The passenger has the right to also have a witness in the room. This witness can be a spouse, traveling companion, or airline representative. The only requirement is that the witness must have already been screened and be reasonably available. (I don't know how LEOs fall in this category since they have to be available for anything that happens on the floor, so I won't address it.)

The problem with having an airline representative available is that you have to wait until that person is summoned and makes his or her way to the checkpoint. However, in many situations, having the spouse as a witness is not unreasonable. Can get a little crowded, depending on the size of the private screening room, but that's TSA's problem to deal with not the passenger. (Under certain situations, TSA would HAVE TO accommodate a spouse if there's a cultural or religious concern about a wife being patted down.)

There's nothing secret about what I just shared with you. I hope it helps alleviate any concerns about abuse.

Are TSO required to tell passengers about this right at the time?

Is this information available on the TSA website?

Obviously, it's because the second employee provides the TSA with the illusion of accountability as well as plausible deniability.

You need to remember that the TSA isn't about "security" or "results." It's about the illusion of security while getting as much buck for the bang as possible.

It's also possible (if not probable) that the new strip searches being complained about are part of a new program for which Bart simply hasn't gotten the memo yet. We're all well aware of the internal communications problems within the TSA, especially as concerns changes in policy or procedure.

What you've shared only heightens the concern. Many passengers travel without their spouse, and without a traveling companion. They are alone on their journey. There is no one with them, and no one to witness, whom they have a reasonable basis to trust.

That's the problem with the design -- it isolates the traveler and puts the traveler totally under the TSA's control, where the rules are hidden (e.g. SSI) and rights subjective (e.g. you can photograph the checkpoint, but we will block the lens).

If the truth be known, it's that the second TSA person in the room is there for the protection of the first TSA employee. They are not in the room to protect the passenger. They can lie for each other, to the passenger's detriment, and the passenger can't do anything about it.

But that's how TSA designed it.

I'll answer the original question I posed to you this way: I don't believe that the TSA designers are incompetent. Quite the contrary, I believe they are very competent, and they designed their procedures this way for a distinct and well thought out purpose. The reason is that if abuse happens, there is no corroboration, none at all. Few will believe the passenger.

That's why the design is so open to abuse.

I am aware of no basis in law that authorizes TSA to detain you in a private room. Moreover, courts have expressly held that the rationale for the airport administrative search is that they are conducted in public and therefore not likely to result in abuse.

If, as Bart contends, strip searches are not part of the resolution process, then there should be no reason for the resolution search to be conducted in private. I am not providing legal advice to anyone. I am, however, saying that, should I ever be required to submit to a resolution search, I will refuse to go to a private room and will insist that it be conducted in public.

EXACTLY. The fact that TSA feels a need to hide their actions from public view is evidence enough that they know what they are doing is wrong.

The OP has learned that what happened is not in accordance with SOP and has been given some suggested contacts. OP has stated they will not comment further and I suspect that is an excellent position to take.

I think it is good that we have a TSA employee (claimed) that has clearly stated that what was done (as described by the OP) is not in accordance with TSA policy and will make an excellent witness against TSA should legal action result from this incident.

As I've mentioned before, I'm a lawyer, and I'm willing to press the unconstitutional aspects of the TSA administrative search in court when the right situation arises. I would consider being required to go into a private room for a search or else not fly as, "the right situation." The courts have been quite clear about why an administrative search must be conducted in public as a safeguard against abuse.

I wouldn't recommend that anyone else pursue the court option -- it's expensive and takes a long time. As a lawyer, it costs me nothing except time and the filing fees.

And you have said before (correct me if I'm wrong) that you are prepared for one possible result beyond not flying that day-- the possibility of an LEO bundling you off to jail.

If this is the case, might it be worthwhile for a traveler to consult with an appropriate attorney beforehand so the plan of action is understood and the appropriate action launched as soon as this happened (ie, jailing). That could help fortify the resolve of individual pax..

I wouldn't recommend that any passenger undertake this risk. Look at Phil (who, by the way, has my admiration and respect). It's cost him many thousands of dollars just to defeat his false arrest at the trial court level.

I'm willing to do this because I won't have to hire a lawyer.

Thanks to Ellie M. who cited Hartwell in the Texas legislation thread:

http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043841p.pdf

There certainly is a stigma attached to being hauled off to a private room. As a matter of fact, there is a stigma attached to enhanced patdowns.

With the stretch they are defining anything TSA, they will say the room nearby is sufficient for "not far" from the traveling public.

Oh? They seem awfully tolerant of camera failures when the tapes would show is the TSO at fault.

No pal, you are the right person to blast. You and your ilk are enablers. If you and every TSO refused to follow these orders there would be no patdowns and molestations. The TSA can make all of the rules they want, if there is no one to follow them then they don't mean squat.