About covers it I think.

Pity we have to go through this again every time though.

Eagerly awaiting the list of terrorists convicted of surveillance at airports. Ah, never mind terrorists, I'll settle for anyone.

If you intend to stick around Sarge, it might be worth reading the TOS.

I am not putting words in your mouth. In your own clarification, you specified your concern as one of traffic:

As for the topic at hand, this thread was about a passenger being required to remove orthopedic shoes and the photography suggestion was mentioned as a remedy for a TSO concealing their ID.

I'm entirely on topic and simply responding to what you said. I posited that, since the TSO in question is already gumming up the works with an improper request to remove medical devices, improperly withholding comment cards, and improperly concealing their ID, taking a photo to identify this TSO can hardly add to the disruption of the "flow" with which you are so concerned -- especially if the victim of this TSO is seated and without their shoes, well out of the "flow".

Let me know how you read into this? I have already listed how the airport is owned, and I am well aware of the link you provided. I actually have a PowerPoint that is more detailed than the website. I'm talking about property and the right we have to remove people from it. You start spouting about US Court cases involving the distribution of religious literature. Did I say that we kick out Jehovah's witnesses for passing out material? We allow such, but it is a certain time & place so as not to disrupt normal airport traffic, just as those who want to picket about breast-feeding (this occurred due to a Delta Flight Attendant asking a mother to cover up). I know what I can and can't do (as I've already stated several times).

Again...time, place, and business doing there. I will find out why. Whether a private photographer or the Channel 4 News, permission is required in most cases. If the photographer does not want to cooperate (providing ID, reason there, etc), then he will be leaving. Refusal to leave will result in a possible arrest. If he is cooperative, not getting in the way, and is not taking pictures of the screening process, he's good to go. It's not that hard to understand, and in fact the website you provided mentions cooperation with law enforcement.

Arrests were involved, but since the case has yet to go to court, I am not spilling out names and information. You will just have to wait.

With regards to money seizures, normally arrests are not involved. Even if they were, drug-interdiction related convictions are rarely published because those persons work as informants in many cases, or in some fashion that posting the information on public record would compromise an investigation and/or their safety. And please don't give the "hiding behind the log" spill.

So I'm fabricating stories now?? Whatever you (and Wally) want to believe, no skin off my back. I still sleep good at night.

I'm pretty sure they are similar to the TOS on other forums, and although it may have been a knee-jerk post, I do not take kindly to those who call me a liar or attempt to imply LEOs are fools. You may not have typed the words, but it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out what you are implying. Have you ever worked in law enforcement? Do you know the type of intel that is gathered on a local, state, and federal level? Just because you are a DHS/TSA hater does not give you the right to make a general assumption that law enforcement and others follow each other like sheep and believe everything that those above them tell them. To assume such is an insult to those who put their lives on the line for you.

One thing to keep in mind here Sarge ... there are a lot of people on here who have seen, work with and even write intel reports at the federal level. I'm not going to go into it any more than that. I wouldn't automatically assume that people here have an uninformed opinion on what the government does ... many have "inside" knowledge just as you do.

So keep in mind that the assumptions and generalizations cut both ways.

Fair enough...I apologize for the insult. I just get a little passionate about my job from time to time. ^

If I misconstrued your post I apologize, but it certainly seemed you were concerned about terrorists using cameras to reconnoitre the security checkpoint. That my friend is a threat(sic) which is both unsubstantiated and frankly not credible.
First, nobody at an airport checkpoint is putting their life on the line. Second, I will admit to hating a few people in this world, but DHS/TSA personnel are not among them. Disdain, yes.

Alright, a certain percentage of law enforcement and others do indeed believe everything they are told from above and follow orders or instructions without question. You may not fall into that category, but a sufficient number do that I stand by my original generalization.

It doesn't appear that you do know the status of your airport as on at least two prior occasions you call it private property, which it is not.


Spouting? The case was one example of the differences between airports and private property. And based on your statements, I don't believe that you do completely understand constitutional law and its application to airports.

I will ask again, what law would you cite for trying to stop an individual for a non-business purpose from taking photographs on airport property when that person is in a public place? What are your "rules"? The TSA SOP says that you can take pictures of the screening process provided you are not interfering with the process. A FSD is not permitted to be more restrictive than the SOP, so if you are kicking people out of the airport for taking photos of the screening process (other than what is shown on the x-ray monitors), then you will not have a legal basis for your decision to evict.


I am always amused when someone comes on the board and intimates the big catch, but then is unwilling to provide the backup information to substantiate the claim. Arrests are public records as well so let's not hide behind the log. ;) It will be interesting to see what, if any, convictions actually result. And I will ask again, were the "large scale criminal plans" involved with directly disrupting the air transportation sector? If not, then it is not germane to the issues at hand.

Spill? As for not on the public record, I didn't realize that a Star Chamber was located in Nashville.

No "laws" involved. Someone simply at the airport to take photos will be questioned. Refusal to cooperate as to their intentions will result in their removal of the airport. As I say refuse to cooperate and refuse to leave, you end up in jail. Challenge it in the courts if you are so sure of yourself.

Again, not the same status as a public (downtown) sidewalk as you keep referring. Maybe not as private as Bass Pro Shops, but it is an entity that owns, maintains, and protects its own property. It owns 507 properties to be exact, of which link I could provide on the property assessors office.

Not a huge catch, but a catch involving surveillance practices and substantial money/goods losses (involving aircraft). I do not know why you keep saying arrests and "public record." It is getting old. If you want some arrests involving the air transportation sector, do some googling. I do not need to prove myself to you or anyone else. To imply that I am lying is showing some lack of maturity on your end. I have no reason to fabricate stories.

I am done with this thread. I am not in the convincing business for those who are set in their ways. I have been in the field long enough to know what I can and cannot do, and what will hold in the courts in my area. With a 100% conviction rate on my part, I am more than happy to do what I need to do.

You're right, you are on topic. Since I wasn't there for the orthopedic removal, or the badge showing refusal, I can't say whether this impeded the flow of traffic or not. I work at a small CP that has a high flow of people. There is not much room to move. If people don't need to be there, they are in the way.

Oh the danger, Oh the humanity, Oh my
 

Sorry, you are dead wrong in that comment. Screeners are the self described Front Line in the War on Terror and deserve high risk pay as much as any soldier dodging IEDs in Iraq. TSOs have to have one of the most dangerous jobs in America. Every screener at every airport puts their life on the line every second of every working hour. Every screener is forced to work their entire shift standing next to an open plastic trash can full of Hazmat high explosive water and toothpaste. :rolleyes:

Really? Somehow or another I don't quite believe that.

Not every encounter results in an arrest. Not every arrest results in a charge. Not every charge goes to trial.

A great deal of bother can be inflicted on the public by a LEO without threatening a 1.000 batting average.

Is that clear to everyone now ? Take a photo in a public place (BNA) and you will be questioned. Probable cause ? Terry stop ? Not important, remember there are no laws involved. You will be questioned because Sgt. Scott thinks you deserve to be questioned. Object and you will be arrested.Thanks for posting. Always useful to hear the other side. Really.

Who was it that said "To a dog, the everything is a fire hydrant..." ?