I know this from training and almost 14 years of experience searching people. You will notice I did not limit my statement to terry searches. I was talking in general terms concerning individuals hiding things on their person. The reason for the groin area being a favorite location to hide both weapons and other things is for the very reason you find it objectionable. The officers as a general rule are uncomfortable searching this area. A fair amount of time is spent breaking them of the unconscious aversion to search this area. This is most often done with role players. It doesn't take too many times of the officer getting "shot" by the gun or "stabbed" with the knife that they missed in the groin area to convince them that this area cannot be overlooked.

As for your reactions in your dealings with law enforcement, your choices are yours to make. Let me know how that works out for you as in most states even if the initial detention is unlawful your will be guilty of resisting and many other charges. The place to get your satisfaction is in a court not on the street.

FB

Since my first encounter with the odious "enhanced pat down" in October 2010 (the woman squeezed my breasts, stuck her hand in my waistband sufficiently to palpate my butt crack and pubic hair, then karate-chopped my vulva beneath my skirt, directly against my skin, supposedly not part of SOP), I have made only 4 round trips by air, and all of those were on fares purchased before the gropings began, and were more or less "must travel."

Of those 8 legs, a screener or his accomplice has made three attempts to steal my possessions. One screener planning to grope me watched while an accomplice who looked like a pax tried to steal my laptop as it came through the X-ray belt. I had just identified my laptop to said TSO so he could grab it and take it to the groping area where I could keep my eyes on it while being groped.

On another trip, a screener identified objects in my carry-on bag that "needed rescreening" - my wallet and some jewelry in gift boxes. She took those behind the X-ray machine, out of my sight, and had there not been an LEO willing to watch her movements closely, I'm sure I'd never have seen them again.

The third time, I had a frozen Thanksgiving dinner in my carry-on, and the screener tried the same thing - "need to rescreen" - with the frozen dinner (an elaborate pork roast that I suppose looked good to her) and my wallet. This time I was able to keep the items in my sight as she moved them back through X-ray, so she was not able to steal them after all.

Three attempted thefts in 8 legs - that seems more than just a "bad apple," but rather a systematically defective process.

The LEO who protected my belongings told me that had the screener actually stolen my items, there would have been nothing he could do. The screener was a federal employee on "federal property" - the local municipal airport - so he could not arrest her for theft, even if he saw the theft himself.

Good. Nice to imagine an LEO with a bit of humanity.

Yes. Let's stamp out all sense of humanity and empathy from our LEOs. Brilliant. I'm sure it's policies like this that are at least partially responsible for the escalation of the war between LEOs and civilians over time. It's hard to believe that there was a time when people would call an LEO and actually expect them to act with some common sense and decency. Clearly those two traits are being systematically stamped out. I would so much like to meet just a single US LEO who seemed like a normal person. My friend claims to know one. I was thinking of filming a documentary on the subject. "LEOs who aren't dim-witted thugs" or something like that.

Fair enough. I was responding more to terry searches. But you did specifically refer to "weapons" in your statement. I can see prohibited items in general, but being a "favorite place" to hide a gun seems, well, surprising. I'm not sure how comfortable I'd be with a firearm or knife in such a "sensitive" area. Or even how you could really do it and have it remain concealed.

BTW, I am more sympathetic with intimate touching of private areas during a custody search as opposed to a terry stop search. At least there is presumably some probably cause for the arrest itelf in a custody search. Although the fact that they are handcuffed would seem to make them less of a threat even if they are somehow concealing a small .22 behind their balls or something. And then there is also the issue that doing a thorough genital search may be more of a genuine crime than whatever they are being arrested for. A handheld metal detector might be a nice substitute for genital groping. Since the police carry actual firearms I have to assume that only another firearm would be much of a threat to the LEO. Especially after the suspect has been cuffed. I think all citizens should at least have the option to have a genital search done by a female officer. For humanitarian reasons.

If the suspect can accurately fire any handgun with both hands cuffed behind his back, he's a magician.

As for threats to police - a naked blade within 21 feet represents a significant threat. See the Tueller drill.

However - a knife or handgun does NOT present a significant threat to flight safety with a locked cockpit door and a number of "fellow passengers" who'd grind the would-be "threat" into the carpet as previously seen with the "Underwear Bomber" and "Shoe Bomber."

To each his own. I have no issue with those who wish to question their tormentors and make their lives (and jobs) miserable.

When TSA treats us decently, we'll reciprocate.

that was a bit harsh, but on the other hand, what on g-d's earth gives these frikkin CLERKS the impression that they can beckon and order passengers around in such an outstandingly rude manner as was done to the OP? We're not in the dam' army and you (ms tsa agent) are not my drill sargeant. If you want TSA to be taken seriously, you'd best get rid of every agent that isn't properly house broken, and hire agents with some idea of how to treat passengers with some measure of courtesy. Double their salaries if that's what it takes to get quality human beings, but get rid of most of them and hire only people like gsoltso. You don't have to be perfect, just don't be a pr*ck.

It sounds like there are a lot of false positives! Uhm, shouldn't they look into this and figure out a more accurate screening method? How many false negatives do they get?!!!

Regarding private screenings - that sucks if you are an 18-21 year old female college student who is flying alone for the holidays. Imagine if that was your daughter! So, what you're saying is that if I go to a bar on the wrong side of town at 2am by myself, I would still have less of a chance of being touched inappropriately than if I were at the airport? Where are my rights as a female passenger flying alone?

no offense, but you seem a little paranoid.
1- the person that looked like a passenger was probably a passenger. and more so, it was the tso that retrieved it for you!
2- you're "sure" another screener would have stolen something, but you don't even attempt to say that they actually tried. but you're going to chalk that up to an attempt anyways.
3- nobody wants to steal your frozen leftovers. again, you don't mention any actual attempt. a rescreen is not a theft attempt.


so you try to make it sound like 3/8, when in reality, nothing got stolen, and it sounds like there MAY have been 1 attempt, by a passenger, but TSA RETRIEVED IT FOR YOU. so, you either appear paranoid, or you're the unluckiest person ever. since Oct 2010, I've flown over 60 segments. i always travel with at least 2 laptops, a high end workstation class lenovo machine, and a macbook. plus i bring a nook ereader, 2 high end smartphones (samsung epic and bb bold), and sennheiser noise cancelling headphones. and TSA hasn't attempted to steal any of those, but you think they're trying and steal your pork roast?

None of the passengers at the airport would be considered proper targets of a Terry Frisk.

a screening clerk job is an honorable job to the extent it does not involve violating the basic compact under which we live here in the US. It ceases to be an honorable job if the screening clerk performs a visual strip search and/or feels over the private areas of a person without meeting the requirements of the 4th Amendment wrt such intimate searches of the person.

vincible and invincible ignorance being what they are, it is impossible from outside to entirely determine the level of culpability of screeners who perform those actions, but those actions are objectively bad actions, and a job that requires those actions cannot be called honorable.

Why?

TSA, like cockroaches, is repulsed by the light of day.

I can´t think of any technical reason based on maintaining airports safe for this policy. My question was therefore serious and directed to Ron.

The screener (who said I needed an enhanced pat down after passing through the WTMD with no alarm) did not retrieve my laptop, he watched while another "pax" tried to pick it up, and did nothing to stop her, even though I had told him it was mine. I told "the pax" that was my laptop and to put it down, which she did, then grabbed a suitcase and said she had "made a mistake." The suitcase she picked up did not resemble my laptop at all. When I later discussed this situation with the US VP of airport operations (I was trying to board a US flight) and described the screener, the VP seemed to recognize my description and told me "I think we have a rogue TSO."

My suspicion (granted, I have no proof, but I'd rather be careful than sorry) is that the TSO that pulled me for the enhanced pat down had a confederate who wanted the laptop, so he created a ruse to distract me while his pal would try to steal the identified valuable item. I suspect this may be routine for them. I was surprised the TSO would bother with a pork roast (though it was re-screened with other items too), but when I have had items "disappear" at the checkpoint, they have most often been edibles - chocolate, coffee, salmon, etc. Small gift items, not of great value, so I have sometimes been less attentive than I am to my laptop and wallet.

And of course, at first, I figured maybe I had just forgotten an item in the checkpoint confusion; I did not assume screeners or other pax had stolen things until I observed a pattern. It could be just a coincidence, but there are more of these "missing items" since the onset of "enhanced pat downs," so I am much more vigilant now when I have to travel by air.

The screener who said she had to re-screen my wallet is the same one who did that to a friend of mine at the same airport. My friend did not realize until after boarding that $200 was missing from his wallet following the "re-screening," and that the only time his wallet had been out of his possession was when the screener took it back behind the X-ray machine.

When this same screener told me she was going to "re-screen" my wallet through X-ray (not examine the contents in front of me), I asked the LEO to please watch the process because I have seen a few too many things disappear at the checkpoint. He agreed to do so, likely because he too had previously noted this screener in the vicinity when thefts occur.

I have greatly reduced my air travel because of these hassles, but some of my colleagues still have to travel every week. They too have had trouble with this screener, perhaps a "bad apple," but she remains employed with TSA, still able to take what she pleases from pax' carry-ons.

"Paranoid"? I'd say "Once bitten, twice shy," so I am very cautious about my possessions at the CP, and with good reason, IMHO.

I really don't mind the enhanced pat-downs (so far), compared to the new machines (mostly because of the images they produce and so forth...also my health). Anyway, the only time I've been asked to go through a new machine was in Amsterdam, and I just requested an enhanced pat-down instead. The security officer kindly asked me why, and I explained that I was concerned about the rays the machines output. An effective, yet professional pat-down was done, and I went along to collect my carry-ons. From what I've read, this is definitely not the norm? What's the common denominator in the other stories, the TSA, perhaps? For those who don't know, Schiphol has private security, contracted by G4S.