(This may more properly belong in Newstand?)

This is an article about a woman who was busted for pot after an intrepid screener found a pipe during a carry-on search.

Perhaps some of our legal beagles can weigh in on the significance or non-significance of this as it relates to detention/confiscation/arrest of people for stuff found during screening that has nothing at all to do with civil aviation security.

While I'm not ready to break out a bottle of bubbly and celebrate the restoration of the Constitution at our nation's airports over this single (and probably narrow) ruling, I did find one thing of note:

Granted, this ruling appears to have been directed at the cops and not the TSA, but this one quote seems to imply that the taking of a driver's license -- as is often done by TSA screeners at checkpoints (and well-documented on FT) -- seems to raise the ante. In my wildest dreams this ruling might help put the clamps on the TSA's practice of requiring (demanding?) information from a DL from time to time.

I also found the comment about "moving her to a confined side room" to be interesting. Isn't this what happens during a "private screening?"

I would expect the DHS and TSA lawyers to be pouring all over this ruling -- but I doubt it.

Let the FT debate begin!

Entire Article:

I gather it to mean that it was dismissed due to the fact that once the police took over, she was in custody and they failed to Miranda warn her. It was at the point that they took her ID that she was in custody and it has nothing to do with the taking of the ID. She then made statements and they were supressed. THe question of how the weed got in the bag could not be countered without her statements and it was a misdemeanor anyway so they let it go.

Does this mean the carnival barkers will now start yelling "Please remove your shoes. And you have the right to remain silent."

I think the questions of interpretation I was throwing around was:

1. Did she surrender her DL because she was in custody in a private area; or,
2. Was she in custody because she surrendered her DL and was taken to a private room?

I don't see your point, Flies. I agree with eyecue: the airport police dropped the ball.

It's a nice ruling. Screening is not a general LEO function and police should not be able to sidestep Miranda when they aid screeners.

Umm, they can see in your bag. How did she expect to get away with possession? Keep your pot at home if you are so inclined. It wouldn't surprise me if the stuff could be electronically scent detected nowadays. It's just not worth the risk.

Actually, it's not our job to look for illegal drugs. In other words, we cannot initiate a search because we believe that there may be illegal drugs inside of the bag. However, if we initiated a search for a pair of scissors, for example, and came across a bag of a suspicious-looking leafy substance, then we are obligated to notify the airport police. From that point, it's their baby.

The usual suspects will challenge this as none of our business, but they have yet to come up with anything more than just an opinion that we shouldn't notify the police. By the way, the police don't always take action. But that's their call not ours. I've has screeners complain when they saw the airport LEO let something go, and I remind them of their responsibilities and their "running lane." It's no different than not everyone who speeds is given a traffic ticket. It's all about police discretion.

I guess what I'm trying to articulate is that she (judge) appeared to be building a box around what she considered to be "normal" screening and what constituted "detention" of some sort.

I agree that the cops blew this one -- regardless of one's opinion of the 4th amendment. It appears as if the cops and the DA were more interested in who she was than what she allegedly did.

Bart, what's to keep some overzealous screener from seeing pot, a crack pipe, etc in the x-ray and then say "oops I thought I saw scissors (knife, whatever)" in there so they can initiate the search? I mean, they can find the pot and say I guess there weren't scissors in there, but need the airport police?

It seems like an easy way to sidestep the "we can't initiate a search because we believe there may be illegal drugs inside the bag" argument.

That happened here in ABQ. Baca says she was set up. She wouldn't say by whom but eluded to "Them" (ie state-level conservative forces operators who want her silenced).

In all honesty; there is absolutely nothing to prevent an overzealous screener from doing this other than the follow-up interview. The LEO and supervisor will obtain a sworn statement from the screener who initiated the search, and that screener will have to explain why he/she requested the bag check. Here's where things get dicey because, according to correct procedure, the x-ray operator should have shown the x-ray image to the physical search screener and pointed out the prohibited item on the screen so the physical search screener knows what to look for and approximately where to find it. THAT screener ALSO has to submit a sworn statement. Unless there's a conspiracy between the two, this is where the hole in the "I thought I saw it" story may be revealed. It also may not.

How much of a reward bounty are screeners paid for finding dope? And is that bounty paid to both of them or just the X-Ray screener? (unless the x-ray screener kicks some back to the bag checker).

Then again, I doubt most screeners are practiced liars and would probably cave under *thorough* police questioning (doubtful to happen) or skillful cross-examination.

There is no bounty. Another popular urban legend.

I think that it's possible to find one overzealous screener who would take it upon himself or herself to initiate a bag check solely to find out if there were drugs in the bag. I don't think a second screener would go along with it to the point of lying on a sworn statement to cover for that first screener. Could be wrong on that; however, falsifying a sworn statement is grounds for immediate termination of employment as well as grounds for criminal charges.

Some fancy "one hitters" and other dope paraphenilia look suspicious on an x-ray and the operator may call for a bag check based on that.