Speaking of which, see also SATTSO's post yesterday in the FT: "Damaged Indentification" thread, in which he describes his own retaliatory behavior:

It's all about compliance.

(Also note SATTSO's apparent belief that police officers take direction from TSA bag checkers.)

Retalitory behavior, huh? That would suggest I did something outside the bounds of federal regulation and something personal. Sorry, you are entirely wrong. But keep thinking that way!

Yeah, huh.

Elsewhere:

Update: In the other thread mentioned above, SATTSO eventually said that not only did the man refuse to present identity credentials, but he also refused to identify himself. Most if not all of the questions listed above remain unanswered.

It should not matter if the person refused to identify himself. If he had a ticket issued to him and was attempting to transit an airport checkpoint, his identity could easily be obtained from reading that.

The only thing that TSA should be concerned with is its mission of keeping WEI off of aircraft. Assuming that this person would have subjected himself to appropriate inspections of the same nature as other passengers, he presented no risk beyond that of any other passenger transiting the checkpoint at that time.

When will TSA learn?

I wonder if the screener in question does not have a rather vivid imagination. It would seem that he has allegedly seen every conceivable checkpoint transgression that is presented by posters here.

Considering most of these are just figments of the imagination of many of the posters here - or "aspirational", more likely - then it's surely a good source of amusement on the part of the screener in question to counter with examples of where they occur, whether imagined or not.

You're trying to say that she was properly searching because SOP called for the bag to be checked. But that she shouldn't have admitted to thinking "There's no WEI so I'm looking for contraband."

However, I think you're wrong. SOP calls for searching for WEI. Once you realize there is no WEI, you need to stop because your search is FINISHED. Anything beyond that is NOT PER SOP.

Or, are you in fact saying that if you visually clear an envelope, swab it and it does not alarm, and it has been cleared of metal/objects through the X-Ray and WTMD, that SOP calls for you to take the bills out and count them?

Incorrect; SOP in this situation called for all of her property to be searched. Opinion of the TSO does not matter.

And who said anything about counting "bills"? The SOP for searching a selectee is pretty clear, EVERYTHING on the passenger is to be searched, certain items ETD test, the passenger screened again even if no alarm at the WTMD, and so on. I just wonder where it says in the SOP that once a TSO thinks a bag is clear before the search is done then the search has to end. I checked before I post this, and all I found was what supports what I have been saying.

If a TSO were to end a selectee search before everything was checked, that would violate SOP - and so many people here have repeatedly said they just want TSOs to follow their own rules.

But only for WEI. If the search goes beyond what is reasonable to determine if WEI is present is excessive


Many of us wonder what the SOP says. You checked? back it up.

And who said the SOP is correct and lawful?


And we have also said we should know the rules.

I agree, only for WEI. And you know I can't post or go into too much detail on SSI - but I suspect you wouldn't mind me getting fired.

So far, any time a court has had access to SOP (in camera, if I got that term correct) the courts have never struck down SOP. I suspect SOP is lawful, eh, but I am not a lawyer. And I should also point out many agencies eventually have a court strike down their action. Hasn't happened yet for TSA. I also suspect eventually it will.

I think some SSI should be public; other parts of it not.

It already has:

A federal judge in June threw out seizure of three fake passports from a traveler, saying that TSA screeners violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Congress authorizes TSA to search travelers for weapons and explosives; beyond that, the agency is overstepping its bounds, U.S. District Court Judge Algenon L. Marbley said.

Yes, there has been individual cases thrown out when TSOs violated policy. But no TSA SOP has been overturned by a court. Not one.

And you can back up that it was "TSO violating policy" and that they were not following SOP? And note the judge said the "agency was overstepping their bounds", not the TSO.

Why would TSA go to court in such a case? Shouldn't they simply admit to the plaintiff that a TSO didn't follow policy? What was the TSA trying to protect by fighting the charges in court? The TSA tried to say the TSO was correct in what they did. In court, the TSA's argument was the TSO was correct in doing what they did. The court ruled otherwise.

TSA goes to court in these cases because they have an incompetent Chief Counsel, one of the worst in all of government. She is a personnel lawyer by trade, and totally out of her element at TSA.