daw617

I hope so. At the moment, though, it seems all we have is speculation and pure guesswork. We deserve better.

If the TSA truly is destroying these after the flight lands, then surely they could tell us that. Is the TSA too addicted to secrecy to do so?

daw617

What? Oh dear. I'm so disappointed to hear this response. Bart, I'm having trouble understanding why you are giving PTravel a hard time for asking questions and pointing out violations of the Privacy Act. You seem to think that PTravel has no right to object if he won't sue -- but that makes no sense. I honestly don't understand your reasoning. Bart, with all due respect, your position sounds totally illogical to me.

PTravel has every right to point out violations of Privacy Act, or to point out bad policy, whether or not he wants to sue. The fact that he is declining to sue doesn't make him a bad person (if anything, I admire him for not clogging the courts with this), and it doesn't make his point any less valid. Bart, from the outside, I have to say that it sounds like you are shooting the messenger. It is only natural that anyone would want to defend their employer, if they think their employer is on the large doing good things; is it possible you are being swayed by your emotions and your loyalty to your employer?

Finally, perhaps I should translate PTravel's message a little bit. I'm not sure whether the participants on this message board will understand what the word "standing" means. PTravel, a lawyer, says that he does not have standing to sue. "Standing" is a technical term in the law. You have to have standing before a court will let you sue. If you don't have standing, the judge won't let you file a lawsuit (or will dismiss it without considering the merits). When PTravel is saying that he doesn't have standing, he is saying that even if he wanted to sue, he couldn't -- he simply doesn't have that option. (PTravel, please correct me if I've made any mistakes.)

daw617

Wow. I'm amazed to see such serious misconceptions. Bart, your reasoning is faulty. There are many other reasons for not sueing. Just because PTravel hasn't sued -- well, that doesn't mean he is a lying, hypocritical, whining, cheat.

Bart, I wonder whether maybe you're not familiar with what it takes to sue to overturn a law or to have a federal agency policy overturned. Few non-lawyers are. Have you ever tried to sue to overturn a law? It's not nearly as easy as you think.

There are many reasons why someone might honestly believe that TSA's policy is in violation of law, but not sue. 1) Such a lawsuit is extremely expensive. Easily tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. I couldn't afford to do it. 2) Such a lawsuit is extremely time-consuming. It is likely to take years. I couldn't afford it. 3) Such a lawsuit clogs the courts. Many might prefer not to clog the courts over such a matter. I could list other reasons, but hopefully this is enough to convince you that failure to sue doesn't make PTravel a hypocrite.

copwriter

I teach criminal justice at a two-year college and write for a law enforcement trade magazine. It's nice that attorneys donate so much of their time to charitable causes. I wonder why most people seem to perceive attorneys as being so self-serving and arrogant? Could it be because of statements like yours that imply that only someone with a law degree is capable of understanding constitutional issues?

You need to remember that the members of the United States Supreme Court, arguably the best legal minds in the country, frequently disagree on whether an action is in compliance with the constitution or not. Pardon me if I don't accept your legal opinion as being the final word, just because you have a law degree.

Hey, I don't just tell lawyer jokes. I collect them. I have a list on my web site that prints out to over 40 pages. You'll have to find it on your own, as providing the URL would identify me, and I'm not inclined to do that here.

Otherwise, I pay my taxes, do my best to obey the laws of the land, and act constructively to change the things that I think are flawed. And I don't think the country owes me its thanks. I just lose patience quickly with people that complain about something that they could work to change, but instead decide that it must be someone else's job to change it.

By the way, I do know what "standing" is, and I suspect that Bart does, too.

24th ID

Wow, I am impressed........

Would this happen to possibly be part of the reason the majority of LEO's despise attorneys? I guess only attorneys know the Constitution and that cops don't know anything about it. I'm not saying that Bart is a cop. Just speaking in regards to those of us who are.

Hey! How about cops who have a law degree. Hhhmmmmmm. Just curious.

Soldier and a Cop, Esq.
School of Hard Knocks Bar No. 0ICU812
Admitted to practice before the state and federal courts of the ENTIRE United States, and all of the Circuit Courts of Appeal through out the United States . Martindale rated Kick Azz.

rbedgood

This is great...what happens when you put a cop, a lawyer and an airport rent-a-cop in a room?

Who gives a **** what the punch line is...the forum is hilarious.

Keep flaming eachother ^ ^ ^

p.s. Bart & Cops...you guys do a great job. I understand the concept of the constitution, but decline to list personal information on a public forum. However I will say this, I'd rather get patted down on a number of trips to the airport than have some jack-... terrorist be able to easily walk onto a plane with a weapon or explosive. There may be ways to fool the machinery that is currently in use. I won't pretend to be an expert. However I feel safer knowing that the TSA and LEOs are attempting to solve the problem. If they need my name so they can have a check and balance for their internal quality control then so be it. Guess what...if they really wanted the names of all the passengers they could easily get it.

"Sir could I see your boarding pass and ID..."
"Why are you writing down my name"
"Procedure with the current security level sir"

Ptravel...what's your answer then...? Go ahead and fight the constitutionality of the procedure...personally I have to get on the flight and get to work in the next town!!!

Bart

Hold on there, partner. Didn't call PTravel a liar or a cheat. I did say he was whining.

Didn't say it was easy. Did say that if he feels so strongly about it; if he really and truly believes that the Constitution is being trampled upon; then DO SOMETHING about it other than make baseless accusations and outrageous claims by using his title as lawyer to convince the rest of us that something is seriously amiss.

Bullsh*t. If I believed that we were violating the Constitution, I guarantee you that I would NOT be working for TSA and I would be doing everything within my power to fight the injustice. Your assumption, apparently, is that I am content with my employment to the point of violating your constitutional rights.

whirledtraveler

It's amazing what people will convince themselves of for a paycheck. Next time you screen someone, show them your warrant.

PTravel

Nope, you've hit it on the nose! Thanks!

PTravel

Could it be a matter of expectation?

Oh, come on, that's not what my statement implied. In response to my statement that demanding personal information after a false positive was a Constitutional violation, Bart said I should consult a lawyer. The point is, I am a lawyer, and one with reasonably good credentials, i.e. I know what I'm talking about, whereas Bart is a TSA supervisor -- not exactly a reliable source for Constitutional jurisprudence.

As I said, it's a matter of expectation.

I'm not asking anyone to except my legal opinion -- no one here is a client, and I can't provide legal opinions to non-clients. My only point is this: if you want to know how to grow wheat, you ask a farmer and not a fireman.

Well, that's too bad. I enjoy lawyer jokes.

Did you know that researchers at UCLA have stopped using rats in their laboratory experiments and are now using lawyers? Three reasons:
1. There are more lawyers than rats.
2. The researchers don't get attached to the lawyers.
3. There are some things even a rat won't do.


Just like me.

You don't get it -- I _am_ working to change things. Political activisim is THE primary means of change in this country, and always has been.

Then you know why I couldn't sue, even if I was inclined to do so.

PTravel

Oh, for gods sake.

No. What it meant, in context, was that I understood the Constitution (despite Bart's implication that I did not), and that Bart doesn't.

And, by the way, that raises an interesting question to which I don't know the answer. Is Bart a LEO? Does he have the power of arrest?

PTravel

I want to be clear: my objection is not to inspection, but to recording personal information for a false positive. In fact, if Bart had done a little FT research, he would have found that I'm a supporter of TSA -- I've always found them to be efficient, professional, courteous and, usually, good-humored. I question the efficacy of security procedures (as long as unscreened cargo and US mail travels on commercial aircraft, there is NO security), but I don't object to them. I do object to being interrogated (which is what the demand for personal information is) when the government agent does not have a reasonable suspicion. Incidently, in an earlier post I referred to "Kelly stop" -- that's wrong (no doubt a product of approaching upper, upper middle age), it's a "Terry stop" after a Supreme Court case of the same name.

FWAAA

I agree with everything you've said except for this; let's not promote Bart prematurely.

Bart recently posted that he is thinking of applying for a promotion from Lead Screener (which he has occupied for about three years) to Supervisory Screener.

Eyecue is the former cop, former IT industry person (several other careers if memory serves me) who now screens at Denver.

javajunkie

There are a number of important contacts and information at the TSA website. Its a place to start.

copwriter

Yes - one that is reinforced by comments like yours. You proclaim that your lawyer status makes you the emergent authority on all things constitutional, without knowing anything about your audience. And this from someone who didn't know that a "Kelly stop" was really a "Terry stop."


However, after reading quite a number of his posts, Bart comes across to me as a pretty bright guy. I don't find it at all surprising that he would be well-informed on the constitutionality of his search and seizure powers.

I was a cop for fifteen years before I started teaching. In terms of knowledge of the law, if you were to quiz me on contracts or securities law, almost anyone would know more about it than me. But, on matters of search and seizure and powers of arrest as they affect law enforcement and security personnel, I think I know as much as most attorneys, and more than many. This principle applies to other professional areas. I have a friend who is a retired Army Special Forces medic. If I were shot, I would much prefer to have him tending to me than my own physician, an internist. Why? Because my friend has tended to literally hundreds of gunshot wounds and similar traumas, where my physician may have never handled one. Sometimes, the guy without the sheepskin is just a better choice.

But the farmer might actually give you a more well-informed answer than the professor of agricultural science.


Know what you get if you send the Godfather to law school? An offer you can't understand.

There are other methods available to you by way of your professional status. Ever heard of the case of Kolender v. Lawson? Edward Lawson was a black man who liked to stroll around mostly white neighborhoods. He didn't do anything unlawful, but he still attracted the attention of the residents, who would call the police. The police would stop him, demand to see ID (which Lawson didn't carry), and then arrest him under a California law that made it a misdemeanor to fail to identify oneself on demand by a peace officer. He got arrested and jailed numerous times, the charges almost always being dismissed, before he got to take a case to trial. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, who invalidated California's law (and similar laws in other states) as unconstitutional. The little guy fought city hall and won.

I disagree. The first time that you were subjected to any search or detention that you felt to be unconstutional would give you standing.

I suppose what annoys me more than anything else is when you want us to accept your views as the last word on constituionality because you're a lawyer, then when doing some lawyer stuff might help to rectify what you view as an unjust situation, you can't be bothered. Maybe you need a dose of the Spiderman philosophy: "With great power comes great responsibility."

But, with regard to your lawyer status, please get over yourself. The rest of us may not have law degrees, but we're not totally ignorant of the situation, either.