Jurisdictional questions/concerns...
Dec 15, 2010, 12:33 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 57
Jurisdictional questions/concerns...
Hearing about Smurfs being on the DC Metro, me seeing them here at the subway entrances in NY, gives me pause and formulates a question:
What, if any, are the jurisdictional allowances for TSA Smurfs to be allowed to search PAX at non-federally associated locations?
With DC I think you do have a situation of "interstate" travel (DC --> VA? DC --> MD?) but for NYC, there's absolutely zero chance of the NY subway (NY MTA) system ending up in Jersey or Connecticut. PATH train and Amtrak (Amtrak is definitely a federally associated entity so it's a moot point) as they are definite interstate, also along with Greyhound bus service (if they're serving out of state destinations).
Is there other justification established somewhere I'm missing? For example, does interstate train or bus travel fall under the common carrier requirements thus operating under the purview of the TSA?
The (potentially incorrect) scenario I have in mind is: attempt to enter a NY subway station, TSA stops you to conduct one of their "searches", you decline and attempt to move towards the turnstiles.
Since it was the TSA who requested such a search, and their jurisdiction is at the federal level (interstate travel), any decline of a search is not grounds for non-admittance to the platform.
Compare/contrast that with any NYPD request for a search (which I believe this has been SCOTUS adjudicated): declining a search offered by a LEO is grounds for non-admittance to that particular platform entrance (per the SCOTUS ruling).
In closing, IANAL but I certainly see issues with allowing TSA to operate within the bounds of a state operated facility/entity.
But then again, I'm not one of their champions in any possible guise...
Thanks for reading,
Brandon
What, if any, are the jurisdictional allowances for TSA Smurfs to be allowed to search PAX at non-federally associated locations?
With DC I think you do have a situation of "interstate" travel (DC --> VA? DC --> MD?) but for NYC, there's absolutely zero chance of the NY subway (NY MTA) system ending up in Jersey or Connecticut. PATH train and Amtrak (Amtrak is definitely a federally associated entity so it's a moot point) as they are definite interstate, also along with Greyhound bus service (if they're serving out of state destinations).
Is there other justification established somewhere I'm missing? For example, does interstate train or bus travel fall under the common carrier requirements thus operating under the purview of the TSA?
The (potentially incorrect) scenario I have in mind is: attempt to enter a NY subway station, TSA stops you to conduct one of their "searches", you decline and attempt to move towards the turnstiles.
Since it was the TSA who requested such a search, and their jurisdiction is at the federal level (interstate travel), any decline of a search is not grounds for non-admittance to the platform.
Compare/contrast that with any NYPD request for a search (which I believe this has been SCOTUS adjudicated): declining a search offered by a LEO is grounds for non-admittance to that particular platform entrance (per the SCOTUS ruling).
In closing, IANAL but I certainly see issues with allowing TSA to operate within the bounds of a state operated facility/entity.
But then again, I'm not one of their champions in any possible guise...
Thanks for reading,
Brandon
Dec 15, 2010, 12:41 pm
#2
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Northern California, in the redwoods, on the ocean.
Posts: 437
Oh, man, I just had a 1984 moment: Here in California we have USDA inspection stations at all roads entering the state. OMG, pray the TSA doesn't establish some sort of roadblock/inspection station/checkpoint at interstate border locations!
Dec 15, 2010, 12:46 pm
#3
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Houston
Programs: CO Platinum
Posts: 283
Dec 15, 2010, 1:41 pm
#4
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: BUR
Programs: AA, Southwest, SPG
Posts: 45
But I very much agree with your plan.
Dec 15, 2010, 1:55 pm
#5
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Northern California, in the redwoods, on the ocean.
Posts: 437
Though this may sound Orwellian, the fact is that we are dealing with an out-of-control, thinks-it's-above-review agency headed by a megalomaniac. "Submit or don't fly." Indeed. Well, that choice is easy, but without restraints, it could very easily turn into "Submit or don't drive across state lines."
I fear for America.
I fear for America.
Dec 15, 2010, 3:18 pm
#6
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Southern California
Posts: 898
Personally, I have never had an issue at any of the Agriculture checkpoints. They are, actually, State, not Federal.
Dec 15, 2010, 3:50 pm
#7
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Northern California, in the redwoods, on the ocean.
Posts: 437
If you live in Southern California, you are undoubtedly aware of the Border Patrol checkpoints which can be even worse than TSA, especially if your skin is of the wrong color or if you have an accent.
Personally, I have never had an issue at any of the Agriculture checkpoints. They are, actually, State, not Federal.
Personally, I have never had an issue at any of the Agriculture checkpoints. They are, actually, State, not Federal.
Dec 15, 2010, 3:59 pm
#8
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: SEA
Programs: Delta PM
Posts: 50
T is for Transportation.
http://www.tsa.gov/who_we_are/index.shtm
That's what T means right now. It may mean more than that later.
We are your neighbors, friends and relatives. We are 50,000 security officers, inspectors, directors, air marshals and managers who protect the nation's transportation systems so you and your family can travel safely. We look for bombs at checkpoints in airports, we inspect rail cars, we patrol subways with our law enforcement partners, and we work to make all modes of transportation safe.
That's what T means right now. It may mean more than that later.
Dec 15, 2010, 5:53 pm
#9
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: DTW
Programs: DL 0.22 MM, AA 0.34 MM, PC Plat Amb, Hertz #1 GC 5*
Posts: 7,511
Yet for practical purposes, if it's not an airport, it would be a VIPR team that was invited by the operating agency.
Ironically, legally, if a TSO were to do an administrative search on the Chicago Orange line on the way to work, if push came to shove, it would probably be declared legal (after the fact). Immoral and fattening, yes. Legal? Probably also yes, or at least as declared by the administrative courts. Dig into the letter of the legislation, and that's how I interpret the wording.
Dec 15, 2010, 6:42 pm
#10
Join Date: May 2005
Location: various cities in the USofA: NYC, BWI, IAH, ORD, CVG, NYC
Programs: Former UA 1K, National Exec. Elite
Posts: 5,485
The following are also related to transportation (intrastate and interstate):
- Sidewalks
- Bicycles
- Rollerblades
- Wheelchairs
- Legs and feet
I can just hear it... "There is no right to walk on a sidewalk."
Dec 15, 2010, 6:48 pm
#11
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: YOW (mostly); PDX (some of the time)
Programs: AS (former)MVP, DL [NW-WP], AC Aeroplan, Starbucks Gold :)
Posts: 257
Back to the OP question: Aviation is regulated by the Federal Government, even for intrastate traffic. IANAL, but in the NY subway system scenario that the OP elucidated, the TSA may ask the NYPD to do searches, or engage in a partnership with them. I don't know the jurisdictional issues as Im educationally speculating.
~FAI PDX Flyer
Dec 15, 2010, 7:28 pm
#13
Join Date: May 2005
Location: various cities in the USofA: NYC, BWI, IAH, ORD, CVG, NYC
Programs: Former UA 1K, National Exec. Elite
Posts: 5,485
It's probably not that far fetched. In these US, sidewalks are often (usually?) on private property.
It would appear that the only right you have regarding transportation is the right to stay in your home and never leave, i.e. not to transport yourself or any of your possessions. Of course that's so suspicious that it warrants a search warrant to investigate suspicious activity.
It would appear that the only right you have regarding transportation is the right to stay in your home and never leave, i.e. not to transport yourself or any of your possessions. Of course that's so suspicious that it warrants a search warrant to investigate suspicious activity.
Dec 15, 2010, 9:07 pm
#14
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 843
§ 1112. Authorization of Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response teams
(a) In general
The Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, may develop Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (referred to in this section as “VIPR”) teams to augment the security of any mode of transportation at any location within the United States. In forming a VIPR team, the Secretary—
(1) may use any asset of the Department, including Federal air marshals, surface transportation security inspectors, canine detection teams, and advanced screening technology;
(2) may determine when a VIPR team shall be deployed, as well as the duration of the deployment;
(3) shall, prior to and during the deployment, consult with local security and law enforcement officials in the jurisdiction where the VIPR team is or will be deployed, to develop and agree upon the appropriate operational protocols and provide relevant information about the mission of the VIPR team, as appropriate; and
(4) shall, prior to and during the deployment, consult with all transportation entities directly affected by the deployment of a VIPR team, as appropriate, including railroad carriers, air carriers, airport owners, over-the-road bus operators and terminal owners and operators, motor carriers, public transportation agencies, owners or operators of highways, port operators and facility owners, vessel owners and operators and pipeline operators.
(b) Authorization of appropriations
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section such sums as necessary for fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
(a) In general
The Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, may develop Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (referred to in this section as “VIPR”) teams to augment the security of any mode of transportation at any location within the United States. In forming a VIPR team, the Secretary—
(1) may use any asset of the Department, including Federal air marshals, surface transportation security inspectors, canine detection teams, and advanced screening technology;
(2) may determine when a VIPR team shall be deployed, as well as the duration of the deployment;
(3) shall, prior to and during the deployment, consult with local security and law enforcement officials in the jurisdiction where the VIPR team is or will be deployed, to develop and agree upon the appropriate operational protocols and provide relevant information about the mission of the VIPR team, as appropriate; and
(4) shall, prior to and during the deployment, consult with all transportation entities directly affected by the deployment of a VIPR team, as appropriate, including railroad carriers, air carriers, airport owners, over-the-road bus operators and terminal owners and operators, motor carriers, public transportation agencies, owners or operators of highways, port operators and facility owners, vessel owners and operators and pipeline operators.
(b) Authorization of appropriations
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section such sums as necessary for fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
Dec 15, 2010, 9:15 pm
#15
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: SEA
Programs: DL Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 207
Though this may sound Orwellian, the fact is that we are dealing with an out-of-control, thinks-it's-above-review agency headed by a megalomaniac. "Submit or don't fly." Indeed. Well, that choice is easy, but without restraints, it could very easily turn into "Submit or don't drive across state lines."
I fear for America.
I fear for America.