broken is up to the LEO, not to me, or any other TSO, STSO.

Actually, it's up to a judge. The police officer's role is not to judge guilt any more than you and other airport security guards' roles are. His or her role is to take notes and get someone he or she accuses of wrongdoing in front of a judge.

You still haven't said whether you think this action is unlawful or not. I didn't ask why you inform police in these situations.

Oh so your just following orders; so if the SOP told you to jump off a cliff would you?

You know that defense doesnt work in court, right? Just look at history for examples of that.

Jumping the gun a little here, dont you think !?

If your boss tells you before you sign a contract with that client I want to look over it & you just go ahead yourself I'm sure you would hear from that in every but a positive way. Are you blaming people for doing their job ?

That 'history' comment is inappropriate in this comparison !

If you want to retain your job, you are required to follow these written policies, correct? You, or your fellow employees, don't get to pick and choose which written policies to follow?

Can you give us some recent examples in the U.S.? I'm specifically looking for where a government agency employee, following written procedures, was not allowed to introduce that written policy into court.

I have to follow my SOP. I know there are some out there who don't. But following my SOP is the fair and right thing to do not only for the passengers I see everyday, but it also keeps me out of trouble.

Tom the immidiate reference i was referring to, was Nuremberg defense, i will have topull the other examples when I get done with this rendering process.

My train of thought is that in this day and age, written procedures get reviewed at multiple levels, including legal departments, before they're implemented. I worked for two police departments that had thousands of pages of written policies, and they routinely went through several levels of command staff before heading down to the law department for additional review. Those policies were reviewed periodically and changed, sometimes due to court decisions (things like the taser policy or pursuit policy had changes over the years).

The TSA is a much bigger place than anywhere I worked. Surely they have layers in place to review any written policies they issue, as well as legal review, to make sure their written policies are within the law.

While they do have a lot of review... I'm not sure how effective it is. If it was as you claim, Fofana, among several other cases, wouldn't have happened, correct?

I'm not familiar with that decision. Did it involve a written policy being introduced into court? Was it a written policy that TSA employees were instructed to follow?

You assume in fofana the TSO was following SOP? Why?

Are you saying the TSA went to court knowing the TSO involved violated SOP in that instance?