While waiting for an AA flight in SAT this morning I observed two TSOs with their standard issue blue latex gloves wandering through the gate area randomly asking people to go through their carryon luggage... Made me wonder if they were worried that their crack staff at the checkpoint failed to find WMDs or perhaps a 4 oz bottle of shampoo that may bring down the plane...

I had not seen this anywhere else in my travels recently and wondered if this is SOP in SAT or if we can expect this nonsense to continue in other airports.

--DD73

File a complaint with AA, TSA, and your representatives.

There is no valid excuse for this nonsense - it's purely passenger harassment. Those responsible for this idiocy should be severely punished for their disgusting, un-American deeds.

yes but don't forget to make them change their gloves before examining your bag (or patting you down for that matter). if they balk, it's tough cookies on them as that is their own s.o.p. generally, i won't use that method but if they give me the just the slighest bit of un-professional (n.b. un-professional) grief about my orthotics and not removing my shoes, it's clean gloves please and they WILL perfrom everything by the numbers with a supervisor present

If the TSOs are just wandering through the gate area, I hope any pax whom they approached would have said "no, you may not." I presume one does not have the opportunity to do that at specific gate checks - but just wandering asking to search people's bags is too much.

Unfortunately, you've given your implied consent to be searched and that consent continues whenever you're in the sterile area. It's maddening, but that's the way it is.

If you want to know what I consent to, ask me. If you feel that you have to tell me what I consent to, that's not consent.

Unfortunately I was not approached but I hate to say that every person whom was approached complied with no questions asked (and I actually only saw the one TSO change his gloves once during the time I was observing him).

I have not seen this anywhere else except for SAT and was just curious if this was part of some "surge" or whatever they are calling it these days. If it is I would hate to see this migrate to other airports since not one person questioned why the extra search was necessary.

--DD73

I can't remember for sure, but I think PatrickHenry on here was approached awhile back by a TSA agent in the concourse and asked to search his bag. He told them he was a lawyer, that it violated his 4th amendment rights and to get bent.

The TSO moved onto someone else and searched another person's bag.

Hope he can confirm this.

(In best Ed McMahon voice) You are correct, sir, yes!!!

I used the magic term that the TSA screener had "no particularized suspicion of involvement in criminal activity", contrary to the standard enunciated in Terry v. Ohio and that a search occurred at the checkpoint. Another passenger allowed this search near the gateof his person and property.

Folks, let's knock off the "gate goons" "burger flippers" and other broad brush insults to the TSA. And especially as we have a FT member who works for SAT TSA.

I've gone through and edited some of the verbiage in this thread.

Thanks for your cooperation.



___________________________

Cholula

Travel Safety/Security Forum Moderator

Yeah, they've been doing that the last two Mondays at SAT. Saw it again this morning in the AA gates. Exactly as described.

A few points.

1) I saw them check a guy with a computer bag and rollaboard. They didn't even open the rollaboard, and they pawed through the computer bag in a cursory manner.

2) They spent almost as much time checking his boarding pass as they did the bag. Didn't ask for ID, just spend 30 seconds looking at the boarding pass.

3) As I watched over a 30 minute period, I saw them check 6-8 passengers.

4) As a "search", this was an effort that was worse than useless. It was a waste of TSA time, and an inconvenience to the passengers. It was, at best, theater.

With all due respect to our resident TSA person (who works that terminal), while I am opposed to the gate searches at the outset, if such searches are going to be done, at least make them good theater. What I saw was a HUGE waste of time. It wasn't even good theater.

So, I just say to [the screener] that he has no particularized suspicions of [my] involvement in criminal activity, and that's the end of it?

Obviously, I can't say that I'm an attorney; what if they pull "do you want to fly today?" on me?

This kind of behavior on TSA's part is really unacceptable.

What happens if you're delayed on your way to your flight at the last minute and end up missing the flight? At least one major airline has already shown that they are unwilling to accommodate passengers who are waylayed by government agents.

What happens if you're flying in NW coach, only have a 30-40 minute connection and need a meal before the next flight?

Or when my wife often desparately needs a restroom but prefers to head for a lounge where the facilities are cleaner and less crowded, so some {pre-deleted} picks her out for inopportune harassment? And don't say it won't happen, because they've already shown that they're capable harassing her -- petite 50-something blonde-haired Swedish American -- on a jetway.

And how well-trained are these people in terms of selecting their subjects? Suppose a bearded Arabic-looking persona disembarks from ATL-C, runs over to Chick-Filet in ATL-B (or is it ATL-A), then scurries off to ATL-D to catch his jungle jet. How many random harassments will he be subjected to between flights? After all, flying while Arab is pretty serious business.

At least when they do this on a jetway (which still illustrates how worthless their security must be to start with) the plane isn't going anywhere until everyone has received his or her due harassement.

This is part of the "surge" TSA referred to in a public release a couple months ago. There's already another thread that covers this, so it should be no surprise to anyone. SAT is not the only airport that is doing this.

FWIW, I agree with many of the comments that this specific activity is a waste of time. However, there are other related activities that do have some value to it such as screening employee entrances at SIDA gates and terminal security sweeps. Although, terminal security sweeps is something that I think is more of an airport police function, and we're fast becoming a pain in the neck for the airport PD because we're pretty thorough at identifying potential security gaps.

I think it's very safe to assume that all the TSOs pretty much feel the same as I do and are very reluctant to perform gate screenings. But the message from up above (TSA HQs) is crystal clear. And the manner of how they're conducted (stadium security checks of bags as opposed to really searching bags) is all part of the program. I think many TSOs also feel the same way about that, too: we know it's not very thorough, but we are following a very precisely-worded set of instructions.

As for refusing to cooperate in one of these gate screenings: do so at your own risk. You are always free to refuse, just accept the consequences that result. In this case, you're looking at being escorted out of the terminal as a minimum, and, depending on how you refuse, being arrested as a maximum.

Oh. Wait. It's Summer travel season. Ma and Pa Kettle are on the road. "Look Ma, those nice young people from the TSA are making us safer. Gosh, anything to keep us safe from those bad people."

Meanwhile, cargo continues to be unscreened in any meaningful way, the airfield employees aren't screened in any meaningful way. Deliveries to the airfield aren't screened in any meaningful way.

So let's play this bit of Potemkin theatre out a bit...

Let's say that one of Bart's folks actually finds something -- gosh knows how -- but they actually manage to stumble upon a device (and I mean something much more sinister than an undeclared bottle of contact solution) in someone's bag (and clearly that "someone" will need to have been stupid enough to passively sit and wait to be searched). But let's say they actually get lucky. What does that prove?

Oh, it "proves" that random searches post-checkpoint "work". It also proves that checkpoint screening is ineffective or that airfield screening is ineffective, or that security checks of employees is effective, or that screening of deliveries is ineffective. What it would "prove" is that the whole system failed. But we already know that.

So rather than putting resources into "behind the scenes" work that might actually enhance security, the brain trust, once again, needs to provide a "show of force" (with emphasis on the "show") that wastes resources and provides no effective benefit in terms of real security enhancement.