Yet again you fail to acknowledge that it's the airlines who allow unscreened cargo on board their planes. In other words, if the airlines were serious about security, then they would insist that the cargo be screened before being loaded onto planes. However, the mighty dollar trumps that call.

Otherwise, I agree with you that there is a serious flaw in security with cargo being permitted on commercial passenger planes without undergoing screening.

One minor correction: the "cargo" you're describing tends to suggest that huge crates are taken loaded on passenger planes. That's not necessarily the case. Many of these items are smaller boxes, crates that can fit inside the baggage compartment of commercial airplanes, and there would be no problem with screening them per TSA standards. Go back to my first paragraph to see why it isn't being done.

Every federal employment oath swears to uphold the Constitution of the United States. I've been with five agencies and have done so every time. Since you are aware of Bivens, you must also be aware that federal employees operating within "the scope of their employment" receive representation by the Department of Justice and their names are replaced in court documents with Plantiff X v. The United States of America.

The question to ask is was the screener "within scope" or not. If the policy is SSI, that may be difficult to find out.

By the way, I don't think LEOs have a peculiar view of the law. I think most LEOs find the laws so poorly written and don't have research assistants to help look things up for them. :)

Of course, I can't speak on behalf of all TSA employees, and I'm sure that someone will always be able to point out a discrepancy or contradiction. However, I can tell you that we screeners fall under the exact same laws, regulations and policies that apply to all federal employees. As I've pointed out in other threads, I can only initiate a bag check if I believe that there is a prohibited item inside the bag or if I am unable to clear the bag because, for instance, an opaque object is obscuring a clear view of what may be underneath it. These actions fall within the legal scope of our official, authorized and legitimate duties.

What I cannot do is initiate a search simply because I believe that someone may be concealing drugs inside a bag or if a police officer asks me to initiate a search under the guise of a security check. The results of such actions will not only have me fired but also subject me to disciplinary and punitive actions under the law.

Whenever an incident occurs, everyone submits a statement including the screeners who initiated the bag search and the one who performed the search. The fundamentals of who, what, when, where, how and why must be addressed in this report. You may speculate that a screener can always falsify the reasons why he or she initiated the search, and there may be some truth to that. However, that screener risks automatic termination if discovered as well as a host of disciplinary and punitive legal actions because that screener will have falsified an official document. As with any bureaucracy, the management staff goes over these reports with a fine tooth comb and seeks to resolve any discrepancies before submitting the final report to headquarters. Lies often fall apart during this process.

In other words, it's just not worth it to falsify a government document. Still, as with any population, there's always a couple of knuckleheads who think they can beat the system.

deleted

What if an airline, in the interest of passenger satisfaction, tried to expedite the screening process by eliminating selectee screening, SSSS on boarding passes? The feds would prohibit that action, right? So why isn't the national government interested in security by requiring the screening of all cargo, whether in huge crates or small boxes, perhaps backpack sized that hold 10 pounds of high explosives and fit on subway trains? I think the obvious answer is that the airlines squawked about allowing such screening, which according to the reasoning that created TSA should be performed by nationalized personnel. But the government is not willing to push this issue because of the added expense and everyday passengers would not see it, so its PR value is minimal. Not as sexy as shoe carnival, patdowns, the whole dog and pony show.

Well, doesn't work that way because the law and regulations allow airlines the flexibility to permit certain items on board their aircraft but obligates them to stick to TSA policy regarding selectee screening. However, I would like to see the airlines raise the issue and lobby to have selectee screening eliminated and require cargo to be screened before loaded onto commercial passenger planes. I don't see it happening purely because of the political ramifications. It's a lot like not wanting to be the one who advocates eliminating seat belt laws. Fires up the insurance companies, gets safety advocates all wound up and provides political ammunition in the event that there's a perceived increase in traffic deaths that can be used against the poor unfortunate SOB who raises champions the cause of eliminating seat belt laws.

While I don't agree with the way you phrase things and your anti-government paranoia in general, I think the common ground for the both of us is that there is a point where practicality goes out the window and political correctness takes over. We both agree that selectee screening does nothing to add to security, and we both agree that cargo screening, particularly for any and all items loaded onto passenger aircraft, is sadly lacking. I think we both agree that the politics of those situations are what's driving the train rather than the practical common sense rationale that ought to drive it.

You know just about enough to be dangerous. Bivens applies to different circumstances and the circumstances at the airport are entirely different. You have consented to be searched by implied consent when you walk into an airport. IT has nothing to do with probable cause. IF you know about Richard Reid, you know why we look at shoes very carefully. You have no constiTUTIONAL right to fly. Take the bus, take a train, take a car, walk or ride a bike. As far as rules go, individuals make mistakes and individuals make choices. I am sure that you have run into some of those individuals that made choices that you didnt like. IT has nothing to do with the agency itself.

SDF/Louisville - They have several lobby CTX pod / inspection areas. The check-in agents may have a direct line of site to the drop-off area, but not certain as I've never been behind there :D

I got the impression they were short staffed. At the same time, I feel they can probably get by with one CTX machine for the West check-in lobby which handles US Airways Express, United Express, Continental Express, and Northwest. Only NW has mainline aircraft and they have a CTX station basically to themselves; The other three use the other CTX.

I'll make a comment of concern to them about this. I do know local news channels have gone into SDF before, a few months ago, left luggage unattended landside and it usually took over an hour (or more) for someone locate it, when they did. The local media got the boot from SDF for doing this.

Interesting information. The TSA employee in question was friendly and seemed to be doing a great job. I just felt all the seperate swabs may have been a "waste", but she did a very good inspection. I'm used to seeing them use one swab (two at most) and using that swab to get the entire bag and doing the ETD vs a clean swab for each item. While it was my partner's luggage, if I had a "Comment Form" I would have completed a Compliment for her based on her friendliness, the thourough search, and openness of the search. Often they don't want you watching and boot you away.

Wrong Commercial, Bart! :D :D Ironically I do have a set of (broken) TSA Travel Sentry Locks. I am getting ready to take them back to Brookstone for replacement again. The TSA appears to be getting better at recognizing and handling these locks properly, but I still encounter problems. I have one that was chopped at DTW by the TSA at the luggage drop after US Customs on my last re-entry and a second one that was cut, but don't know by whom. Bag was CTX screened at SDF with lock in-tact and routed via MEM to LAX to ICN to KUL to MEL. Perhaps re-screened at LAX? Could have also been opened at ICN or KUL; I was missing a battery operated "dish cleaner" from it I purchased for a gift. Not enough to warrant a claim, IMHO (i.e. $5).

I do know when I have had luggage routed interline via NRT, NRT does screen the luggage behind the scenes and attaches an "NRT Screened" piece of tape onto the luggage. When interlining to NWA at NRT, NWA also looks at each baggage tag routed to one of their flights & pulls it up in the computer. They then attach a "NWA WBC Priority" sticker to it and loads it in the priority cargo container, which is first off (a benefit for World Business Class Passengers). I was impressed they did this behind the scenes.

My guess is either ICN or my bag went down the carosel at LAX and was then re-checked by an airline employee when noticed LAX was not the final destination. I doubt KUL for a number of reasons, yet always possible.

I like the lobby screening pods provided they allow you to watch your luggage. This isn't always the case. SDF will sometimes let you watch your luggage, but at other airports like JFK (T4 & T3) and EWR will not let you watch it. I was even threatened by a TSA employee that he would call airport police if I did not leave, because I was not allowed to watch them screen my luggage in the lobby. :td: :mad:

OTOH, as an example, at major European Airports, I do know they have efficient, behind the scenes inline baggage screening operations (such as what you describe above). The system is setup where luggage goes down the belt and first x-rayed, negative x-rayed luggage goes one direction, positive x-rays go another for screening with another machine which allows for the resolution of alarms; if resolved it goes back inline with the other luggage, if unresolved it is pulled aside for manual screening. The system is able to resolve most alarms with minimal manual screening.

The systems are efficient and if it means faster luggage processing and less baggage opened, I am all for it, as long as a protocol is established allowing owners to be present when baggage is opened -- or worst case scenario, luggage opened under monitored CCTV.

You're correct. However, I can just immagine some of the items you've seen packed and items packed incorrectly just asking to be broken. I used to work for an all cargo airline with their international division when I was in college. My position included checking all of the export and customs documentation, opening a percentage of packages to see they matched, and opening packages with improper or no documentation. I saw it all, from the unusual to the illegal, and the packages that just said "break me" on it because they were so poorly packed. The poorly packed packages had to be re-packed properly regardless of whether they were being exported or returned to sender for documentation or customs legality issues.

After package inspection, it went onto a belt, was then loaded into containers and the containers were then directly placed on the aircraft - the ramp where the aircraft were was a one minute walk. With regards to being in a high security area with acesss to aircraft & inspecting packages without owner present, this was all done under CCTV, all employees had proper background checks, and all employees entered and exited via a company security checkpoint. Despite thousands of dollars of goods, theft was never a problem. Their security at SDF is probably better than security for ramp employees for passenger carriers on the other side of the airport.

This was many years ago, but the facility is not only still at SDF, but has grown in size; 35,000 employees at SDF alone for this airline.

SDF_Traveler

"I'm sorry but we goofed, you weren't selected for special screening." (This was at the gate in the time soon after 9/11.)

Reality: There were more people selected than could have been searched before flight time. Of the people selected we had the most carry-on luggage (virtually all of it stuff too delicate for checked baggage) and looked the least threatening. (I'm married to an itty-bitty Chinese that's obviously no threat to anything bigger than a bug.)

Reality: Second hop. I start to remove a fanny pack that I know will alarm. (Us coins, Chinese coins, a keyring, a space pen {pure metal, no plastic}.) and she stops me. I'm wanded, the bag hits, she doesn't look. She opens our bags and glances in, not looking through them at all.

It is NOT their job.
 

It is not their job to repack your stuff. If you don't like the policy, stay home. The same goes for border crossings on land. Your entire vehicle can be dismantled at the U.S.-Canada border and it is NOT their job to put it back together.

I always arrive early, and when this happens, I spread out and take my time repacking. They always ask me to move or hurry up. I say "You did this, not me" and continue taking my merry old time.

Time is money. The only people who are injured by "taking your time" are your fellow pax who need the space to repack as well. The Officers individually, could care less if you spend the rest of the day repacking.

Unfortunately, a lot of the passive agressive stuff that goes on with respect to TSA, doesn't matter to TSA, just the guy behind you. And, he's just a working stiff like you, trying to get home to see his kids.

Repacking is reasonable, reassembling your vehicle is not.

I always repack my own stuff. If you travel for a living, you put everything in its place and return it to same, so you know where it is.

Moreover, it is a courtesy to the guy/gal behind me that the TSA can focus on getting them through quickly without repacking my stuff.

at my home airport and most of my other domestics (MSP JFK LGA EWR ORD CLE DEN SFO SAN) I am asked "Would you like me to repack, sir?" and my response is "No thank you, please assist the next passenger"

Amazing what politeness will do.

I strongly dislike the policies of the TSA, but take the battle to the top, not the foot soldier.

They weren't drafted. They know the policies going in and if they didn't, they learn them during training... the "foot soldiers" are willing accomplices.

If they are reasonably polite and professional I don't give them any grief, but if they are not, them I am not.