Or, put another way:

-Pax goes through checkpoint with something that is permitted (e.g., a rubber ball or rubber-band ball or 4 oz contact solution) or something that is marginally illegal (toiletries in a gallon bag).

-TSA agent gets excited about permitted item or marginally illegal item.

-TSA agent asks passenger about item. Passenger knows item is not prohibited and says so or knows rule violation is irrelevant (1 oz toothpaste in gallon bag) and says so, possibly asking for supervisor or airline rep at the same time.

-TSA agent gets annoyed that passenger challenged his authority, makes a bigger stink about permitted item, and possibly engages in other retaliatory action like a full and overly aggressive bag/body search. TSA may also attempt to throw item into trash, refuse to give passenger option to take item back to his car, etc.

-Passenger gets hostile because he knows he's being mistreated.

-TSA agent gets more hostile and calls marshall/cop/sheriff

-Pax is still upset. Instead of defusing situation ("sir, you're suppose to have a quart bag," or "sir TSA, a rubber-band ball is not a weapon; let him go."), cop takes an attitude and/or automatically takes the TSA's side without considering the reasonableness of the original situation or the reasons the passenger may be upset (i.e., mistreatment, retaliatory secondaries, etc.)

-Pax ends up in jail

-TSA agent gets award for "big catch." Cop faces no penalties for failing to defuse minor situation, false arrest, illegal search (forcing a drug test), etc. [sarcasm]Cop realizes his power is infinite and mistakes have no penalties and decides to start TASERing people who wear hats, get into heated arguements with no threat of physical violence, and fail to bow down in his presence (see other thread). [/saracsm]

Sue. Sue that pig hard.
 

Sue. Sue that pig and make him squirm.

I can refer you to civil rights lawyers in SoCal who may be able to help you with a Section 1983 (Civil Rights) claim against the cop and his police department.

Of course, we're basing this on the OP with no defence for the other side. I never get in crap from TSA agents. Maybe it's because I have better ways to spend my energy and I just keep my mouth shut and let them do their thing.

Why should I understand that I will be asked by the TSA about whether I am smuggling drugs? How does does that relate to the security of the airplane? That question would be the TSA going off mission.

The OP said the TSO and LEO said the rubber-band ball "was positive for flammable residue and that it had something metal at the core." Whether flammable residue constitutes explosives, I will not judge. But the TSO was wrong to say as a matter of undisputed fact that it contained metal at the core. He was wrong. He should have told the "TSA boss" that it appeared dense like a metal object might be. I would also be perturbed by somebody stating a fact about me that is completely wrong. Based on the facts presented, the TSA was wrong and the LEO compounded the problem.

I agree. LE didn't hesitate to try to ruin this guys life. The favor should be returned.

What's the US Supreme Court cite? I have two law school classmates who would be more than happy to pro bono a federal lawsuit on the constitutionality of this section if it is that clearly unconstitutional. They live on the attorney fees from 1983 actions.

You mean that they usually live off attorney fees but would take this one pro bono?

Here's the case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson_v._California

I think it's far narrower than what Wikipedia and the previous poster say it stands for though.

Text of decision

Me too. Correct the attitude of this bad cop by serving him with a summons for a civil suit. Not sure if their union covers his legal defense fees, but there are ways to make them pay. The OP could also place a lien (in some states) on the cop's property without his knowledge or consent.

Sorry to sound overly vindictive, but this cop is just begging for a nice slap upside the head.

I think I see what you mean ... that case was challenging the constitutionality of a law making it a crime to be addicted to a drug, which is very different from being under the influence.

Are these items which you mention illegal or simply in contravention of the "rules"?

Big difference between being illegal and being against the rules.....but perhaps you are using the term loosely. ;)

Filing a lien against a cop's property with the intent to harass the officer is a crime under section 148.6(b) of the California Penal Code.

It seems to me this non-situation could have been avoided entirely by answering some pretty simple questions and showing a hint of respect and understanding.

To expect some sort of payoff or demand vengance for a situation that you escalated yourself seems immature at best.

Was a lesson learned?

Just my $.02 :)

Immature?

Let's recap. This man was arrested for a crime he did not commit.

He was subject to an illegal search (the blood test).

He was imprisoned when the test showed CONCLUSIVELY he was guilty of nothing.

And you think he is IMMATURE for demanding redress for his damages?

I am sorry, but I don't think even the late Chief Justice Rehnquist, an ultraconservative, would agree with you.

Read the Bill of Rights and get back to me. Or, for a shorter verison, just the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Let's recap:

The whole situation was caused by immaturity. It would have been avoided by simply following along, answering the questions and doing as he was told. If I were put in the same situation, I can guarantee you I'd have made my flight and not ended up involved in this mess. The situation escalated into what was completely unnecessary. The resulting behavior by the security personnel can't be entirely justified, but it could be easily predicted by 99.9% of people who fly. Honey, vinegar, blah blah blah.

He was subjected to the blood test because he allowed himself to be. If it's such a big deal, lawyer up before - not after.

If people want to play anti-authority superhero, go ahead. Just don't complain when the inevitable happens and the MAN keeps you down.

That's $.04 now. ;)

At what point in the OP's story could he or should he have "followed along?" It seems that once the TSA had gotten excited, done an ETD on the rubber-band-ball, and gotten some sort of "hit," that both the TSA and the LEO had it out for the OP and started accusing him of having "triggers" and "precursors" and "being on drugs." Do you really think cooperation at that point would have been at all fruitful for the OP?