Then I have no legal problem with it.

Ok, so not law, but administrative policy. That's what I was getting at. While the difference might seem trivial in a practical sense, there is a legal distinction.

Exactly-- it is a policy. One thing about administrative policy, as opposed to law, is that it can be changed without an act of Congress. Does my distinction between policy and law make a little more sense now?

For me, it is enough to know that passengers are not detained nor property retained by the TSA while awaiting LE-- and that this is not someting I have to worry about nor anyone I know.

I'm sure you have seen it based on your location.

Now this is interesting-- and I wonder if it is the same at all stations. There exist "sanctuary cities" (skip the debate on that, please), and I believe Chicago is among them. If a TSO encountered an individual with suspect legal status at ORD and called general LE, the Chicago Police would respond. The Chicago Police don't deal with immigration status nor do they care; this is their general policy. So the Chicago cop shows up and does what? I wonder. I doubt the CPD is going to investigate immigration status or call someone else to do it.

Maybe the TSA at certain stations notify CBP directly? Is this possible?

Actually, this should be moved to the other section to TS&S since we are depating checkpoint policy. Post here, with the exception of a few posts, have avoided general OMNI and have focussed on the TSA policy aspect of this.

Yet, that's what we do around here-- argue about what the TSA should and should not do. :-:

A topic probably better left for another discussion, but it truly depends on what the street LEO is doing. The Arizona law had a lot of problems with it and, amusingly, the part that people complained would result in racial profiling was one of the more minor legal problems with SB 1070.

Is the passenger aware of that? Does CBP or ICE read them their Miranda rights before asking questions concerning their immigration status? If not, any evidence collected should not be admissable.

Where is the custodial interrogation that invokes Miranda? Are you aware that law enforcement is not required to read the Miranda warning to everyone they speak to?

They are not required to read the Miranda warning to anyone, but they are unable to use evidence gathered from an interrogation if they don't. For example, if CBP asks an un-Mirandized person "are you a US citizen" and "do you have a visa", and then determine that the person is an illegal immigrant, that information cannot be used in court. That is my understanding, but those of you who are lawyers feel free to clarify/correct me.

The answer to both of those questions is: "yes". Sometimes it involves looking in a directory for a phone number to contact CBP. And if CBP or ICE would get there on time, sometimes they may even discover they have been called in to investigate the immigration status of a US citizen. That's how it sometimes works in practice.

Don't count on that. Evidence which may not be admissible in a court on a criminal prosecution matter may be used in administrative proceedings.

I had a very interesting encounter with a group of current and former federal prosecutors earlier this week with an extensive history of backing up DHS activities. It was informative in more than one way.

ICE's priority, by the way, is currently said to be directed at the segment of foreigners who have undocumented legal presence status in the US with a documented criminal history in the US. I won't even hazard a guess on why the TSA would try to distract the relevant border control elements of DHS from focusing upon those with a documented criminal history.

Ok. You are wrong.

Note the buzzwords, "custodial interrogation."

That is a good point, but the results of administrative proceedings can always be appealed to a "real" court where the evidence would no longer be admissable.

Custody is determined by two factors: (1) the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, and (2) given those circumstances, whether a reasonable person would have felt free to terminate the interrogation and leave.
Yarborough v. Alvarado - 541 U.S. 652 (2004)

I would argue that a reasonable person would not feel free to leave if being interrogated by CBP officials at an airport.

I was never confused about the distinction between law and administrative policy - but I also understand how our legal system holds SD/MD; they have the same force as law; they force us to report suspected illegal activity. Simple as that.

And we both know this policy will not change. For the most part, no politician wants it to change, and no administration will want it to change. You may not like that, but what I just wrote is true.

Not trying to be rude, but ask CBP and/or ICE. Once they take over, we are out of it.

:rolleyes:

More than you would think.

I will note you did not cite a case that agrees with you.

Miranda plays big on TV dramas; not so much in real life.

Don't count on that. Do you really think it would be safe for an individual to willfully communicate false information to federal law enforcement personnel in circumstances where the individual had not been read a Miranda warning? There are plenty of circumstances where evidence obtained without any Miranda warning gets used in administrative and even some criminal proceedings. That something can be appealed doesn't mean that the appeal will succeed. When it comes to things like border control, a lot of appeals may fail because the government and its apologists have taken the position that people crossing borders have less rights than others. I wish it weren't that way, but it is that way anyway.

Most CBP interactions with passengers never involve Miranda warnings, and such interactions can result in material (verbal and/or written) that prosecutors can use to pursue at their discretion.