Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Practical Travel Safety and Security Issues
Reload this Page >

Carry on incorrectly "tested postive" 3X's at JFK - What can i expect?

Carry on incorrectly "tested postive" 3X's at JFK - What can i expect?

Old Jun 9, 2005, 9:41 am
  #61  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Programs: Delta SkyMiles
Posts: 652
Originally Posted by 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, again, one cannot make that asumption solely on the basis of the speaker not having a law degree. I've known a lot of lawyers, but one of the most informed people I have ever known on constitutional issues was a fellow professor (of history) who had been teaching a class on constitutional law. He got interested in the topic and was as well-read and well-informed as anyone I knew, before or since.

Originally Posted by PTravel
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?
Nope. TSA personnel have no police powers. That's why there is almost always an airport cop at or near the checkpoint.
copwriter is offline  
Old Jun 9, 2005, 9:44 am
  #62  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 275
Originally Posted by copwriter
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.

C'mon Copwriter, everyone knows that lawyers are smarter than everyone else. It's in the rulebook. Geessss..........
24th ID is offline  
Old Jun 9, 2005, 11:21 am
  #63  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Originally Posted by 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."
I never said that my lawyer status makes me an authority on all things constitutional. Empty hyperbole like that contributes nothing to the discussion. So let's try it one more time: Bart implied I knew nothing about Constitutional law when he said I should consult an attorney. My education, occupation and experience establish otherwise.

As for "Kelly" vs. "Terry," FT is a diversion, I'm usually doing other things while I'm responding here and I don't proof-read. If you want to jump on typos, feel free. Interesting, however, that I caught it when I re-read my post, but you did not.

However, after reading quite a number of his posts, Bart comes across to me as a pretty bright guy.
I never suggested otherwise.

I don't find it at all surprising that he would be well-informed on the constitutionality of his search and seizure powers.
Then why didn't he address, other than to say, "consult a lawyer"?

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.
Probably so. What has that to do with Bart's failure to explain either the _practical_ or legal basis for demanding personal information?

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.
Sorry, but it sounds to me like you just don't like lawyers. That's fine.

But the farmer might actually give you a more well-informed answer than the professor of agricultural science.
You think Bart provided a more well-informed answer? On what basis?

Know what you get if you send the Godfather to law school? An offer you can't understand.
How do you know when a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving.

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've heard of the case. What's the relevance to this discussion?

I disagree. The first time that you were subjected to any search or detention that you felt to be unconstutional would give you standing.
Then you haven't been reading carefully enough. I've said, twice now, I think, that my carryons have never generated a hit on the explosives sniff test so I have never been asked to provide the additional information which is the subject of this thread. I don't have 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,
No, I don't. No one has to accept my views. I gave my personal opinion, but within a very specific context, namely an inquiry to Bart as to why personal information was required after a false-positive. Bart's explanation was, we need it because we need it. My belief is that constitutes a 4th and 5th Amendment violation, so I don't find the explanation satisfactory, much less compelling.


then when doing some lawyer stuff might help to rectify what you view as an unjust situation, you can't be bothered.
What "lawyer stuff"? Filing a law suit? One more time: I don't have standing, even if I were inclined to do so. And I'm not inclined to do so, because I'm not about to sacrifice my career and my future in the name of combatting the excesses of this administration.

Maybe you need a dose of the Spiderman philosophy: "With great power comes great responsibility."
I don't have any power, so the Spiderman aphorisim is irrelevant.

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.
Sorry, but you seem to have a bug up your butt about lawyers. My lawyer status is relevant, and was raised, in response to only one thing: Bart's implication that I don't know law.

Last edited by PTravel; Jun 9, 2005 at 11:27 am
PTravel is offline  
Old Jun 9, 2005, 11:25 am
  #64  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Originally Posted by copwriter
And, again, one cannot make that asumption solely on the basis of the speaker not having a law degree.
My assumption was not predicated upon Bart's lack of a law degree, but on his explanation of why he thought it was okay to require the information in question.

I've known a lot of lawyers, but one of the most informed people I have ever known on constitutional issues was a fellow professor (of history) who had been teaching a class on constitutional law. He got interested in the topic and was as well-read and well-informed as anyone I knew, before or since.
Sigh.

Last time: I don't think only lawyers understand Constitutional law. I do think Bart doesn't understand Constitution law. I think that, not because he is not a lawyer, but because of what he has written in this thread about the supposed justification for demanding personal information after a false positive.

I can't be any clearer than that.

Nope. TSA personnel have no police powers. That's why there is almost always an airport cop at or near the checkpoint.
That's what I thought. Thanks for the answer.
PTravel is offline  
Old Jun 9, 2005, 5:53 pm
  #65  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Programs: Delta SkyMiles
Posts: 652
Originally Posted by PTravel
Sorry, but you seem to have a bug up your butt about lawyers. My lawyer status is relevant, and was raised, in response to only one thing: Bart's implication that I don't know law.
I don't have a bug up my butt about lawyers as much as I do about know-it-alls with condescending attitudes. The tone and intention of your post was clear enough to me, and several of the posts subsequent to yours seem to indicate that others agree. And, with that, I will end this little debate with you. It is clear to me that you believe that you are smarter than the rest of us, and nothing I say is going to change that.

I am reminded of a time whrn I was cross-examined in a DUI trial where I was the arresting officer. The defense attorney did everything he could to attack and undermine me and shift the focus away from his client and his client's actions. At one point, he asked me, "You just don't like my client, do you, officer?"

I replied, "Your client seems like he's okay. I don't like you."
copwriter is offline  
Old Jun 9, 2005, 6:21 pm
  #66  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Originally Posted by copwriter
I don't have a bug up my butt about lawyers
Your posts, including this one, speak for themselves . . . no further comment is necessary.
PTravel is offline  
Old Jun 9, 2005, 7:09 pm
  #67  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 34
Originally Posted by whirledtraveler
It's amazing what people will convince themselves of for a paycheck. Next time you screen someone, show them your warrant.
No warrant needed. Consent is given when one enters the checkpoint.
larkinmusic is offline  
Old Jun 9, 2005, 7:41 pm
  #68  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Miami, FL
Programs: AA EXP/Marriott Plat/Hertz PC
Posts: 12,724
Originally Posted by larkinmusic
No warrant needed. Consent is given when one enters the checkpoint.
I think you misunderstand consent. If you want to know what I consent to, ask me. If you feel you have to tell me what I consent to, well, that's not consent.
whirledtraveler is offline  
Old Jun 9, 2005, 8:31 pm
  #69  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: AA, WN RR
Posts: 3,122
Originally Posted by larkinmusic
No warrant needed. Consent is given when one enters the checkpoint.
Even if consent is considered to have been given, a search must still be reasonable in scope and related to the purpose for which consent was given.
PatrickHenry1775 is offline  
Old Jun 9, 2005, 9:54 pm
  #70  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 707
Originally Posted by copwriter
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?
I'm not sure where you're getting that impression from -- for whatever it's worth, that's not how I read PTravel's comments.

As for how most attorneys are perceived, that's irrelevant to the merits of PTravel's remarks on this board. We learned in kindergarden why stereotyping is bad; that goes for lawyers, too.

Perhaps your arguments would be more persuasive if you actually addressed PTravel's comments on their merits, rather than resorting to ad hominem fallacies. I'd hope you would realize that PTravel's character "has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the proposition" PTravel is advocating.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...sociation.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...al-attack.html
daw617 is offline  
Old Jun 9, 2005, 9:58 pm
  #71  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 707
Originally Posted by rbedgood
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.
Actually, that's not the choice at issue here. Supervisors are asking for the identity of people who *passed* the explosives detector test (i.e., the explosives detector cleared the passenger as free of explosives). Moreover, the justification for why they need the identity is not about preventing terrorists from boarding planes; it is about some sort of internal procedures (e.g., checking that supervisors are doing their job, or something). So you've created a false dilemma.

Care to comment on the actual situation at issue here, rather than some other imagined situation?
daw617 is offline  
Old Jun 9, 2005, 10:02 pm
  #72  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 707
Originally Posted by Bart
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
Like what? I have yet to hear you suggest an alternative form of action that doesn't involve spending tens of thousands of dollars.

... make baseless accusations and outrageous claims by using his title as lawyer to convince the rest of us that something is seriously amiss.
Ahh, but the point is that the accusations are not baseless, and the claims are not outrageous. Moreover, we should evaluate these claims on their own merits (not because of PTravel's title). I would say no special training is needed -- all you need is common sense to see that the supervisors' explanations are unsatisfactory and circular. All you need is common sense to raise questions about compliance the Privacy Act.

Feel free to provide evidence that the accusations are baseless, if you have any. Last I checked, I didn't see any such evidence here on this board.

It sure sounds like you are responding emotionally to the person, rather than thinking logically about the statements on their own merits.
daw617 is offline  
Old Jun 9, 2005, 10:11 pm
  #73  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 707
Originally Posted by Bart
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.
That's why I pointed out that, even though you are acting in complete good faith, it is possible that there might be more going on here than you are aware of. I am NOT accusing you of lying. I am NOT suggesting that you are acting in bad faith. I am NOT suggesting that you believe the TSA is violating the Constitution. Rather, I am pointing out that you do not know what the TSA actually does. I am pointing out that you are merely speculating about how this data is used. I am pointing out that you might be unaware of the real truth.

Your assumption, apparently, is that I am content with my employment to the point of violating your constitutional rights.
Absolutely not. No, that is definitely NOT my position. I'm chagrined that you got the wrong impression, and I never intended to suggest such a thing. Please accept my apology for any possible misunderstanding.

I want to emphasize that I hold the utmost respect for you, and never intended to suggest that you would knowingly violate people's constitutional rights.

That said, I believe a number of your arguments on this thread have been unsupported by the evidence (at least, any evidence posted here) -- and I believe it is possible that you or others at the TSA might be unknowingly violating passengers' rights, or might be following policies that were poorly thought-out and causing an unjustifiable privacy intrusion on law-abiding passengers.

Does this help clarify my position?
daw617 is offline  
Old Jun 10, 2005, 4:24 am
  #74  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,389
Originally Posted by daw617
That said, I believe a number of your arguments on this thread have been unsupported by the evidence (at least, any evidence posted here) -- and I believe it is possible that you or others at the TSA might be unknowingly violating passengers' rights, or might be following policies that were poorly thought-out and causing an unjustifiable privacy intrusion on law-abiding passengers.

Does this help clarify my position?
TSA policy is reviewed by its team of lawyers. Every once in a while, even down in the trenches, we'll get a peak at the internal legal debates involved. Often, however, these debates are manifested in the form of directives. For example, we used to "confiscate" prohibited items. One of our directives pointed out that confiscation implied some legal authority to seize items, and TSA has no such authority. So the terms "surrender" and "abandon" were worked into our lexicon because, legally speaking, there is a technical legal difference between someone abandoning a prohibited item at the checkpoint and a screener confiscating one. The assumption (and TSA policy) is that we explain the options for keeping the prohibited item to the passenger (leave the checkpoint and dispose of the item).

Another example is how we handle illegal drugs once they're discovered. TSA has no legal authority to confiscate illegal drugs. However, if during the course of security screening we find illegal drugs, we then notify the airport police who do have the legal authority to handle the matter.

When a passenger becomes uncooperative or disruptive, it's not TSA who decides whether or not that passenger can fly. It's the airlines. If the passenger becomes violent or violates the law, then the airport police will decide the matter by arresting the individual. However, if all the person does is become uncooperative or disruptive, we notify the airline ground security coordinator (GSC) and that individual then makes a decision on behalf of the airlines whether or not the passenger will be allowed to board.

I'm pointing these things out to show you that these are indications of legal review and clarification on what we do and why we do them. I'm not on the staff, so I can't explain all of the intricate details in terms of court precedence used as the basis for these procedures. Not my cup of tea, anyway. However, I'm pretty sure there's some TSA public relations person who could.

I'm amused that you think I may be naive enough to be snookered by some sort of illegality in TSA procedure or wouldn't recognize a conspiracy or violation of law. If you only knew.... But that's another story and if I were to tell it, then you or others would accuse me of either fabricating it or suffering delusions of grandeur. Suffice it to say that I'm quite comfortable with TSA policy and procedure in terms of their legality; I'm not comfortable in terms of their adequacy. In some areas, we overkill and in others, we're not doing enough.
Bart is offline  
Old Jun 10, 2005, 4:30 am
  #75  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,389
Originally Posted by daw617
Like what? I have yet to hear you suggest an alternative form of action that doesn't involve spending tens of thousands of dollars.

Ahh, but the point is that the accusations are not baseless, and the claims are not outrageous. Moreover, we should evaluate these claims on their own merits (not because of PTravel's title). I would say no special training is needed -- all you need is common sense to see that the supervisors' explanations are unsatisfactory and circular. All you need is common sense to raise questions about compliance the Privacy Act.

Feel free to provide evidence that the accusations are baseless, if you have any. Last I checked, I didn't see any such evidence here on this board.

It sure sounds like you are responding emotionally to the person, rather than thinking logically about the statements on their own merits.
We disagree then. Fair enough. The burden of proof isn't on me. I'm not the one who's whining that TSA is violating the law.

As for the Privacy Act, I'm afraid you're the one who's being naive. It requires training because government employees need to be aware of the limitations placed on them by law and policy. They also need to be aware of their obligations when dealing with the public about explaining certain provisions of the Privacy Act. My understanding of it comes more from my prior life as a military intelligence officer than it does as a TSA screener. Still, TSA has provided satisfactory instruction on it. The problem is that it's not being practiced in the field, and that will come back to haunt TSA. What surprises me is that TSA's auditors and internal inspectors haven't jumped on this already.

As for objectivity, I noticed that none of your posts were directed at PTravel. hmmmmm...bias?
Bart is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.