I guess you can change the facts,circumstances,or situation all you want, but bottom line is that you shouldn't be so stupid to bring your crack/meth/weed on the plane because if it is found you'll be busted and it WILL stick. I had a Sergeant Major who loved to use the term sheethouse lawyers, and man does it apply here.

This case worth reading in its entirety, including the concurrence.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/30028140CA10BD7B882573330053CB88/$file/0410226.pdf?openelement

(I'm not sure why FT is not making the above a link. Oh well, just cut & paste into your browser.)

The defendant is guilty of, among other things, criminal stupidity. If you're going to smuggle 50g of crystal meth from HNL to KOA, then:

1) Get some ID, and
2) Don't bring a pipe with you, and
3) If you insist on bringing a pipe with you, put it in checked luggage.

Unless a court decides otherwise under a challenge of legality and/or constitutionality. Which is actually what we house lawyers are discussing.

The law is sometimes an @ss. Not the only thing.

Man, somebody that gets it ^

:D:D:D:D

And if I were busted, it'd be the first thing challenged.

Is it stupid, sure. Doesn't make your actions as a TSO any better though.

Guess that's like calling a TSO a "security expert", eh chief? :rolleyes:

And what would a TSO do when he/she found that pipe in checked luggage? Or do they only care when they feel you up?

We probably have the same result if it's found in the checked luggage. Odds are, however, they never would have found it there. Remember, this pipe was small enough that it didn't set off the magnetic screener. It was at secondary when the pipe triggered the wand. The guy never would have had a secondary if he had gotten ID.

This was not a hard case. Note that this was an en banc panel of 15 Ninth Circuit judges, and that the decision was unanimous. The only thing that made this case a little different was that the 9th Circuit needed to overrule some of its dubious precedents. To do that, it must sit en banc.

How do you have any idea at all as to whether it is an illegal drug? You have had zero training from the TSA in identifying such (because if the TSA would train, then they could no longer say they are only searching for prohibited items.) As such, it must be from personal observation, which wouldn't reflect well on most. There is no requirement for you to be able to say whether a bag of oregano might be a bag of marijuana or a white powdery substance might be anything other than flour, so TSO's should just let it go. The TSA knows that it is walking a very fine line in telling TSO's to report illegal drugs, but not giving them the tools to determine what might be illegal. Too many false positives can therefore result.

Yes, just like the passenger that is being sought when a terminal is dumped is always found. :rolleyes: About as likely as passing a Red Team Test.

TSA doesn't need the tools to ID drugs, that's why you call the LEO's with the druggie test kit. If you find anything that looks suspicious it gets reported.


More often than not you'd be running without your ID or boarding pass. A video of the whole thing would be turned over so they probably would visit you at home.

These responses to this ruling are so bizarre it unbelievable. Most of you would rather have some crack head on the plane only because the TSA found his stash during what you percieve to be an illegal search even though the most far left liberal court said it was a good bust. Where are your minds? Your telling me that you'd rather have this doped up individual sitting beside you or even your family? How would you react if this crack head decided to do some hits in the lav and your plane was immediately landed to remove him, I guess THAT would be WRONGPeople smoking this crap are not in their right mind but hey, they got rights. Sounds like a somebody listens to Amy Goodman way too much.

While I am perfectly OK with reporting drugs and drug dealers to the authorities, the matter of the fact is that by doing that you are going beyond your training and authority.
Your job is to screen passengers for weapons and explosives, take away bottles of water and shaving cream, tell us to take the shoes off our feet and laptops out of our bags, pass down the trays, harrass grandmothers because "you never know nowadays" and mothers with toddlers because they spilled some water on the floor and for that reason they are "suspicious"

So, do ONLY the job you are trained to do. Bark orders from 20 feet away and take away my shampoo bottle. God knows I could blow up a plane with my bottle of Herbal Essence.

You want to go above and beyond? How about being a DECENT HUMAN BEING to other decent human beings. And how about actually FINDING a bomb or a gun.

Unless of course, TSA is an extension of LEOs... From the passengers' point of view it certainly seems so.

Mission creep anyone?

Uh huh. We see how much video has helped in terminal dump cases. :rolleyes:

There's this little thing called the Constitution. If you choose to wipe your a$$ with it, that's your call. It's a darn shame considering the oath of office all federal workers take to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic."

As long as the crackhead behaves himself on board like everyone else, I have no problem. I don't know any of the other people on board the plane, so I already have to trust they'll behave themselves.

You see it as ok to trample on someone's rights because they're a piece of human garbage. While I agree that that person might be so, that doesn't give you or any other government actor the right to trample on his rights. Otherwise, the Orwellian principle of "everyone is created equal, but some are more equal than others" applies.

Amy Goodman :rolleyes: Please. I'm a registered Republican and I think this is crap.

Super

I see. So the rule of law and the Constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure should be set aside because of the drug problem. Interesting. Wasn't that the mantra during the Clinton years when Herr Reno goose-stepped her way across the Constitution? I think you're a few years late with that bogeyman argument - today, we justify our Constitutional abuses by our fear of terrorists.

The court's own reasoning for this ruling was as flawed as the ruling itself. The whole lot of them should be booted from the bench.