Since a pax in the sterile area has already cleared security, could a claim of double jeopardy be invoked? You cleared me once; you cannot look again.

I am aware that double jeopardy applies to cases heard in court. However, it does seem to me that once you have passed through the "court" of the checkpoint (where travelers are often tried and convicted without due process ), it seems to me that you should be considered cleared and any other searches are purely harrassment.

I believe this stems from the several incidents involving airline employees, in particular the one in Orlando involving the bag full of firearms smuggled in by airline baggage handlers. The majority of these activities are oriented towards that, and I see that as a good thing. I think the majority of TSOs believe as I do in that airline and airport employees with the SIDA access privileges ought to be screened just like everyone else. And while I believe physical checks of the terminals, gate areas, public lobbies, restrooms, etc. are a prudent move, I don't believe TSOs ought to perform these functions, but that comes with the program. (I believe either the airport police ought to perform these functions or the airlines should hire private security guards to do these functions.) While I'm not too thrilled about checking aircraft, I think it's a prudent security move and, just like the terminal sweeps, either the airline crew ought to do this as a part of their routine or a private security company ought to do this. My emphasis on private security companies is grounded in my belief that TSOs ought to limit their duties strictly to passenger checkpoint screening, checked baggage screening and, in this instance, airline employee screening.

And by the way, this program also includes screening at vehicular entrances which include delivery trucks. I don't know about other airports, but the private security guards at SAT do inspect delivery trucks.

As for cargo screening, again, the airlines accept unscreened cargo. We screen a small percentage of cargo placed aboard passenger planes. You get no argument from me that anything and everything placed on board a passenger plane should be screened under the exact same standards as checked luggage. But I remind you that it's the airlines who insist on accepting unscreened cargo---for a fee.

As for finding items that slipped through the checkpoint, first of all, we're not worried about liquids. AFAIK, the only item found so far in the four weeks or so that we've been doing this was a small pocketknife with a one-inch blade. Yeah, technically a prohibited item, but nothing to get upset over although the suits upstairs had their comments.

Gate screening is the only aspect of the program I disagree with. But overall, I think the overall procedure is sound; it just needs some adjustments. We barely have enough TSOs to do our primary jobs, and I'm not thrilled about having these additional duties without the additional resources. I'd sure hate to resort to the salami slice approach (those who served in the Army during the 80's should understand what I mean), and there's already talk about doing just that.

I'll second that. Especially when I saw one checkpoint lane closed a week ago Monday (6 AM-ish, when the lines back up), while two TSA screeners were wandering around the gate area looking in bags of folks waiting for flights.

Remember that one way those in power keep their power over the people is through shows of force and constant public promotion. No reflection on those in the trenches, but this kind of policy is intended only to be effective as a show of force by those up above. My opinion only.

As usual way to go Spiff a BIG +1^ ^

PatrickHenry1775 Come in where are you comments on last paragraph. Thanks.

Except at its own checkpoints and security procedures.

I have a problem with this. I was checked and already cleared at the checkpoint. And now by refusing to be checked AGAIN after I've already been checked that I would be denied boarding? Do you not see a problem with this?

But Kippie already said that it was a waste of time and he didn't want to bother with screening cargo. Probably because it wasn't visible to Ma and Pa and therefore "not important."

Airlines already accept cargo - passengers - for a fee. Cargo isn't any different, except that it gets a free pass and its contents hidden.

And this shows what a waste of time the program is.

No, it shows that the TSA is doing excellent job at the screening checkpoints. Those tests that showed high failure rates were just not credible.

Did you not see the sign when you passed security? All passengers and items past security are "subject to continuous search." You accepted these terms by continuing through the checkpoint. This has been posted at every TSA checkpoint I've passed through in the last year.

I'm not saying it's right, but those are the posted terms.

Actually, I haven't.

And just because the sign is up doesn't make it legal either.

Yeah, I'll roll my eyes at you on that one as well. There, tit for tat. Satisfied?

TSO is following an approved screening procedure and the person being screened refuses to be screened. Doesn't matter if this is at the gate well past the checkpoint.

Do I see a problem with it? Of course I do, but not for the same reasons you do. I see it strictly from an operational standpoint: you've already been screened and cleared, it's a waste of my scarce resources to screen you again. However, from a legal standpoint, nope, I don't see a problem. Once you've entered the checkpoint, you agree to be screened. Period. End of discussion.

Will this stand in a court challenge? I don't know. I think the reason why it will is because this is an administrative search and not a law enforcement one. I'm pretty sure it's safe to assume that this will show up in court. But that will be after the sequence of events I described earlier take place: person refuses, police are notified and individual is escorted out of the terminal. The arrests I was referring to was in the case when an individual becomes belligerent or violent, but then that falls under a different category. And I've already had passengers throw things on the floor and make a big fuss with my TSOs. Fortunately, the TSO in that situation was a retired Marine Gunnery Sergeant with an incredible amount of patience, tact and diplomacy; and the individual not only decided to cooperate, but he later came back to apologize to my TSO for his conduct.

You're always free to test the waters and refuse a gate screening, or you can b#tch about it online.

Your choice, pal.

Agreed.

And I left the checkpoint after that. I'm no longer at the checkpoint then.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think the argument could be made that once outside the checkpoint and cleared that subsequent searches could be harassment and/or violate the 4th amendment. Sure, it's a stretch, but so is calling everything an administrative search too.

TSA searched. TSA cleared the individual. Person leaves checkpoint. TSA's job is done. End of story.

We'll see what happens next time I fly. Maybe I'll wear my KHIAI t-shirt until I get on the plane. Refuse and say I was singled out for exercising free speech. :P

Or are you going to say that's silly too?

Thanks pumpkin.

Would all flying today please look for this alleged "continuous screening" notice at the checkpoint and advise us if in fact such a notice is posted.

Cross-purposes I think. "Continuous screening" at TSA checkpoints is the loophole (or justification, if you prefer) whereby passengers can be selected for additional screening - wanding & pat down - even though the WTMD did not alarm and absent SSSS.

Prior to the 'all shoes' off mandate, CS was most often used as retaliation for declining shoe removal. Don't think it was ever meant for roaming searches beyond the checkpoint, but it certainly could be extended for that purpose without the TSA having to worry about the niceties of law .