|
Originally Posted by Wally Bird
(Post 8341855)
Less, but not none at all. Unless waiting to board an airliner is deemed suspicious activity per se, it should not be subject to any kind of 'stop'.
Too late I fear. A TSA checkpoint is a unique thing. It acts much like a DUI checkpoint or a border checkpoint in many ways. |
Originally Posted by law dawg
(Post 8341171)
I am assuming the ID check is an interview (however brief and cursory) as well, for the record. That's how I've always done ID checks in my professional life - as an opportunity to talk to someone and see what follows from there. 99% of the time nothing. But it's also nabbed me a child molester, several murderers and an unknown number of other violent criminals.
It's like sifting sand - most of it is sand, but every one in a while you find some gold. |
Originally Posted by law dawg
(Post 8341902)
To engage in a simple conversation? I need no suspicion. If I'm saying hello, or whatever, I need no suspicion. If I'm fishing I need something more.
A TSA checkpoint is a unique thing. It acts much like a DUI checkpoint or a border checkpoint in many ways. AIUI the consent to search does not come into effect until you place your bags on the belt or enter the WTMD, which takes care of the 4th Amendment. The line up is not part of the checkpoint, but I imagine you (law-enforcement) would regard anyone who turns and leaves the same as fleeing a roadblock. Luckily (so far) the TSA are not law enforcement. I don't know if it's the 1st Amendment or the 5th which guarantees the right not to engage in simple conversation prior to the checkpoint, but I sure hope one of them does. For a while longer. :o |
I'm not so sure that I see anything wrong with ID verification.
While I disagree with any type of "Papers please" attitude toward the traveling public, keeping people with false identification out of airports is a great idea. Specifically training people to spot ID fraud would benefit those of us in law enforcement tremendously. Conversely, it shouldn't effect law-abiding citizens in any significant manner, if done correctly. To me, the pros far outweigh the cons. The key is training and efficiency. I'm sorry it may have to come to this, but I see plenty of fakes getting through the hands of law enforcement officers who are not properly trained in detection. |
Originally Posted by We Will Never Forget
(Post 8350603)
I'm not so sure that I see anything wrong with ID verification.
ID check in airports has nothing to do with security, just questionable "revenue protection" for the airlines. Your handle disturbs me because I think you have forgotten everything that existed prior to 9/11. |
Originally Posted by birdstrike
(Post 8350659)
You are in favor of random ID checks on public streets?
ID check in airports has nothing to do with security, just questionable "revenue protection" for the airlines. Your handle disturbs me because I think you have forgotten everything that existed prior to 9/11. |
Originally Posted by We Will Never Forget
(Post 8350678)
No, ID checks to keep people with fictitious ID out of airports.
I'm a generally pure-as-the-driven-snow kind of guy, yet some posters here, with their liberal interpretation of what law enforcement should be allowed to do, will surely make a radical of me one day. Your idea of ID checks are anathema to every American Citizen. |
Originally Posted by xyzzy
(Post 8341295)
Let me see if I can put this as plainly as possible. If I don't have a bomb/weapon and I have an airline ticket then I should be able to fly. We should not be turning airport security checkpoints into criminal activity screening areas.
|
I noticed in SLC the other day that they gave the 'doc checkers' podiums to do their jobs behind, does it make them feel more important and safer?
|
Originally Posted by We Will Never Forget
(Post 8350603)
I'm not so sure that I see anything wrong with ID verification.
While I disagree with any type of "Papers please" attitude ..... |
Originally Posted by We Will Never Forget
(Post 8350603)
I'm not so sure that I see anything wrong with ID verification.
... those of us in law enforcement... |
Originally Posted by TransitJohn
(Post 8351065)
EXACTLY!! Also, when I reenter the country, I am subject every time to additional screening through Customs because I have a "common name." John Angloname. When I asked why, I was told it was to fish for people with warrants. There's security for you...unconstitutional criminal screening checkpoints.
Border Searches.That searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border, should, by now, require no extended demonstration. 87 Authorized by the First Congress, 88 the customs search in these circumstances requires no warrant, no probable cause, not even the showing of some degree of suspicion that accompanies even investigatory stops. 89 Moreover, while prolonged detention of travelers beyond the routine customs search and inspection must be justified by the Terry standard of reasonable suspicion having a particularized and objective basis, 90 Terry protections as to the length and intrusiveness of the search do not apply. 91 87 United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 616 (1977) (sustaining search of incoming mail). See also Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U.S. 765 (1983) (opening by customs inspector of locked container shipped from abroad). 88 Act of July 31, 1789, ch. 5, §§ 23, § 24, 1 Stat. 43. See 19 U.S.C. §§ 507, 1581, 1582. 89 Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 154 (1925); United States v. Thirty- Seven Photographs, 402 U.S. 363, 376 (1971); Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 272 (1973). 90 United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985) (approving warrantless detention incommunicado for more than 24 hours of traveler suspected of alimentary canal drug smuggling). 91 Id. A traveler suspected of alimentary canal drug smuggling was strip searched, and then given a choice between an abdominal x-ray or monitored bowel movements. Because the suspect chose the latter option, the court disavowed decision as to what level of suspicion, if any, is required for . . . strip, body cavity, or involuntary x-ray searches. Id. at 541 n.4. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf/con015.pdf |
Originally Posted by iCorpRoadie
(Post 8351408)
I noticed in SLC the other day that they gave the 'doc checkers' podiums to do their jobs behind, does it make them feel more important and safer?
|
Originally Posted by exerda
(Post 8353506)
Sounds like they are spending our "9/11 fee" (or, if it's not the TSA providing the document "experts" yet at SLC, then our PFCs) quite wisely indeed. :mad:
|
Originally Posted by law dawg
(Post 8326598)
Hmmm, that may or not be true.
What if a LE used an illegal search but locked up the next Ted Bundy. Or a guy with a "suitcase nuke?" (if such a thing exists in today's technology, but I'm exaggerating to make a point....) What is the best benefit to society? Tough question.... |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 5:43 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.