hmmm
Mar 19, 2005 | 6:00 am
#46
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend, In Memoriam
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Yiron, Israel
Programs: Bates Motel Plat
Posts: 69,201
Originally Posted by Bart
That's your opinion, and of course, you're entitled to it. I guess what you're saying is that it is acceptable for public officials to deliberately omit reporting criminal activity to law enforcement. You don't see the ethical aspects involved and believe this is a simple matter of staying in one's "running lane."
I feel that the same is true with the TSA inspections. The argument is that we give implied approval for the TSA to search our luggage, but that approval is for searches which fall into the TSA's jurisdiction -- keeping air travel safe.
By allowing (indeed, requiring) the TSA to report evidence of other kinds of misbehavior we have gone beyong the travel safety question and allowed searches for criminal activity in violation of the Bill of Rights.
Mar 19, 2005 | 6:34 am
#47
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,441
Originally Posted by TSASCRNR
And as far as some saying Screeners are people who wanna be LEO's... well umm.. if 90% wanted to, they can be LEO's no problem. SinceTSA does have a new agency inter-change agreement.
TSA is slowly transitioning from a regulatory agency into a law enforcement agency. Keep aware guys.
Here is a link from TSA website: http://www.tsa.gov/public/interweb/a...onGuidance.doc
Thank you.
TSA is slowly transitioning from a regulatory agency into a law enforcement agency. Keep aware guys.
Here is a link from TSA website: http://www.tsa.gov/public/interweb/a...onGuidance.doc
Thank you.
I also find it very disturbing that one can be fined for having an attitude - attitude is subjective not objective. I don't see how one can be fined because another person does not like the first person's attitude.
Mar 19, 2005 | 6:47 am
#48
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,389
Originally Posted by Dovster
Bart, clergy, lawyers, doctors, and spouses are specifically authorized not to report criminal activity to law enforcement. The logic behind this is that the damage caused by removing this right would be greater than the benefit of having some additional crimes reported.
I feel that the same is true with the TSA inspections. The argument is that we give implied approval for the TSA to search our luggage, but that approval is for searches which fall into the TSA's jurisdiction -- keeping air travel safe.
By allowing (indeed, requiring) the TSA to report evidence of other kinds of misbehavior we have gone beyong the travel safety question and allowed searches for criminal activity in violation of the Bill of Rights.
I feel that the same is true with the TSA inspections. The argument is that we give implied approval for the TSA to search our luggage, but that approval is for searches which fall into the TSA's jurisdiction -- keeping air travel safe.
By allowing (indeed, requiring) the TSA to report evidence of other kinds of misbehavior we have gone beyong the travel safety question and allowed searches for criminal activity in violation of the Bill of Rights.
I'll clarify the search rule for you. As long as we're searching for prohibited items and other security-related items, we are performing our jobs as you perceive it. However, the moment we come across something that is not security related, we cannot continue the search. Instead, we have to notify the supervisor who may decide to notify the police if we are unable to complete the search and clear the bag.
I'll throw another twist. If I see what appears to be a bong on the x-ray, I cannot call a bag search. It is not our job to detect drugs or drug-related paraphernalia. However, if I see a pair of scissors or a knife or other prohibited item, I am performing my job. If during the search for the scissors, knife, etc., a screener comes across what appears to be a drug-related item, then he notifies the supervisor; supervisor notifies the LEO, and the LEO makes a determination of whether or not is it evidence or indications of a drug-related crime. It is the LEO's decision to make not ours.
This works the other way around, too. Had a young lady who did have a pipe and baggie with what appeared to be some residue of some sort of weed or possible drug. We followed procedure and the LEO let her go. Now this young lady was quite attractive, wore a miniskirt, had a low-cut blouse that showed off a lot of cleavage, and was waving those twins in front of the police officer every chance she got. Some of my screeners thought that perhaps this was the reason he didn't file charges. The more practical explanation is that residue is not enough to convict; it won't even make it to the charge sheet; it would have been a waste of time to even pursue it. The officer probably enjoyed the show she provided, but I'm confident that he was looking at it from a matter of prosecutability instead of getting any cheap thrills from the impromptu T&A show. What I told my screeners is that once we hand the matter over to the LEO, it's his call. We don't have any jurisdiction or legal interest in the matter.
Mar 19, 2005 | 7:20 am
#49
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Miami, FL
Programs: AA EXP/Marriott Plat/Hertz PC
Posts: 12,724
Originally Posted by Bart
That's your opinion, and of course, you're entitled to it. I guess what you're saying is that it is acceptable for public officials to deliberately omit reporting criminal activity to law enforcement. You don't see the ethical aspects involved and believe this is a simple matter of staying in one's "running lane."
Mar 19, 2005 | 8:53 am
#50
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,389
Originally Posted by whirledtraveler
Except, in this case, we aren't even talking about criminal activity. It is not against the law to carry a large amount of cash. Staying in one's lane, in this case, is extremely appropriate.
Mar 19, 2005 | 9:01 am
#51
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northeast MA, USA.
Programs: HHonors Diamond, DL Silver, TSA Harassee
Posts: 3,657
It may be up to an LEO to determine that fact, but it is NOT up to the screener to report it. Using your "logic", the screener has already made a determination that carrying a large sum of cash is suspicious.
Since the TSA has been unable to hire screeners capable of determining 1" of thickness, I seriously doubt its capabilities to hire screeners capable of determining anything suspicious.
A Screeners job is to look for threats to an aircraft, PERIOD. Cash is not a threat to an aircraft. Sounds to me that not only were these morons wanabee cops, but they were envious that someone had that much cash to carry with them.
Since the TSA has been unable to hire screeners capable of determining 1" of thickness, I seriously doubt its capabilities to hire screeners capable of determining anything suspicious.
A Screeners job is to look for threats to an aircraft, PERIOD. Cash is not a threat to an aircraft. Sounds to me that not only were these morons wanabee cops, but they were envious that someone had that much cash to carry with them.
Mar 19, 2005 | 11:12 am
#52
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Oakland
Posts: 304
Originally Posted by CameraGuy
It may be up to an LEO to determine that fact, but it is NOT up to the screener to report it. Using your "logic", the screener has already made a determination that carrying a large sum of cash is suspicious.
Since the TSA has been unable to hire screeners capable of determining 1" of thickness, I seriously doubt its capabilities to hire screeners capable of determining anything suspicious.
A Screeners job is to look for threats to an aircraft, PERIOD. Cash is not a threat to an aircraft. Sounds to me that not only were these morons wanabee cops, but they were envious that someone had that much cash to carry with them.
Since the TSA has been unable to hire screeners capable of determining 1" of thickness, I seriously doubt its capabilities to hire screeners capable of determining anything suspicious.
A Screeners job is to look for threats to an aircraft, PERIOD. Cash is not a threat to an aircraft. Sounds to me that not only were these morons wanabee cops, but they were envious that someone had that much cash to carry with them.
Ugh...
Last edited by TSASCRNR; Mar 19, 2005 at 4:05 pm
Mar 19, 2005 | 11:26 am
#53
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: CHS
Posts: 2,274
Let's not stray from the topic.
My opinion is: Large sums of cash alone shouldn't cause any screener to raise an eye. If I choose to carry large amounts of cash - that's my business. As a previous poster mentioned...cash can't bring down an airliner. Just my 2c
-Chris
My opinion is: Large sums of cash alone shouldn't cause any screener to raise an eye. If I choose to carry large amounts of cash - that's my business. As a previous poster mentioned...cash can't bring down an airliner. Just my 2c
-Chris
Mar 19, 2005 | 1:28 pm
#55
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2000
Location: أمريكا
Posts: 26,931
Originally Posted by Bart
That's your opinion, and of course, you're entitled to it. I guess what you're saying is that it is acceptable for public officials to deliberately omit reporting criminal activity to law enforcement. You don't see the ethical aspects involved and believe this is a simple matter of staying in one's "running lane."
Originally Posted by Bart
You assume that only drug dealers carry large amounts of cash. You also missed the part where I said that a police officer, who has the authority to look into suspicious matters, is the one who makes the determination of whether this is a crime or just a peculiarity that a person has so much cash on his person.
As for this so-called bounty you refer to, this is the first time I've ever heard of this. Never heard of it when I was a private contractor screener and certainly not when I joined TSA. I think you're quoting an urban legend.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...710222&exact=1
Mar 19, 2005 | 1:47 pm
#56
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,730
Originally Posted by Doppy
It was mentioned in the statement of facts in the decision in United States v. $124,570 of U.S. Currency:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...710222&exact=1
B. The Effect of an Unlawful Secondary Purpose
[9] This Court held that an unlawful secondary purpose
invalidates an otherwise permissible administrative search
scheme in $124,570. See $124,570, 873 F.2d at 1247.
$124,570 addressed the validity of administrative searches for
weapons in the carry-on bags of airline passengers. See id. at
1240. The $124,570 court acknowledged that an administra-
tive search for weapons and explosives is valid. See id. at
1246. The court, however, found that where the scope of the
search was no longer for purely administrative purposes, but
included criminal investigatory purposes, it could no longer
be justified as an administrative search. See id . at 1246 n.5.
In $124,570, the Flight Terminal Security officers ("FTS
officers") executing the searches had a dual purpose when
conducting the search. In $124,570, the United States Cus-
toms Service and Port Police had a policy of giving FTS offi-
cers a $250 reward for reporting a passenger carrying over
$10,000 in currency. See id. at 1241.
With this policy in place, a dark mass was revealed when
the defendant's briefcase passed through an airline's x-ray
scanner. See id. The FTS officer asked the defendant to open
the briefcase, revealing a large sum of money. See id. The
FTS officer returned the briefcase to the defendant and
allowed him to proceed on his scheduled flight from Seattle
to Los Angeles. See id. The FTS officer notified the appropri-
ate authorities and the defendant was subsequently arrested in
conjunction with this currency. See id. at 1241-42.
Holding that this search was invalid, the $124,570 court
noted that the FTS officers had very broad latitude in deter-
mining whether or not to search a package. See id. at 1245.
The court reasoned that if the sole purpose of the search was
to find weapons or explosives, the court could defer to the
guard's judgment regarding when to search a bag. See id. The
addition of the dual motive created a different set of facts
because "the decision to open a particular briefcase may be
motivated by the desire to comply with the FTS's cooperation
policy." See id. Therefore, the FTS officers might choose to
search bags more often or to do more extensive searches
because of the dual motive. See id. at 1246. Because the dual
motive extended the scope of the administrative search
beyond the reasonableness standard of the Fourth Amend-
ment, the court held that the search was invalid. See id. at
1247.
[9] This Court held that an unlawful secondary purpose
invalidates an otherwise permissible administrative search
scheme in $124,570. See $124,570, 873 F.2d at 1247.
$124,570 addressed the validity of administrative searches for
weapons in the carry-on bags of airline passengers. See id. at
1240. The $124,570 court acknowledged that an administra-
tive search for weapons and explosives is valid. See id. at
1246. The court, however, found that where the scope of the
search was no longer for purely administrative purposes, but
included criminal investigatory purposes, it could no longer
be justified as an administrative search. See id . at 1246 n.5.
In $124,570, the Flight Terminal Security officers ("FTS
officers") executing the searches had a dual purpose when
conducting the search. In $124,570, the United States Cus-
toms Service and Port Police had a policy of giving FTS offi-
cers a $250 reward for reporting a passenger carrying over
$10,000 in currency. See id. at 1241.
With this policy in place, a dark mass was revealed when
the defendant's briefcase passed through an airline's x-ray
scanner. See id. The FTS officer asked the defendant to open
the briefcase, revealing a large sum of money. See id. The
FTS officer returned the briefcase to the defendant and
allowed him to proceed on his scheduled flight from Seattle
to Los Angeles. See id. The FTS officer notified the appropri-
ate authorities and the defendant was subsequently arrested in
conjunction with this currency. See id. at 1241-42.
Holding that this search was invalid, the $124,570 court
noted that the FTS officers had very broad latitude in deter-
mining whether or not to search a package. See id. at 1245.
The court reasoned that if the sole purpose of the search was
to find weapons or explosives, the court could defer to the
guard's judgment regarding when to search a bag. See id. The
addition of the dual motive created a different set of facts
because "the decision to open a particular briefcase may be
motivated by the desire to comply with the FTS's cooperation
policy." See id. Therefore, the FTS officers might choose to
search bags more often or to do more extensive searches
because of the dual motive. See id. at 1246. Because the dual
motive extended the scope of the administrative search
beyond the reasonableness standard of the Fourth Amend-
ment, the court held that the search was invalid. See id. at
1247.
It is shameful that there is or ever was a policy of giving rewards for turning in perfectly legal activity.
Mar 19, 2005 | 1:48 pm
#57
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: AA, WN RR
Posts: 3,122
Originally Posted by Bart
You cited exceptions to a rule. The reason behind lawyers and clergy is because it would serve as a double jeapardy against a defendant to confide in them only to have that information used against them in a court of law. However, I don't think you're entirely correct about doctors and spouses. I think the legal exception only applies to lawyers and clergy, but I could be mistaken.
I'll clarify the search rule for you. As long as we're searching for prohibited items and other security-related items, we are performing our jobs as you perceive it. However, the moment we come across something that is not security related, we cannot continue the search. Instead, we have to notify the supervisor who may decide to notify the police if we are unable to complete the search and clear the bag.
I'll throw another twist. If I see what appears to be a bong on the x-ray, I cannot call a bag search. It is not our job to detect drugs or drug-related paraphernalia. However, if I see a pair of scissors or a knife or other prohibited item, I am performing my job. If during the search for the scissors, knife, etc., a screener comes across what appears to be a drug-related item, then he notifies the supervisor; supervisor notifies the LEO, and the LEO makes a determination of whether or not is it evidence or indications of a drug-related crime. It is the LEO's decision to make not ours.
This works the other way around, too. Had a young lady who did have a pipe and baggie with what appeared to be some residue of some sort of weed or possible drug. We followed procedure and the LEO let her go. Now this young lady was quite attractive, wore a miniskirt, had a low-cut blouse that showed off a lot of cleavage, and was waving those twins in front of the police officer every chance she got. Some of my screeners thought that perhaps this was the reason he didn't file charges. The more practical explanation is that residue is not enough to convict; it won't even make it to the charge sheet; it would have been a waste of time to even pursue it. The officer probably enjoyed the show she provided, but I'm confident that he was looking at it from a matter of prosecutability instead of getting any cheap thrills from the impromptu T&A show. What I told my screeners is that once we hand the matter over to the LEO, it's his call. We don't have any jurisdiction or legal interest in the matter.
I'll clarify the search rule for you. As long as we're searching for prohibited items and other security-related items, we are performing our jobs as you perceive it. However, the moment we come across something that is not security related, we cannot continue the search. Instead, we have to notify the supervisor who may decide to notify the police if we are unable to complete the search and clear the bag.
I'll throw another twist. If I see what appears to be a bong on the x-ray, I cannot call a bag search. It is not our job to detect drugs or drug-related paraphernalia. However, if I see a pair of scissors or a knife or other prohibited item, I am performing my job. If during the search for the scissors, knife, etc., a screener comes across what appears to be a drug-related item, then he notifies the supervisor; supervisor notifies the LEO, and the LEO makes a determination of whether or not is it evidence or indications of a drug-related crime. It is the LEO's decision to make not ours.
This works the other way around, too. Had a young lady who did have a pipe and baggie with what appeared to be some residue of some sort of weed or possible drug. We followed procedure and the LEO let her go. Now this young lady was quite attractive, wore a miniskirt, had a low-cut blouse that showed off a lot of cleavage, and was waving those twins in front of the police officer every chance she got. Some of my screeners thought that perhaps this was the reason he didn't file charges. The more practical explanation is that residue is not enough to convict; it won't even make it to the charge sheet; it would have been a waste of time to even pursue it. The officer probably enjoyed the show she provided, but I'm confident that he was looking at it from a matter of prosecutability instead of getting any cheap thrills from the impromptu T&A show. What I told my screeners is that once we hand the matter over to the LEO, it's his call. We don't have any jurisdiction or legal interest in the matter.
I think that Dovster was expressing the same concept that I advanced several days ago. TSA searches should be considered to be restricted in scope. Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is full of examples of searches that can start off as legal but cross a line. Because TSA screeners are agents of the government, if they cross that line, subsequent searches and evidence thereby obtained may be suppressed under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. That is why criminal defense attorneys and judges earn the big bucks.
Finally, in my home state, the babe with the pipe and baggie could have been prosecuted. Possession of drug paraphernalia is a misdemeanor. If a lab test discloses residue of a constrolled substance on a pipe, the state has made a prima facie case. However, police and prosecutors have a great deal of discretion in deciding whether to charge a suspect. A miniskirt and nice rack could tip the scales.
Last edited by PatrickHenry1775; Mar 19, 2005 at 1:51 pm
Mar 19, 2005 | 2:03 pm
#58
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2000
Location: أمريكا
Posts: 26,931
re: the $124,000 case I posed above:
It's actually a really interesting case; if anyone has access to the full decision it would be great if you could post it.
The guy was traveling with $124,000 and was nabbed by the screeners who turned him over to law enforcement. Law enforcement promptly confiscated the money, claiming that it was drug money. He said he was trying to "ransom a painting" - his friend's painting was stolen and he was going to use the money to get it back. He declined to give the friend's name or any other info about the transaction, IIRC.
Customs or whomever found traces of drugs on the money (and it came out during the case that like 90% of all money has traces of drugs on it or something like that) so, based on that "evidence" alone they wanted to keep the money permanently.
It raises a lot of interesting issues on a few topics.
It's actually a really interesting case; if anyone has access to the full decision it would be great if you could post it.
The guy was traveling with $124,000 and was nabbed by the screeners who turned him over to law enforcement. Law enforcement promptly confiscated the money, claiming that it was drug money. He said he was trying to "ransom a painting" - his friend's painting was stolen and he was going to use the money to get it back. He declined to give the friend's name or any other info about the transaction, IIRC.
Customs or whomever found traces of drugs on the money (and it came out during the case that like 90% of all money has traces of drugs on it or something like that) so, based on that "evidence" alone they wanted to keep the money permanently.
It raises a lot of interesting issues on a few topics.
Mar 19, 2005 | 2:48 pm
#59
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,745
well
Originally Posted by CameraGuy
Having a PHD does not automatically preclude a person from being a moron, it might mean they are simply good at taking tests. Besides, I didn't say that all screeners are morons, that is not true. I'd say that at least 10 to 20 across the country would fall outside of that category.
What I stated was that the screeners in this instance were morons and wanabee cops.
I'll say this again and type real slow so that MAYBE you will be able to follow along:
Cash is NOT a prohibited item, thus the TSA should not be concerned with it. PERIOD.
What I stated was that the screeners in this instance were morons and wanabee cops.
I'll say this again and type real slow so that MAYBE you will be able to follow along:
Cash is NOT a prohibited item, thus the TSA should not be concerned with it. PERIOD.
Mar 19, 2005 | 2:57 pm
#60
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,745
ah
Originally Posted by Doppy
That watch you're wearing may be stolen. Next time I see you, I'm going to call the police and report a *possible* stolen watch. It's a crime to be in possession of stolen property, you know.
There could be contraband in your house. I think the police should do a preemptive strike a search your house today. Oh, wait, that would run afoul of the Constitution, just like these TSA searches of people that have nothing to do with air security.
There could be contraband in your house. I think the police should do a preemptive strike a search your house today. Oh, wait, that would run afoul of the Constitution, just like these TSA searches of people that have nothing to do with air security.