Legality of Reverse Screening
 

What's the legal basis for reverse screening on domestic flights?

I understand the argument that screening is voluntary and the TSA can deny you boarding if you refuse it, but what can they do if you refuse a reverse screen? You've already arrived and I don't think they have any legal ability to hold you without arresting you.

Interesting question.

My guess is that TSA cannot detain you, but that the FBI or the local polcie can. I am not sure who conducts these reverse screenings, but I would guess that federal law enforcement is involved.

Refusing to submit to a search could be grounds for detention in that it arouses the suspicion of the officers doing the search. If that alone is enough grounds for an arrest, then the police can do a full search of your person and possesstions as a search incident to arrest.

That's an awful slippery slope. Can someone verify that? Refusal to submit to a search leading to arrest? On what charge?

I don't know about arresting you but they can certainly "detain" you. I'm not sure for how long though...Perhaps as much as 2 days without charging you or allowing you to phone someone.

Trying to remember - has there been a reverse screening on a domestic arrival?

I have witnessed such a screening and local law enforcement was involved as well.



[This message has been edited by HugeAss (edited Jan 06, 2004).]

There have been plenty.


>>Trying to remember - has there been a reverse screening on a domestic arrival?<<

Anyone refuse to volunteer for screening?

HA and TSAMGR,

Can you explain exaclty what Reverse Screening is to me? My airport has never dealt with it and we the screeners have never been shown what to do.

The most I can think of was when there was a breach at another airport and one plane had already taken off and it landed at my airport. Cops pretty much set up a line between the gate and the exit to the checkpoint. All passengers off that plane had to stay in that line and exit the area.

If you could give the basics of it, that would be cool, but if it's considered SSI, don't shot yourself in the foot.

The legality has been questioned, but it's legal. The response has been that boarding an airplane includes implied consent that one will undergo searches of one's person and belongings, even on multiple occasions.

Or else what? Prior to boarding one can be denied boarding, afterwards one is, what? Arrested for changing their mind?

I'm not buying that. In articles I've seen they've described a process where passengers are reverse screened after leaving an aircraft at their final destination. If the point at which a screen ceased to be legitimate isn't disembarcation, then when is it? Why can't the police follow you out of the airport and stop you on the street?

Regarding implied consent. There's no such thing in this case. No signs have ever been posted regarding the possibility of reverse screening and no notification has been given.


[This message has been edited by whirledtraveler (edited Jan 06, 2004).]

We had a bomb threat called in on a flight that was actually landing at my airport. What happened was they isolated the aircraft at the far end of one of the taxiways and then all passengers and their carry-ons were brought into the terminal ( which I thought was pretty idiotic,boom there goes the terminal) and all passengers were rescreened there was no option to refuse. And dogs were run through the aircraft and the checked baggage. Law enforcement was involved and possibly federal officer also.

Kathleen Sweet's book, Terrorism and Airport Security (2002) discusses the legal precedents for consent to be screened, particularly the notion of "implied consent."

Sweet doesn't specifically address reverse screening, so perhaps the legal justification should be reviewed. The question, of course, is "When does a flight end?" This would include my pet peeve: post-arrival screening of international passengers so that they can make it through the secured area to the baggage claim. This occurs in Atlanta, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Seattle, and some others.

I agree, it should be clearer to passengers that they can be searched as many times as the authorities see fit.

Ahhh, the "land of the *free*" (NOT).

Dave

The interesting thing to me is the escalation. I suppose that back during the immediate post-9/11 period when there was screening at the gate, if someone declined there, chances are they would be escorted out of the secure area and miss their flight. Problem solved, still voluntary.

Now, if they choose to screen on an airplane or after landing, if someone declines, well, then what? Arrest? On what charge? And, for what purpose? There's no longer a security threat for that flight. Why wouldn't they be just escorted out of the terminal?

[This message has been edited by whirledtraveler (edited Jan 07, 2004).]

SEA has fixed this, IIRC:

http://www.portseattle.org/news/pres..._2003_56.shtml

It's only my opinion, but I believe the TSA wants to do a reverse screening at the destination airport to keep prohibited items from advancing into an aiport's sterile area. Having the police escort the passengers out of the terminal would most likely not endanger anyone, but the TSA wants total control of unscreened items entering the sterile area.

I know this is one reason they stopped letting passengers gate check bags with banned items in them.

You hit the nail on the head HugeAss. Many airports don't have enough police officers to properly escort all the passengers out of the airport. If passengers have connecting flights they need to be re-screened.

Screenerx, the process is usually the normal screening process. Passengers are escorted to the checkpoint, a lane is usually closed and used just for these passengers.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by HugeAss:
It's only my opinion, but I believe the TSA wants to do a reverse screening at the destination airport to keep prohibited items from advancing into an airport's sterile area. Having the police escort the passengers out of the terminal would most likely not endanger anyone, but the TSA wants total control of unscreened items entering the sterile area.

Advantage to working for a small airport. We have police to escort the passengers out.



BTW Thats one stupid a** procedure

Whether or not consent is implied or explicit, you can withdraw consent at any time; that's a long-standing legal rule. You just have to leave.
There is the real problem of lack of resources; they have to escort you out of the secured area or else the system breaks down. TSA has a partial justification if they say "we just don't have the manpower today, there is no other alternative, you must be screened. But it needs to be said loud and clear that "ordinarily, you have the right to say no, this is an extraordinary situation". None of this slippery-slope rationalization.

To the TSA folks: has anyone considered a bus on the tarmac to take passengers from the plane to baggage claim (which is outside the airport)? I realize the trip would take 20+ minutes, but compared to the 2 hours in some horror stories, it's a bargain.

This is the ideal solution, since the passengers have the choice not to be screened

>>To the TSA folks: has anyone considered a bus on the tarmac to take passengers from the plane to baggage claim (which is outside the airport)? I realize the trip would take 20+ minutes, but compared to the 2 hours in some horror stories, it's a bargain.<<

This is actually the airport's option. We can request but it is ultimately up to the airport. It may take a while to get the bus even with fair warning of an arriving flight. Once the flight lands the carrier and airport will want these people off the plane thus the escort to the checkpoint.

I'm still finding this more than a little weird. Let's see, a terrorist would have to get something past security, ride an airplane and not use whatever it is, then get on another flight and use it.

And, the technique we use to thwart this is to subject them to screening that they had previously passed.


[This message has been edited by whirledtraveler (edited Jan 10, 2004).]

I volunteer to refuse reverse screening if I'm at my destination airport.

If you look at it this way, reverse screening is just as legal as primary checkpoint screening:

Upon entering a checkpoint, you have given implied consent to have your luggage searched while in the sterile area.

Now, you have not left the sterile area until you have reached your destination and picked up your baggage in the public area.

You have went from one airport's sterile area to another. Along the way, you were aboard the aircraft which is "sterile", as well.

Yes, yes, well, if you look at it this way, the sun is tasty to eat and good with breakfast. The sun is the same color as an orange.

The thing that I was trying to highlight was the fact that if you refuse to screen prior to a flight, you just don't get to board it. I seriously suspect that if you refuse screening after a flight, you'd be arrested.

I'm still finding this more than a little weird. Let's see, a terrorist would have to get something past security, ride an airplane and not use whatever it is, then get on another flight and use it.

>I'm still finding this more than a little >weird. Let's see, a terrorist would have to >get something past security, ride an >airplane and not use whatever it is, then >get on another flight and use it.

You mean like they did on 9/11?

Terrorists didn't get anything past security on 9/11. They were carrying permitted items that were not and are not any more of a credible threat than objects that are already on board aircraft (glass bottles).

9/11 occurred because islamic wacko terrorists exploited USA aviation policy to cooperate with hijackers, not because of any breaches in security. The solution to 9/11 is to kill and threaten to kill existing and likely islamic wacko terrorists, not to confiscate knitting needles or scissors from innocent passengers.

Sorry, I'm very late to this thread. In short, no they can't legally hold you and no, they can't legally arrest you, absent cause to believe that you have committed a crime. I am not aware of any law that makes it a crime to refuse an unwarranted search, though if anyone knows of one, please post the citation.

If one were arrested pursuant to failure to waive his 4th amendment rights and consent to a search, what would be the charge? True, officers don't like it when people fail to waive their rights, they'd rather everyone consent to searches, everyone not call their lawyers, everyone voluntarily confess to crimes, et cetera. Asserting your rights might be "suspicious", but is it "reasonable suspicion"? How exactly can that legally be used against you?

I have, twice, but only on international arrivals. One thing I must note is that I was not in a sterile area when I refused. I was, due to the unfortunate positioning of the checkpoint, stuck in an area where the only exit was through the checkpoint, which I declined to go through and requested to leave to the street. I'm not sure how different this would have been had I already been inside a sterile area.

In addition to Seattle previously noted, I believe this has been fixed in Atlanta with the opening of the new international wing of the terminal. For the list of airports where it is still an issue we should also include Charlotte, Memphis, and Pittsburgh, as far as I know. Please correct this list if you know of any additions/subtractions, as my information is somewhat dated.

No, it's absolutely NOT reasonable suspicion. If it was, the fourth amendment would be pointless.

In 9th Circuit land, US v. Fuentes. "Mere refusal to consent to a stop or search does not give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause."

If you had already been inside a sterile area, why would you have to be screened?

I'm not sure I understand what this thread is about. Can anyone explain this "reverse screening" concept? At first I thought it referred to certain international terminals where you have to go through security in order to exit the airport after arrival, but I'm not sure.

Charlotte has resolved this issue now as well, the drill is pretty much the same as any other airport now (land, immigrations/customs, re-check luggage/re-clear security or depart airport, depending on final destination)

So with the layout at Charlotte apparently having been fixed, it joins Atlanta and Seattle on the list of airports which formerly re-screened non-connecting international arrivals, but now allow them to depart unhindered.

This leaves the list of "problem layouts" at: Cleveland, Cincinnati, Memphis and Pittsburgh. Please correct me if I am wrong, this may be out of date.

The reason that I'm posting again is I've noticed the recent renovations at Pittsburgh and the "Central Core" of the airside part of the terminal is currently gutted down to the concrete. Does anyone have any information about whether the security checkpoint would be moved there? This seems like the perfect time to do it, and doing so would solve the "re-screening departing international travelers" problem, since this would then allow the customs area to exit into a non-sterile area, as is the case in most airports.

Does anybody have any info if this is in the works at PIT?