?? Interfering with the screening process??
 

I have searched the Forum and the Internet and have been unable to find any information as to what the TSA offically considers to be " interfering with the screening process". If any of our more knowledgeable members can direct me to the information I would appreciate it. PLEASE refrain from speculative or irrelevant comments. Thanks

Good luck on finding such information posted anywhere. Allegedly its not posted for security reasons and it seems to vary from airport to airport and situation to situation. It seems have a random policy generator stashed somewhere

And if you are charged with " interfering with the screening process"
http://www.truthistreason.net/tsa-dh...-new-directive
you will be labeled a domestic extremist.

Quoting Sir Robin from the Holy Grail... "That's Easy"

Anything you do that doesn't "Respect their authoritah!"

Adding to the confusion, TSA considers "non-physical interference" with screening a fine-worthy offense:

http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/enforc...nce_policy.pdf

Nobody has ever given a good definition for that. I doubt they ever will.

It seems like a catch all contempt-of-screener charge similar to contempt-of-cop charges like disorderly conduct. It probably includes things like exercising your right to free speech or asking hard questions. Or using Jedi mind tricks to change the outcome of screening. ("These are not the shampoo bottles you're looking for. Move along.") :rolleyes:

This means every single person who posts here on Flyer Talk, specifically in the Travel Safety/Security Forum, fits into this category.

lol join the club :)

As far as I know, there is no legal clarification as to what interference means in this context. In my non-lawyer opinion, one charged with interference may have a good argument that the law is unconstitutionally vague, the standard for which is that a reasonable person would not know whether their actions were or were not in compliance with the law.

--Jon

I think they follow former SCOTUS Justice Potter Stewart's infamous definition of obscenity. "I know it when I see it" is all they need to claim to have to cuffed and stuffed.

If criticizing the oafs in blue shirts makes me a "domestic extremist," then I'd be proud of the monicker.

From reading about brave souls who have stood up for their rights and been harassed or arrested at checkpoints, since they have never found a real terrorist it becomes clear that TSA management(sic) has decided there are only two categories of passengers who transit checkpoints.

A. Those sheeple who bend over, self apply KY, and say "Yes Massah whatever you say, anything for security."
and
B. those who are "interfering with the screening process."

Remember, in TSA NewSpeak you are either an American Patriot or a Terrorist. They see no middle ground. You know, Line in the Sand, For or Against Us, the whole political landscape since 2001. With help from their 60,000 Kool-aid guzzlers.

This is where we are in 2011. Sad. So very, very sad. :(

I see that no one took any hints from your last sentence.
Anyway as a person that is traveling through a checkpoint if YOU do ANYTHING that intentionally delays, impedes or distracts a TSO from executing their assigned duties, you are interfering with the screening process.

If they go so far as to demand your drivers' license to photocopy it with your address, at least one clerk has determined that he is going to write you up in an incident report in which he is accusing you of interfering with the screening process. The report is SSI, so you will never see it.

that used to sound so reasonable, but now it is to apply to us if we object that the screener's hands have applied themselves to our genitals.

so we just shut up and take it huh? somehow I can't see your two bit agency pressing that particular issue.

There are two problems with the above definition:

(1) What constitutes the TSO's "assigned duties" are in a document that we're not permitted to see. Since we can't know what those duties are, there's no way to know whether an action that we may take will "delay, impede or distract" such person from their duties.

(2) It doesn't take into account that there are constitutionally protected activities (or those permitted by other laws, such as the ADA) which are still legal even if they "delay, impede or distract" a TSO. For example, a person who presents themselves at the checkpoint with medical items are going to "delay" a TSO, but they are permitted to do so by the ADA.

Can you try again?

It's SSI.