If someone on a powertrip gets away with such a thing once, the likelihood increases that they will become inured to arresting and jailing people on questionable bases and do it again with someone else.

Actually it isnt the TSA who can do anything but the LEO who decided to arrest you in this particular case.The LEO had the option to allow you to go and just confiscate the item in question or to have the TSA agents do further testing on it as mentioned by someone else.I actually have to say that if I saw a big rubber ball that looked metalic in the middle I would have wanted to examine it further before allowing someone to fly with it.This is just an example of a LEO on a power trip who had zero common sense to just cut open the ball.I do blame the TSA agents for also having a lack of common sense and not cutting open the ball either.
Cheers
howie

The TSAers and LEO could have even done what the TSA does so with so many other harmless items on a daily basis -- that is, just seize the rubberbands and let the traveller go on their way. Instead the TSAers exhibiting poor judgment drag in LEOs and then the LEO too goes overboard and exhibits poor judgment. In this incident, we have yet another example of government authorities, at airports, exhibiting poor judgment; and this includes both the TSA and the LEO.

I really hate what this country is coming to ... :( :mad: (if there was a smilie with tears it would be appropriate)

OP - Sorry this happened to you - it's so wrong. If someone can answer the question about why he was held for 12 hours after both the drug charges & the rubber band ball were both shown to be wrong and harmless -that would be great.

Is that even illegal?

And I agree with Lurker1999 in post #29. Get your record cleared.

Ever been arrested? Yes, most recently at the airport security checkpoint with my rubber band ball. :eek:

I agree that this sounds like a combination of bad TSA work and bad police work, but I'll explain a bit of what I think was going on, at least with regard to the drug charge.

California has a statute that makes it unlawful to be under the influence of a controlled substance. This applies to illicit drugs as well as prescription drugs that the user may have come upon unlawfully. It's a misdemeanor. When I worked in Nevada, we had a similar statute, but it was a felony (this has since changed).

There is a fairly rigid and well-established procedure for making the determination of whether someone is "on drugs" or not. It involves what amounts to a mini-medical exam, conducted by a specially trained officer designated as a Drug Influence Recognition Expert (DRE). The DRE training and certification course is fairly rigorous - many officers do not complete it successfully. I did, although that was about 20 years ago.

The exam includes several observations of the eyes with regard to tracking movement, pupil dilation under room light and dark room conditions (the latter using both a red and a white light), color of the sclera, etc. The exam also includes recording of pulse and blood pressure and respiration rates, examination of the nostrils, and a field sobriety test that is more or less the same as when determining if a person is under the influence of alcohol (in some jurisdictions, as many as 80% of those arrested for impaired driving are under the influence of drugs, either alone or in addition to alcohol).

An examination by a non-DRE is generally held as being worthless as evidence or as probable cause for an arrest.

The DRE determines whether the accused is under the influence of a controlled substance, and if so, what category of controlled substance. Precise identification of the drug is not possible at this level of expertise. Categories include opiates, stimulants, depressants, hallucinogens, marijuana, and PCP. A well-trained, ethical DRE will almost never be wrong. If he is, his credibility is greatly injured for any future cases, and his certification is often withdrawn. The DRE's findings are most often confirmed by a chemical test.

The accused (in a non-driving case where the only charge is the unlawful use violation) can only be compelled to take a chemical test (urine or blood - a breath test measures only alcohol involvement) if there is a court order, called a seizure order. Otherwise, they may refuse.

What eastwest described didn't sound like anything remotely resembling the accepted practice. I have seen this kind of thing before, most often with officers who believe that they can make a DRE determination without the training or certification. If their supervisor is either lazy or complacent, they can get away with it.

All that said, I think eastwest could have handled this a little better by going along with the program for his own sake, even if he was to complain later (which I encourage him to do). Standing up for one's rights is appropriate, but doing it in the wrong forum only brings trouble. At the side of the road, or, in this instance, at the security checkpoint, Mr. Officer Is Always Right. Arguing or insisting that he can't do something that he says he can is going to turn into a p***ing contest that the citizen will not win. Go with the flow, be polite, ask for names and ID numbers (most law enforcement agencies require their employees to give this information when asked - if they refuse, note physical descriptions and nametags/badge numbers), and make your case when you're not on their turf.

But I hope that eastwest, at a minimum, makes a complaint to the LE agency involved. That is the only way that bad employees can be disciplined or terminated.

As for the rubber band ball, I haven't the first clue.

NO KNIFES IN THE SECURE AREA! (said like the Soup Guy on Seinfeld)

:rolleyes:

Is it just me, or does anyone else ever just bang their head against the desk every time they read a story like this? This is so idiotic.

Maybe we should all start carrying our freedom baggies and our freedom rubber band ball. :D :rolleyes:

Isn't this the current CA course? We had a bunch of officers that were referred to, when needed, as "11550 qualified", and had been sent off to a course for it.

http://ag.ca.gov/atc/content/drug_id...aa58c8f1f99332

Thanks for the reminder about knives. :o :D In that case they could have had the OP take apart the rubber band ball one rubber band at a time.

But then the TSA and LEOs may find that to be suspicious behavior too. :rolleyes: You know, there are all those terrorists doing dry runs and casing US airports to probe us every minute of every day. Can never be too cautious. :rolleyes:

Thanks for the informative post (most of which I cut to only quote the part I'm responding to).

As for the bit above, I didn't see anywhere the OP did anything that he could have done differently to have made the system go differently. He offered to give up the rubber band ball entirely, but at that point the LEO seemed ready to make the "big catch" via a drug charge. I honestly don't see how he could have handled the encounter with the LEO or the TSA differently and have gotten a different result.

I mean, even if he hadn't told the LEO he needed to inform him when he was searching the bag and hadn't made the request for the search to be done in private (both of which are quite reasonable requests and well-within the rules), the ball would presumably have still looked to have a metal object in it and/or set off the ETD machine, which would have still led to the cop thinking he was a smuggler or on drugs.

This is not any different from "Driving While Black". Where the LEO pulls you over just because he is suspicious and does a check on you to find what he can charge you with.

There are enough laws on the books that any of us could be charged at anytime with any violation if the LEO wants to. So just dont pi** of a LEO. :mad:

There is some merit here on both sides. At no point did I swear at, threaten, or obstruct anyone in their duties. It was a bit of a case of "keystone cops," no doubt about it.

I shouldn't have to be the "level-headed" one in all this, but I could have refrained from telling the TSA guy to "quit running at the mouth."

We've distilled the bottom line in all this and that bottom line is: the TSA can pretty much do whatever they want. You can fight about it later, but you will get it sooner. Imagine if this happened when you were on your way to a funeral, or to a wedding, or the birth of a child, or something. That's when it goes from just unpleasant to awful.

The lesson to be learned here is: When you are packing for your trip, whether you are a first time traveler or Platinum Elite, pretend that you are a TSA supervisor and then ponder over what you have packed for 10 seconds. Remove anything that is in any way out of the ordinary.

Should you have to do this? No. But if I had it all to do over, I would have mailed my rubber band ball to myself, and avoided jail and my rubber band ball wouldn't be all cut up...

I scroll past most of the posts in these threads anyway, since everyone tends to seize on one little detail or another, and the thread takes on a life of its own. I prefer to focus on the OP's responses, like the one immediately preceeding this post.

I am curious if there has been any update from KarenH (the othe FT-er who was arrested). Too bad there is no "view" access to Omni, so I could continue to follow that thread without posting.

No updates, as she is not OMNI qualified, and can't post there.

Wow. I feel truly horrible for you EastWest. I second (third?) that you should speak with a lawyer to clear your name in the event this arrest haunts you down the road.

:( Maybe we all need to make rubber band balls and mark them "Kip Hawley is an Idiot".