Community
Wiki Posts
Search

TSA and NCIC

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 8, 2011 | 11:31 am
  #46  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
20 Countries Visited
1M
40 Nights
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marriott or Hilton hot tub with a big drink <glub> Beverage: To-Go Bag DYKWIA:SSSS /rolleyes ☈ Date Night:Costco
Programs: Sea Shell Lounge Platinum, TSA Pre✓ Refusnik Diamond, PWP Gold, FT subset of the subset
Posts: 12,523
Originally Posted by Bearcat06
I will say (before anyone says anything) I have in fact arrested Screeners in the past on warrants and have cited them for driving like idiots as they headed to/from work..... And they were ran then......
Has a TSA screener ever tried to pull the "professional courtesy" card during a stop. I know a lot of LEOs aren't happy that they've been issued badges.
N965VJ is offline  
Old Apr 8, 2011 | 6:18 pm
  #47  
10 Countries Visited
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PHX
Programs: UA *Alliance
Posts: 5,817
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
Not trying to jack you up but still trying to understand what it takes to run a person through NCIC.

Is Reasonable Suspicion or better required?

Does a TSA employee calling you create Reasonable Suspicion?

Example, TSA employee finds my $4,000 and calls police. Where is the suspicion that an illegal act has or is about to occur?

Or is all it takes is because you want to?

Is there any legal standard?
There is no reasonable suspicion required to run an NCIC check.

If a TSA employee found your $4000, called a LEO, and if a LEO showed up after wondering why they were being called because somebody had $4000 and not doing anything else, then yes you could be run NCIC. I have a feeling that most cops, however, would show up, wonder why they were there since carrying $4000 is not a crime, kick you loose, and then hopefully tongue lash the TSO for being a moron.

But so what if you were run NCIC? What information do you think is contained in NCIC that would paint you in a negative light?

What gets cops in trouble with CJIS is running people for personal reasons. They get into trouble when they start running their daughter's or son's new boyfriend/girlfriend. They get into trouble when they run vehicles in front of their ex girl/boy friend/wife/husband's place and then harass the new suitor.
SWCPHX is offline  
Old Apr 8, 2011 | 6:26 pm
  #48  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
20 Countries Visited
500k
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 30,971
Originally Posted by SWCPHX
There is no reasonable suspicion required to run an NCIC check.

If a TSA employee found your $4000, called a LEO, and if a LEO showed up after wondering why they were being called because somebody had $4000 and not doing anything else, then yes you could be run NCIC. I have a feeling that most cops, however, would show up, wonder why they were there since carrying $4000 is not a crime, kick you loose, and then hopefully tongue lash the TSO for being a moron.

But so what if you were run NCIC? What information do you think is contained in NCIC that would paint you in a negative light?

What gets cops in trouble with CJIS is running people for personal reasons. They get into trouble when they start running their daughter's or son's new boyfriend/girlfriend. They get into trouble when they run vehicles in front of their ex girl/boy friend/wife/husband's place and then harass the new suitor.
Does not the Reasonable Suspicion standard apply before an investigation can be commenced and does not running someone through NCIC start that investigation?
Boggie Dog is online now  
Old Apr 8, 2011 | 6:28 pm
  #49  
10 Countries Visited
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PHX
Programs: UA *Alliance
Posts: 5,817
Originally Posted by studentff
I'm genuinely concerned that I'm going to end up arrested some day because I'm not willing to cave into the papers-on-demand-please mentality that so many LEOs seem to have.
Irrational fear that is easily solved, carry your ID with you, or if you choose not to, fine, that's your prerogative. If you are stopped for something and you don't feel that you should have to present your ID, tell the officer that you left it at home in your most sincere voice possible. Most cops are pretty reasonable, I'm sure that everybody has left their ID at home at sometime or another. If they still ask for your name and DOB, I'd suggest giving it to them. The ACLU and the courts will all tell you that the time and place to argue the Constitution is not on the sidewalk or in the street but in the courts. If you righteously feel that you were coerced or forced to give up your name and DOB when you shouldn't have had to, by all means file a complaint with the department that the officer works for. I can just about guarantee that in the hyper critical world most agencies will at the very least create a paper complaint that will get followed up on.

Originally Posted by studentff
It may be within the LEO job description to run NCIC checks on routine encounters, but I'm not at all convinced it is constitutional or morally right to coerce or compel citizens into producing the information needed to conduct the NCIC check, even though I'm sure it happens all of the time. LEOs may respond that the individual "voluntarily" gave the info to get the encounter over with, and that's fine as long as it's truly voluntary and they would back off if the person rerfuses. But I don't know that any request coming from someone wearing a uniform and openly carrying a badge, baton, and gun, is truly "voluntary." And I don't know how many of today's LEOs (vs yesterdays "peace officers") are willing to back down in the face of pressure from a civilian rather than "dominate, intimidate, control" as per their training.
What information do you think is contained in NCIC or any CJIS for that matter that you are so concerned about? If you don't have any warrants, aren't on probation, don't have any restraining orders against you, and don't share a very common name and common DOB, guess what, the officer is going to start at about 7 blank pages of returns from various databases.
SWCPHX is offline  
Old Apr 8, 2011 | 6:33 pm
  #50  
10 Countries Visited
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PHX
Programs: UA *Alliance
Posts: 5,817
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
Does not the Reasonable Suspicion standard apply before an investigation can be commenced and does not running someone through NCIC start that investigation?
Nope. An officer can observe somebody walking down the street minding their own business, maybe it's somebody that they've talked to before, and know very well, think local Joe Dirtbag. He doesn't want to stop and talk to him because Joe smells bad, has hepatitis B, maybe the officer is on the way to code 7, or whatever reason but Joe's always in trouble and the officer wants to run him. The officer, knowing Joe Dirtbag's information from previous encounters can run him and see if Joe's collected any outstanding warrants since he last saw him. Similarly, an officer can observe Jane Dirtbag in a car driven by her boyfriend and run her information to see if she has any warrants or other wants. If anything an NCIC check can reveal information that provides further grounds for a detention or arrest such as a warrant, supervised release status (parole/probation), etc.
SWCPHX is offline  
Old Apr 8, 2011 | 6:35 pm
  #51  
10 Countries Visited
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PHX
Programs: UA *Alliance
Posts: 5,817
And to clarify, the officer doesn't even necessarily need to observe Joe or Jane Dirtbag to run them. He can run Joe or Jane at the start of his shift and then decide to go make it his job for the day to try to find them between calls for service.
SWCPHX is offline  
Old Apr 8, 2011 | 6:37 pm
  #52  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
20 Countries Visited
500k
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 30,971
Originally Posted by SWCPHX
Nope. An officer can observe somebody walking down the street minding their own business, maybe it's somebody that they've talked to before, and know very well, think local Joe Dirtbag. He doesn't want to stop and talk to him because Joe smells bad, has hepatitis B, maybe the officer is on the way to code 7, or whatever reason but Joe's always in trouble and the officer wants to run him. The officer, knowing Joe Dirtbag's information from previous encounters can run him and see if Joe's collected any outstanding warrants since he last saw him. Similarly, an officer can observe Jane Dirtbag in a car driven by her boyfriend and run her information to see if she has any warrants or other wants. If anything an NCIC check can reveal information that provides further grounds for a detention or arrest such as a warrant, supervised release status (parole/probation), etc.
So Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause are just words that have no meaning to "Officers of the Law"?
Boggie Dog is online now  
Old Apr 8, 2011 | 6:40 pm
  #53  
10 Countries Visited
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PHX
Programs: UA *Alliance
Posts: 5,817
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
So Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause are just words that have no meaning to "Officers of the Law"?
You're talking about the requirements to stop, detain, search or arrest somebody. Running an NCIC check on somebody does not qualify as a stop, detention, search, or arrest.
SWCPHX is offline  
Old Apr 8, 2011 | 6:43 pm
  #54  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
20 Countries Visited
500k
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 30,971
Originally Posted by SWCPHX
You're talking about the requirements to stop, detain, search or arrest somebody. Running an NCIC check on somebody does not qualify as a stop, detention, search, or arrest.

I believe it is a search!
Boggie Dog is online now  
Old Apr 8, 2011 | 6:48 pm
  #55  
10 Countries Visited
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PHX
Programs: UA *Alliance
Posts: 5,817
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
I believe it is a search!
Your local police or sheriff's department probably holds a citizen's police academy throughout the year. I'd recommend checking it out, but they'll run you through CJIS/NCIC I'm sure.

You can believe all you want to that it's a search but the courts have said no such thing. Trust me, if it constituted an illegal search you would have 4th Amendment violations every second of every day across the United States.
SWCPHX is offline  
Old Apr 8, 2011 | 6:53 pm
  #56  
10 Countries Visited
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PHX
Programs: UA *Alliance
Posts: 5,817
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
I believe it is a search!
Think about it this way, an officer in AZ has a man named Michael Jackson DOB 01/01/1980 stopped for a traffic violation. The officer queries NCIC (a nationwide system), has the officer committed an illegal search against every other Michael Jackson with the same DOB in the United States? Of course not!
SWCPHX is offline  
Old Apr 8, 2011 | 6:53 pm
  #57  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
20 Countries Visited
500k
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 30,971
Originally Posted by SWCPHX
Your local police or sheriff's department probably holds a citizen's police academy throughout the year. I'd recommend checking it out, but they'll run you through CJIS/NCIC I'm sure.

You can believe all you want to that it's a search but the courts have said no such thing. Trust me, if it constituted an illegal search you would have 4th Amendment violations every second of every day across the United States.
My father was a Deputy Sheriff, later a Federal LEO, my brother was a Federal LEO, my sister is currently a high ranking LEO in the DFW area and I work in conjunction with Federal LEO's.

I really don't care to expand my exposure beyond that.

I'm afraid that many LEO's have forgotten that they are Peace Officers.
Boggie Dog is online now  
Old Apr 8, 2011 | 6:56 pm
  #58  
10 Countries Visited
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PHX
Programs: UA *Alliance
Posts: 5,817
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
My father was a Deputy Sheriff, later a Federal LEO, my brother was a Federal LEO, my sister is currently a high ranking LEO in the DFW area and I work in conjunction with Federal LEO's.

I really don't care to expand my exposure beyond that.

I'm afraid that many LEO's have forgotten that they are Peace Officers.
If that's the case you have a surprisingly....uh, interesting view of what constitutes a search and what officers do in the course of performing their job functions.
SWCPHX is offline  
Old Apr 8, 2011 | 6:56 pm
  #59  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
20 Countries Visited
500k
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 30,971
Originally Posted by SWCPHX
Think about it this way, an officer in AZ has a man named Michael Jackson DOB 01/01/1980 stopped for a traffic violation. The officer queries NCIC (a nationwide system), has the officer committed an illegal search against every other Michael Jackson with the same DOB in the United States? Of course not!
In this case the officer would not have stopped the person unless Reasonable Suspicion had not already been present, i.e., a traffic violation.

That is a long way from running a person just because you feel like it.
Boggie Dog is online now  
Old Apr 8, 2011 | 7:01 pm
  #60  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
20 Countries Visited
500k
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 30,971
Originally Posted by SWCPHX
If that's the case you have a surprisingly....uh, interesting view of what constitutes a search and what officers do in the course of performing their job functions.
I don't think so.

I see no reason for an LEO to interact with a person who has done nothing to attract attention or to "search" a criminal database just because the LEO is curious. Searching a database is clearly a search!

Now if RS or PC is developed then I have no issue with doing these checks.

edit to add: I am not anti-LEO. Believe me. But I do think LEO's in general have gone beyond what they should be doing. It is far to common for police to teach a perp a lesson. To shoot first instead of taking less lethal actions. I object strongly for police to have armored vehicles. That is not a police force but an army. I recognize that the threats are real, the bad guys have automatic weapons but some things done by police such as no knock warrants seems wrong to me. Dressing up like Ninjas and attacking in the middle of the night is wrong.

Just to 2 cents.

Last edited by Boggie Dog; Apr 8, 2011 at 7:12 pm
Boggie Dog is online now  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.