muddy

To correct my above post:

She did get a paycheck 180K minus atty fees.

and:

it apparently did show a false positive on field testing.
"Police said field tests showed that the substances likely contained opium and cocaine. Lee was held for 21 days on drug trafficking charges until later tests showed that she was telling the truth."

No excuse for the 3 weeks re-testing (way way way too long). She was lucky this (the false positive test) didnt happen further south on the globe.

mikeef

Of course, this whole problem could be avoided if we simply legalized drugs (ducks and runs for OMNI).

Mike

Spiff

^^

Legalize drugs, illegalize the TSA.

secretbunnyboy

Yes, I think that the TSAer probably did have a well-founded reason to alert a cop, actually. I don't believe it was malicious (in the absence of any evidence). The TSAer has no right (above normal citizens' rights) to detain anyone, of course.

After all, just because a cop hears something, they're under no obligation to act on it. The cop could have decided to do nothing, or immediately send the passenger on their way.

Superguy

[QUOTE=muddy;6980604]I agree that the TSA did nothing wrong (certainly, IMO, nothing you could arrest or successfully sue anyone for). [QUOTE]

I disagree. The search was beyond the scope of their authority. TSA's task is to look for items on the prohibited items list:

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtrav...-items.shtm#11

I don't see drugs or powders listed anywhere on there. Do you?

Say what you want about whether drugs are/should be illegal or not. Fact remains that they're not on the prohibited items list so finding these "drugs" would be beyond the scope of the search that was consented to. I'd hope a good lawyer would try to argue for supressing that evidence.

Spiff's right. TSA messing around with things like this takes time away from them focusing on "real" (and I use that term loosely) security.

bocastephen

Another serious problem to consider - if local police are giving screeners cash bonuses to rat out passengers with cash or drugs/paraphenalia, doesn't that create a conflict of interest when the items they are now searching for do not represent threats to aviation security? Whose interests are they giving priority to? The TSA and public safety for their $14/hr or the local cops who promised them $5K cash per drug score?

Also, I read where a private security guard can conduct a search (prior to admitting someone to private property), and if they found drugs, they can alert the police - the drugs are admissible into evidence because the search was not conducted by a representative of the government and the 4th Amendment does not apply.

Since the TSA is defintely representing the government, and the law has failed miserably to put the correct legal constraints on the scope of an airport search, I believe the 4th Amendment protections should apply to airport searches - nothing found can be used in court unless the item found was incidental to aviation security. A person can be prosecuted for bringing a weapon through a checkpoint, but cannot be prosecuted for drugs.

Superguy

I'd be tempted to say that that would be more than a conflict of interest ... it almost seems like an outright bribe. At least as I see it, local LEOs are using a means to search bags indirectly by bribing TSA to do it for them since they can't do it legally. At least as far as I can tell, giving someone money to do something you can't legally do is a bribe.

bocastephen

Since we know this is happening (over the years, various screeners have just about admitted it), how can we force disclosure of these arrangements? The TSA will just state it's against policy and everything else is SSI, and the police will just deny it.

I believe if screeners' attentions are being distracted by other priorities, the public has a right to know.

n5667

the issue is if in the course of your duties attempting to find explosives you come across something that appears to be drugs - you call a cop and let them figure it out since they should know.

If things had gone as they should the girl probably would have been on her way in 2 minutes with a chuckle had by all that they thought it was drugs - unfortunatly this field test (which is what?) malfunctioned.

n5667

Unfortunatly not everyone subscribes to your logic - which according to you if I come across child porn instead of doing what I should do (call the cops) I should just let the pedophile go on his merry way, because it will slow down security (slow down, not spend less time).

Global_Hi_Flyer

If there's a nude picture (age of participant unknown) in the bag, you shouldn't be calling the cops and alledging 'child porn'. That is the correct analogy to the case here: the TSO had no idea what was in the condoms. What if the person being searched were a prosecutor or defense attorney involved in such a case? Is it your business to have them arrested? Or a parent that has a picture of their child in the bathtub that you spy in their wallet during an SSSS search?

bocastephen

There are mechanisms and authorities in place to find and prosecute child pornography users. Let them do their jobs.

The TSA screeners should be doing theirs. From published track records, the TSA has a very long way to go before one could even conceive they are doing their job effectively.

First, master the art of finding guns and bombs in luggage - then you can come back with an argument about finding other things.

n5667

The issue is, and maybe you're missing it, is that we don't actively search for drugs or child porn... at least we're not supposed to...

bocastephen

But you are (I am saying many screeners in general, not you specifically) being compensated by, and encouraged by local police to bring any such finds to their attention. That means your focus is distracted, search policy or not.

What you seem to be missing is our point - if you see something not related to airport security, we expect you to ignore it and move on. Just like if I see some kids lighting up their marijuana cigarettes or someone doing a line of coke in the bathroom, I just shake my head, mind my own business and move on. I don't go running to the cops and tattle on them. Neither should you.

secretbunnyboy

Surely it ought to depend on what the crime is.