?? 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.

Also note these are civil penalties which have lower standard of guilt than criminal penalties. And IIRC they go in front of a judge:

http://law.justia.com/cfr/title49/49....3.3.10.4.html

Here is one well known case that was appealed:

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions...5a0399p-06.pdf

It's SSI.

I'm sorry. I know you'd like a definitive answer. You're entitled to a definitive answer. Every American citizen is.

Don't like it? Protest the TSA's unconstitutional pattern of malfeasance.

Fair enough. Here are a few scenarios:

1. I have presented my NEXUS and the TDC refuses it. I have a DL but I insist that he/she take the NEXUS. Have I interfered with the screening process?
   
2. I have opted out of the WBI. I insist on clean gloves. The screener pulls a pair of gloves from his non-sterile pocket. I insist he gets them out of the box. Have I interfered with the screening process?
   
3. I do not take my 3-1-1 bag out of my carry on. Have I interfered with the screening process?
   
4. I refuse to move from where I can see my belongings for the opt out frisking. Have I interfered with the screening process?
   
5. I insist on seeing my belongings or having them brought to me before allowing the start of the opt out frisking. Have I interfered with the screening process?
   
6. I am told that I will need a private search. I offer to only have the search done in public and will sign an authorization. Have I interfered with the screening process?
   
7. I have my companion record on video my opt out frisk. Have I interfered with the screening process?
   
8. I insist that my medical liquids be screened separately and the sealed sterile container not be opened. Have I interfered with the screening process?
   
9. I put my shoes in the bin, rather than the belt. Have I interfered with the screening process?
   
10. I put my shoes on the belt, rather than the in the bin. Have I interfered with the screening process?
    
11. I forget to hold up my boarding pass as I pass through the WTMD. Have I interfered with the screening process?
    
12. I refuse to pronounce my last name for the TDC. Have I interfered with the screening process?
    
13. I refuse to tell the screener how much money I am carrying. Have I interfered with the screening process?
    
14. When SPOTTED, I do not answer the questions. Have I interfered with the screening process?
    
15. In the sterile area I am asked to present my beverage for an unknown test and I refuse. Have I interfered with the screening process?
    
16. After being cleared at the check point, I am asked again to submit to a search or a document check while at the gate but I refuse on the grounds that I have already been cleared. Have I interfered with the screening process?
    
17. I am in the airport taking pictures of things that are viewable by the public. Have I interfered with the screening process?
    
18. I am in the airport taking pictures of the check point being careful to avoid the x-ray screens. Have I interfered with the screening process?
    
19. I am taking pictures of the pat down of someone I do not know. It is occurring in full public view. Have I interfered with the screening process?

Thanks. Simple "yes" or "no" responses are all that is needed.

Unfortunately, I don't think that case clarifies much because the person's behavior, taken as a whole, clearly crossed the line from legitimate protest to inappropriate interference. I'd be disinclined to use that case to guess how a court might rule in a more subtle situation.

And you never will :td: as the TSA will use "SSI" as a catch all for what they don't want to tell you/what they don't want you to know-even if the information has absolutely no impact on or is absolutely no threat to nash'nul skewrity whatsoever :rolleyes:

Bolding mine: Yup ^ and I can't wait for a pax to be arrested for interfering with the screening process because they gave a middle digit salute while in the NoS. :rolleyes:

I show up at the airport. Will I be interferring with the screening process?

Give it time....:mad:

There is no such information. "Out of an abundance of caution," the TSA prefers that the "fares" not understand the screening process. This offers them all sorts of opportunities to steal things from your baggage, abuse you, and look at you and your family through the Nude-O-Scope or even simply molest you in public. Since you're not allowed to know what the process is, you can't do anything but what they tell you to do without possibly "interfering with the screening process."

And they like it that way, because if you're not afraid of the thugs in blue shirts, they no longer have any relevance and thus no income because they're wholly unemployable in any other position.

You forgot the most important rider; anything in the opinion of the screener(s) that intentionally etc...

IOW it is totally at the whim of whoever is manning that checkpoint on that day at that airport. That's as close to a 'definition' there is; the TSA kangaroo court will decide the specifics of each case. Guess how that goes.

^^^^^^^

now multiply this kind of mental confusion times 60,000 screeners, many of whom are probably far less mentally acute than the person who made this statement. What are the odds that ANYTHING these people don't like will end up being "interference".

To be valid, laws must be "promulgated", correct?

You are making it more difficult than it is. I am searching a bag, you keep reaching into the bag and intentionally impede me. I am on the x-ray and you come in screaming and yelling obscene remarks and I look to see what the commotion is about, you distracted me. I am patting you down and you begin to berate me with personal insults and tell me that I am sexually assaulting you, you have delayed me from performing a patdown.

It is not an arrest offense, it is a civil penalty. IF you are flipping off the NOS then you are not standing in the correct position to be scanned and you will either not be scanned or you will be interfering.

Actually, the one time I went thru a scan (MMW), I did exactly that! The trick is to not curl up all your other fingers into a fist, but just loosely curl them a little, and separate them from the relevant digit. So your fingers are still open and separated, one of them is just a little more prominent than the others. ;)

SOME ARE AND SOME ARE NOT. To test your questions ask yourself are you keeping someone from doing something that is part of their job?

In other words any thing you make up and say is interference is your definition and is all it takes. Is that about the size of it?

Gosh, anywhere else I might be subject to a fine there is a detailed description of what it takes to be charged with that offense.

So, we defer to the expert. It shouldn't take you long, there were only 19 questions. Yes or no for each, please. After all, since "the screening process" is so vital to national security, we wouldn't want to get this wrong.

Thanks. ^

You are definitely delaying the process for all the people who have to wait in the queue behind you.

How about this one? I book a flight at a busy time of day, instead of a slow time of day.

I thought about a police officer who issues a traffic ticket to a TSO driving to work, but this one would seem to be okay by the stated characterisation, as it doesn't involve a person going through the checkpoint.

If I say "I hate the TSA", and it upsets some of the TSOs, making them less able to work effectively, would that be actionable?

And we thank you for clarifying what YOUR viewpoint is, now the question is what is the viewpoint of the 59,999 others screeners?

Do you see our point in bringing this up?

And in most cases if you are keeping someone from doing their job it is because of "trying to get them to do their job correctly". eg. asking for new gloves, asking them to accept the NEXXUS ID, requesting to be able to see your belongings, refusing to answer questions about money which are inappropriate, etc.

Agreed.

Unclear. Obscene remarks may or may not be protected speech, but yelling can can indeed cross the line.

Definitely not against the law! Verbally protesting a governmental act is the most protected of all speech!

I know someone who has done the middle finger salute while in the scanner. Let's hope that they are not on the no-fly list now!!! :(

I like the idea of the poster (I forgot what thread it was in) but he only nods or shakes his head, he doesn't even talk to any of the TSO's but he looks into their eyes.

You should have answered the separate questions.

Stop avoiding the question.

If a deaf person goes thru the WTMD and it either alarms or they can't hear instructions, is THAT "interfering with the screening process"?

Deafness is a handicap that can't be seen.

It drives some normal-hearing folks bonkers to have to deal with it.

---
yautjalady

could refusal to speak english with the smurfs be construed as interference, or if the dialect of english i choose to speak isnt understood by the smurfs, would that be interference?

If I object to any part of the enhanced screening because it is causing me pain (either from a condition/disability or because the screener is too rough), is that interfering with the screening process?