I'll see if I can look deeper into this definition issue. I think it's in everyone's best interests to get it squashed.

As for point two, I think I covered this - yes, a good citizen looks out for his fellow citizens, but that does not include tattling on people when you notice they have cash, drugs, or feigning panic because someone looks different. It does suggest getting involved when someone's health, safety or property is at risk - none of which is covered by excess cash, drugs, porn or religious texts which are not Christian in nature.

Neither, by simple inspection, is LAX, nor ART, nor SYR nor MCO or TPA. I doubt PHL or DCA, or LGA to just think of a few, meet this envisioned standard, either. In Sgt. Scott's own words, however, it's a federal mandate that a one minute response time is required for LEO's to airport check-points. (I guess if he's arresting at one pier for taking photos or just for genuine attitude :rolleyes: he get's a bye, though)

Well, you are correct, currently, under the highest court ruling such a challenge has ever reached, IIRC. Good luck keeping the courts aligned with you, going forward, as you keep reciting the mantra that all who enter the sanctity of an airport check-point "implicitly consented" to your "probable cause" conclusions simply because eg, one is carrying > $10,000 in cash, took photographs of your sanctified little area, or otherwise disrupted the happy-faced, facile dragnet you seem to have constructed at BNA. And now you feel qualified to conclude what a court ruling would have been in a different time with different evidence? When earlier in the post, referring to a circuit court decision, you use such loose, impenetrable terms as "US justices?",
You are one simple, but very dangerous person, and nothing you wrote since you first appeared here makes me want to do anything save give BNA as wide of a berth as feasible. We're probably both a lot happier that way. :(

The Circuits will likely split on this issue as more cases are challenged in other areas of the country. The 4th amd. is making a small comeback around the country.

You just made an argument for putting checkpoints at every street corner, allowing random police searches of homes, throwing out the 4th Amendment completely, etc. The founders knew better than to allow that, because the perceived gain in security/safety wasn't worth the loss of liberty. It's disturbing that many if not most of our law-enforcement community doesn't understand that.

Rewording what you just said (replace aircraft with "foot"):

Are you happy to have the government set up a checkpoint at your front door? I'm not.

And the patriots danced in the streets.

Probable cause has nothing to do with airport-security checkpoints. As deemed by the courts, it is an administrative search. You try so hard to make things sound so bad and twist words of others to fit your responses. I have stated time and time again that the $10k mark has nothing to do with the small amount of seizures that occur at airports. A large sum of money (normally much more than $10k) plus several other factors will lead to law enforcement intervention and possibly seizure of the currency. Unless you have law enforcement experience, and specifically interdiction experience, I would not expect you or others here to understand.

As far as "qualifications," I simply stated an opinion. Why don't you give your argument as to why you think the 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals would have ruled differently in the Aukai case had it been private security instead of TSA who discovered the felony amount of drugs? As far as "loose impenetrable" terms go, I apologize for being too lazy to type out US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Justices. Give me a break. :rolleyes: Facile dragnet? How is BNA any different from any other checkpoint where possible contraband/drugs are reported by TSA that are discovered during the screening process. Are you seriously implying that this is something new to the checkpoint community? It seems that many here forget this has been done since screening began. Get over it man.

And for God's sake, why don't you and boca come off the photograph issue. I'm pretty sure I could dig up the aged-old post where I simply advised that BNA has a policy against commercial photography/video without consent from the Airport Authority. I could care less about passengers taking pictures. I love how you and others try to dig up as much as possible, twist it to make me sound like an a**hole and repost it again and again. No wonder law enforcement and others looking in from another angle are few and far between on this forum. Heaven forbid there is a difference of opinion aside from the majority on FT. :p

Not sure where you get that from, but I assure you, I am fine with the checkpoints being where they are. As I stated a page or so ago, I do not see anything that would indicate such checkpoints are going to pour out onto the streets.

I don't know that it would have been different with Whackenhut, Argenbright, etc.

What I do think would be different is the reason WHY they found the search to be reasonable. They cited terrorism and probing as why the search was reasonable, which I think is pretty dubious ground. Had the search been found unreasonable, the evidence would have been tossed. I think in a pre-9/11 enviornment, a judge would have taken a different view of what was reasonable.

Also keep in mind this is just one ruling with regards to it. I'm not sure if it's binding precedent or not. I'd like to see it go up to the Supremes. I don't know that it's valid outside the 9th.

If evidence can be tossed even when a warrant is present because an LEO exceeded the scope, I think a challenge is in the making for challenging an administrative search's scope.

Super

While the Founding Fathers have been rolling in their graves.

Not that it matters that much in the context, but I believe they are Judges, not Justices.

As far as Aukai is concerned, that set of facts is pretty narrow.

When was I chirping over photography beyond the standard and often encountered response from airport and street police when they see someone taking photos and try to invent non-existent authority or laws to stop it, or even try and confiscate the camera equipment. If a facility wishes to control commercial photography, they do, as you point out, have a right to offer or deny permission. A private citizen has the right to photograph any public building or facility, except where a prohibition is posted (military base, etc.). A private citizen may photograph any private facility or building if they are doing their photographing from public property - which is why, for example, American Airlines cannot prohibit me from taking photos of their aircraft from public property, but can prohibit photography of their crew while onboard the plane (private property).

As to the issue presented in this thread, I will only repeat what I've written countless times, and where I find very deep fault with silly judges who trip over themselves trying to play 'tough on crime'. Fruits of an Administrative search must be restricted to items germane to the purpose of the search - if the search is required for aviation security, the only admissible fruits should be guns, knives, bombs or other threats to aviation security. Period. Franky, the TSA should have absolutely positively no business calling the police over for 10K of cash, drugs, porn or anything else unless it's an obvious crime involving safety or property (a head in a bag, for example).

If the TSA or any authority conducting an administrative search (and this would include everyone from building security to the security checking your bags before you board the Statue of Liberty ferry) wants to involve the police, and the search will change from administrative to criminal, then the person being searched must be given the opportunity to refuse the criminal search, and the 'tattle' offered to the police cannot in itself be sufficient grounds to hold the person and their bags and request a warrant. Only an intelligent, properly informed and Constitutionally-aware judge would rule in this manner - but unfortunately, most of our judges have become lackeys to the criminal justice system and are no longer fair and balanced arbiters who are focused on ensuring justice is served and our rights are protected.

You may be perfectly fine with it. Unfortunately, apparently some of your law-enforcement brethren see it differently: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...ak-police.html

I agree, but the main airport Terminal (although open to the public) can create and enforce its own policies.

MNAA Code #2.60.230 Photography.

No person shall take still, sound or motion pictures for commercial use on airport property without the approval of the executive director or his designated representative. This does not apply to those taken on lease airport tenant areas for private or promotional purposes.
(Prior code § 4A-1-15)

If you are in the Terminal building and/or on airport property, the above policy applies for those taking still, sound or motion pictures for commercial use. The latter of the policy indicates that we do not have control over those taking pictures in leased areas, only the leasee. So if you are in the common areas of the building (whether before or after security), or on surrounding airport properties and taking photos for commercial use, you need permission. If you do not have permission, you need to get it or you will be asked to leave. Refusal to comply could possibly lead to criminal trespass charges. You and others must understand that there are actually people who conduct surveillance for criminal purposes. We investigated some individuals not too long ago conducting surveillance on a large computer facility adjacent to airport property, who turned up a few weeks later in NC. Subsequent investigation revealed they were cargo thieves (out of South America) who had a history of stealing millions in equipment from distribution centers. Although there are probably far more that take photos with non-criminal intentions, should we allow anyone and everyone to take photos without so much as to walking up and asking them questions (non-detention/non-custodial situation)?

Here is where you and I will have to agree to disagree. I'm sure you are aware that the 9th Circuit has some of the more liberal judges than the other appellate courts across the US. There were actually many in the law enforcement community that were surprised in this ruling. I do not see many judges across the other federal courts who will disagree with the Aukai ruling, but that has yet to be determined.

In my eyes, simply allowing anyone to leave a security checkpoint after a search has been initiated (by putting bags on the x-ray belt and/or walking through the WTMD) gives every terrorist (or anyone else with the intent do to public harm) the opportunity to test the system and get away without a scratch if their test fails. If joe plumber knows that he can simply walk away from a search, then what good is a checkpoint? If his bag gets pulled for secondary screening because something is suspicious on the x-ray, and he says "no, I want to take my bag and leave the secure area," what the he** is the point of even having a checkpoint? Eventually if enough tests are conducted, someone is going to get through. Guess who is going to take the blow? TSA or whomever is doing the screening. So basically from your standpoint, they are dam*ed if they do, dam*ned if they don't.

I would think that most judges who get appointed, specifically at the federal appellate level or SCOTUS are very "Constitutionally aware" of what is going on with searches, especially at federally mandated checkpoints.

You can start a conversation with whomever you want-- the bigger question is what do you do if/when that person tells you go pound sand.

How sad (and scary) is it when our liberty and private property rights hinge on Sgt Scott's "feelings"? :td: :rolleyes:
I always get a chuckle when people who don't know the difference between mute and moot call others "dumb". :cool:

I imagine living in a police state is not so bad when you ARE the police. :mad:

Where I felt "based on training, experience and knowledge of interdiction."

Is that better?

You know what I mean, but it's so much easier to try and chomp at the bit isn't it? Hurts to know when there is something that you disagree with (no matter how little you know about it) that you cannot do anything about.

Typing at 80+ words per minute, it's definitely not the first time I've typed one thing and meant another out of several thousand posts. Any more attempted insults you want to throw this way?

Are you planning on contributing anything that relates to the topic at hand? Or do I need to start my next post with "Sticks and stones..?"

What if someone remains silent when questioned about his money?
 

What do you do if that person remains silent? You've not seen him doing anything wrong. You find on him an amount of money that you consider to be suspicious. You, a police officer, give him a chance to convince you that he is not doing anything wrong by carrying that money. He remains silent. What then?

Why shouldn't we put gov't checkpoints on the streets?
 

Would you be fine with the checkpoints being elsewhere?

I don't think anyone here has argued that you have seen anything indicating that we'll be putting checkpoints on the street. In your opinion, SgtScott31, should we put government checkpoints on the streets? If you think not, then why not? Now assume that cost of erecting and operating the checkpoints is not prohibitive. Should we do it? If not, why not?

Police officer thinks checkpoint should be dragnet, not a search for dangerous items
 

Yes! A hundred times, yes! If someone is simply photographing in that situation, leave him alone. As for the "non-detention/non-custodial" nature of your interrogation, it is for all intents and purposes not such if you are taking advantage of someone's ignorant belief that when a police officer questions him, he does not have the option to simply walk away from you. I suspect that you know as well as I do that in most such cases, you will be taking advantage of someone's misperception of the extent of your authority.

Therein lies the crux of the issue. In your hypothetical situation, the checkpoint is still good for keeping dangerous items off airplanes -- its stated purpose and the reason for which we allow these otherwise unconsitutional searches at airports -- but it's not so good for conducting an unconstitutional dragnet operation. The latter is what you want, isn't it?

Your opinions are dangerous to the United States of America -- more so if you are truly an officer of the law.

Phil, even when we don't see eye to eye I love watching you get fired up. ^

I think you may be missing the original point here. If someone can walk away from a search at a TSA checkpoint, a malicious group can simply keep testing the checkpoint using different methods of concealment until one works. In this way they can, without penalty, learn how to bring some dangerous item on a plane (such as a gun or 4 ounce bottle of shampoo), and then actually do it.

If you assume the TSA's approach to security is fundamentally reasonable (ha ha) then this line of reasoning does have merit.

That was the logic the courts used to hold up a supposed consensual search that you can't revoke consent on. Glad they are not dating any of my daughters.

Normally I don't detain unless (a) I have reasonable suspicion to do so, or (b) I am told to by the Feds. Besides, I don't have a problem letting anyone walk by. If they actually turn out to be someone wanted, they get stopped on the other end. No skin off my back.

It is not my intention at all to take advantage of anybody. Walking up and asking someone some questions does not interpret into a detention or cutodial situation. If someone feels that way, then it is ignorance on their part, not mine. The courts agree.

For the same reason everyone else does not want a checkpoint out on the street. Problem is, FlyerTalk folks feel that checkpoints are not necessary at airports unless the TSOs apply horse-blinders and only look for C4 and Uzis. I have never expected a checkpoint to do my job for me, but I DO expect anyone with a conscious to report illegal items to the authorities just as I would expect someone to report crimes witnessed on the streets. You all disagree. That's your right.

Why? because they are different from yours? My opinions are reinforced by the mere fact that contraband discovered at checkpoints and reported has been upheld in every court since the beginning of aviation screening.

You took my statement out of context. I asked what good is a security checkpoint if someone with weapons can simply discontinue the screening process if they know they are about to get caught? This is what occurred with Aukai. Although it was drugs, what if it was a pistol or explosives? Would I hear any griping from you then? You simply can't have it both ways. Citizens of this country should be able to report illegal activities to the police. As long as TSA's primary focus is on dangerous items, why is it so wrong that they also report other contraband to law enforcement? How do you impose a policy that forces them to turn a blind eye to anything but weapons? It just isn't going to happen. So all this bickering is not really worth it now is it?

As other have said, Yes.

Some evildoers have engaged in a particular activity. Drug smugglers carry large sums of cash, cargo thieves take pictures at an airport, Richard Reid wore shoes. This doesn't make everyone with cash, a camera and/or shoes an evildoer, or even suspicious. As you say, there are far more (no "probably" about it) photographers with non-criminal intentions. By a very large margin. A lot more people with shoes than there are Richard Reids.

I'm betting all the 9/11 terrorists were breathing when they got to the airport. Does that make breathing a suspicious activity in today's airport? (Dear God, don't let Idiot Boy Hawley read FT today. Thank you.)

Oh, and do you really think someone taking photos to case a neighboring warehouse is going to say so? Your initial intention of "asking them questions (non-detention/non-custodial situation)" is almost certainly going to turn into something more serious and inconvenient if you start "feeling" that they're up to no good.

Maybe someone should put a lock on the door at the computer facility and hire a real security guard, instead of protecting it by hassling amateur photographers at the adjacent airport.

As was summed up quaintly in United States v. Christian Hartwell, thusly, with the pertinent part put in bold:

Keeping stuff that can harm a flight off of planes. Sounds like mission accomplished.

TSA checkpoints leak like a sieve as it is. It's not like it's difficult to get bad stuff past them without probing already.

So instead of having a 1 way street that favors the citizen, we have a 1 way street that favors the goverment. I guess it depends on who's doing the railroading determines whether it's ok or not.

I'm tried of judges using terrorism as an excuse to rule. There's this thing called law that they tend to ignore when they do that ...

If terrorists are as numerous as the government believes, they can just keep buying refundable tickets to probe the system that way. See what they can bring thru that looks like an item they might use, and what triggers a bag search. If one gets busted, so what? Just send another lackey thru. Will refundable tickets be seen as probes for mischief and terrorism then?

There's always going to be ways to probe the system. Does that mean we continue to give up rights, privileges, and so forth to close up the holes? Just where is the line supposed to be drawn? I think that's the big question. The line keeps moving, and not in a good direction.

The line is supposed to be drawn at what is reasonable. In my opinion having a point of no return on this particular type of search is reasonable.

To prevent the line from moving we have to get off our collective butts and police the line.

I asked:

SgtScott31 replied negatively to at least one question then responded:

You dodged the questions. Why do you think we should not put government checkpoints on our streets?

My reading of the situation is that people here think that if checkpoints are neccessary for security and we choose to allow them for such then we should not allow them to be used for other purposes. Do you think they should be used for other purposes, such as checking everyone who flies for indication of completely unrelated legal violations?

Let's leave illegal items out of this. We're discussing mostly the cases where something that could be completely legal is found -- cash, pipes, pets, etc. Do you or do you not think that an airport checkpoints should be used to check people for ill-gotten gains, pipes that contain residue of controlled substances, un-vaccinated pets, pornography depicting 17.5-year-olds, digital media players with data obtained via copyright violation, etc.?

I wrote:

You responded:

Because, best I can tell, you support the idea that our government should search everyone just to find the few criminals. Do you or do you not support dragnet operations such as those conducted by TSA?

I wrote:

You didn't answer my question. Is that what you want?

You wrote:

The answer, very simply, is that someone with weapons will not be allowed on the airplane.

First, keep in mind that they are reporting not only contraband, but suspected contraband and also something that is only contraband by their own definition: cash.

Second, what's wrong with it is that 1) every minute they spend dealing with, for instance, pipes that might be used to smoke crack (as TSA's blogger Bob described recently) is a minute that we're paying them not to enhance the security of our transportation systems, and 2) it means that the searches we allow them to perform because they of their threats of violence amount to dragnet operations, and those are completely un-American.

You tell them, "Please search for weapons. When you are conducting warrantless searches of us for weapons, please, when you see something in our belongings that catches your attention, unless that item is a weapon, know that it is none of your business. If you see a pipe, assume it is free of residue of illegal substances and intended for use with legal substances. If you see some porn, assume that it contains people of legal age. If you see a pet, assume that it is licensed and has had its rabies shots. If you see some cash, assume that it belongs to the person holding it. If you see an digital music player, assume that the person holding it had permission to copy the data it contains onto it. If you see some papers, assume that they are not secret plans for world domination. If you see someone with brown skin, assume that he has a right to be where he is. None of that is any of your business. Your bag checkers' job is to find dangerous things. When you're not doing that, leave us alone. If you see someone being mugged at the terminal, sure, offer assistance, and if you find a head in a bag, sure, have someone look into it, but when anything else catches your eye and turns out not to be a weapon, go back to doing your job."

I don't mean to join the dog pile but there is a bit about the statement above that bothers me. By the statement above you admit that there are times that you have detained someone without reasonable suspicion and you were not told by the Feds to detain. Care to elaborate under what circumstances you find it nessary to detain a Citizen without suspicion.
Sorry the courts do not agree. It all depends on the scope of the questions, if you have suspicion and if the person you are speaking with has the understanding that they are free to walk away. See Miranda v Arizona. Here is a pretty good synopsis.

I am sure in your oath you are required to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America as well as your State Constitution. If you allow someone to unknowingly forfeit a right, you have broken your oath.
If a person fails to report a crime that they know is a felony they are guilty of misprision of a felony. The problem most of FT has is the fact that TSO are required to report things that are NOT illegal and may not raise a reasonable suspicion in the screeners mind to make it worthy of police involvement. The $10k directive jumps to mind. I don't want the TSOs to have blinders on but I do want them to stick to statutory boundaries of that search.
You may want to search that one out because I do not believe it has been true in all cases. Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to check. When I find the appropriate case I will post it.
Bickering is always worth it. Even if your mind won't change and my mind won't change there are those that have not been exposed to the opposing viewpoints. Without hearing opposing viewpoints one can not make an informed opinion.
.

Once you've consented to *any* government search, TSA or police, can you revoke consent at any point?

Police yes, TSA no.

The thefts were of the actual tractor trailers themselves, which can't be protected 100% of the time. Thieves, especially of this caliber, will do anything to exploit a weakness and take advantage of it. I do not see any wrong in stepping up to a photographer and starting a conversation. I definitely do not see it as harassment. To simply ignore all of them is not going to happen. To have this mindset that absolutely no one is out to do harm against the US, especially by mass transit, is dangerous. I don't agree with some of the policies the TSA has taken it to, but I also do not agree with this notion that you and pmocek have to leave everyone alone and cross your fingers.

.

So it's ok to allow them to keep trying and trying until a weapon is finally on board? Sorry, not in agreement with this one.

I didn't dodge the question. I feel it is unnecessary to ask questions you should already know the answer to. If you have read enough of my posts on this forum I am not 100% pro-government. I want to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures just as much as the next person. The difference between you and I is our definition of "unreasonable." You and others feel that airport checkpoints are unreasonable. I disagree. I do not see checkpoint as dragnets where TSA is getting their jollies off looking for anything and everything that is illegal. From my experience in dealing with TSA, most contraband that is discovered at the checkpoint by TSOs occur when secondary screening has been initiated because an item (or items)cannot be resolved on the xray. Now could TSA see a pipe on the xray and conduct a secondary screening just because of it? I'm sure they probably have, but from the amount of bags that go through versus those that are stopped, searched, and only contraband is discovered, the numbers are small. This leads me to believe they are looking for what they are supposed to be looking for.

I agree, but if a reasonable person knows that there is a high likelihood that they are going to be searched along with their belongings, why would they pack contraband? You are giving them a free pass and encouraging illegal behavior. If people know that law enforcement cannot take action against them if they carry illegal drugs or other contraband through a security checkpoint as long as it is not a threat to an aircraft, then you have just given the green light to everyone to use air travel to facilitate their criminal activity. Why worry about local, state, or federal officers on the streets when we can just take our stuff through the checkpoint? It's an administrative search for weapons. They can't do anything to us and our drugs! wohooo! See where I am going with this? A line has to be drawn somewhere, but can it be from your point of view? On one side, you ask the federal government to keep checkpoint searches to a minimum for threats against aircraft and persons, but on the other side, you ask them to mind their own business when it comes to anything else illegal. I just don't see that there could ever be a compromise here.

I think you're exaggerating a bit. Cash & pipes I will answer to, but as far as vaccinated pets and digital media, you must know something I don't. I can't recall any LEOs at my agency ever being called to the checkpoint for confirmation of vaccinated animals or computer-related crimes (copyright infringement).

As far as pipes go, you can't say "let's leave illegal items out of this." Specifically here in TN, drug paraphernalia has several definitions. Most states require drugs to accompany the paraphernalia or actual residue be present in order to deem it as "paraphernalia." TN has another stipulation about the instrument's common and accepted practice in the community. Now I have not always been a LEO. I have never smoked marijuana, but I was around it plenty in my high school and college days. I have yet to see anyone use marble, glass, and small wood pipes to smoke tobacco from. Hookah's are an exception, as many in the TN community use those to smoke flavored tobacco. I am not talking about the Sherlock Holmes pipes. I'm sure you know which one's I am referring to. I think the numbers would easily suggest that most reasonable people who have ever been around marijuana know which ones are used to smoke it in and which ones are not. In other words, a pipe in and of itself can be paraphernalia in my jurisdiction given its shape, size, and its accepted/common use in the community. Now that's not to say that we snatch up and arrest every person that comes through here with a pipe that we deem (based on our training, education, and experience) is drug paraphernalia. Actually my records (which are public record if you want to come by and get them ;) ) indicate I let far more of them go and just take the pipe. And I am sure this is the same with most officers here. We tend to deal with more serious issues than someone coming through with a marijuana pipe, but I am not going to hound TSA for bringing it to my attention. As far as cash is concerned, that's where probably the biggest argument is going to be held (and hence why this thread has gone forever). I will simply say this. TSA sometimes calls LEOs to the checkpoint for large sums of cash. If it is a policy they have, then that's something you guys can write complaints about to your heart's content. As far as our interaction, from a simple (and very quick) conversation, we can usually get an idea of the legitimacy of the person carrying the money. If we feel it needs to go further, we make further notification to the appropriate folks. If the person refuses to talk anymore and I have not yet establised enough RS to detain, then I will allow them to catch their flight. Normally a tactic that is used by the drug mules is to get to the airport 30 min before flight time so they can use the "miss my flight" excuse if stopped & questioned. Even if they make the flight before interdiction can arrive and make a more thorough assessment, others are waiting on the other end of the trip.

I don't support a dragnet, but it's common sense that during the screening process (and because of the thoroughness of the screening conducted), other items are going to be discovered that are illegal. Unlike you, I do not agree that we should give the person a free pass because it is not a weapon or an immediate threat to the aircraft. I do not agree that we should ask the TSO to put their morals aside and turn a blind eye to the illegal item. I do not agree that we should help criminals facilitate their activity by giving them a green light to do it on our aircraft. Although many policies have been added since TSA's inception, nothing has really changed with the hand-searched secondary screens and the items discovered during normal screening operations. This is nothing new, but for some reason I am hearing the "dragnet" speech more than ever.

In other words, put a score on crimes. If they are minor crimes (1 - 5), ignore it and allow the person and their bags to go on their way. If it is a more singificant crime (6 -10), notify law enforcement and let them handle it. Out of all these threads, you tend to forget about discretion. When illegal items are discovered by TSA, it is solely up to the jurisdictional LE agency to decide whether to pursue criminal prosecution. I think you and others here would be surprised at the amount of contraband found that the person is not arrested for. Far more than those who are actually prosecuted.

Depends on where...within the sterile area, you have given consent to be searched again, although once past the checkpoint I think you can refuse and be escorted from the sterile area, but you cannot start the checkpoint screening process and then stop it and leave - however, your ability to actually do so is dependent on the proximity of the police, since the TSA is powerless to physically restrain or stop you from leaving.

If the TSA asks to search you elsewhere, and elsewhere could be the terminal, parking garage, roadway or even outside their jurisdiction like a ballpark, public transit, etc., you can tell them to get lost.

I'm enjoying watching this debate, and learning a lot from both sides, but I did want to jump in and ask about one esoteric point ...

I'm not sure I agree. Because when you step up and start a conversation with me, you're wearing a uniform, a badge, and several weapons --- all of which create an unequal relationship between you and I. (After all, as an ordinary citizen, I'm not allowed to carry weapons in an airport, and I don't have the authority to place anyone in custody pending formal arrest.) So the power relationship is definitely unequal ... and what might seem like innocent questions or suggestions are much more intimidating.

I may have weapons, but I'm really a nice guy. :)

I know it can possibly be intimidating, but most officers goal is to simply find out if you are a recreational photographer or that something else is going on. A few quick questions and some casual conversation is normally all that it takes. Most of the time I rarely ask questions. It's the conversation, body language, and other cues that may suggest the person may have something criminal in mind. It's literally a matter of seconds, and most people who have nothing to hide are glad to talk about their hobby, and may ask questions about my job or heck somewhere else where better photographs may be taken. I am an aircraft enthusiast myself. It's my job to know the commercial airliners (from a Firefighter standpoint aside from tactical), but I have always loved Fighter planes. My father was in the Air Force and worked on F-4 Phantoms. You never know what you may learn simply getting along with an officer and not immediately taking the person in the uniform as an a-hole wanting to harass you about your photography. Believe me I have other things I would rather be doing, but whether we are called on a "suspicious" person or spot you taking pictures, it is likely we will make contact. Now this is not to say there are some situations that went south simply because of the officer's lack of knowledge and/or attitude, but don't make that a general assumption about all officers who work with mass transit (Airport LEOs, Port Authority PD, etc)

Hmmm! Going, a little off-topic, but bear with me. :D
I seem to recall that Martha Stewart was willing to talk to an investigator without counsel present, after all, what harm could it do?
Worked out well for someone, and it certainly was not Martha.
Given all that goes on today in the prisons with jetways that used to be airports, I've got a 5th amendment right that isn't under attack at the same level as the 4th. :( I intend to use it.

#1 - I am aware of the oath I took and I gladly uphold that every day.

#2 - You made me laugh out loud when you referenced the Miranda case. I am very aware of Miranda and what I can and cannot do. What many people seem to think is that Miranda applies any time an officer asks you a question. Two things have to exist: (1) a custodial situation and (2) the questions being asked are going to illicit an incriminating response.

Reference my 1st scenario - walking up to a photographer whether in the Terminal or somewhere else on airport property, does a custodial situation apply? Unless I handcuff him, tell him he is not free to leave, sit him in the police car, or surround him with other officers, my answer is "no." Now I know this could turn into 100 "what-if" situations, but the main two factors the courts look at are the two I mentioned. Here is an interesting case that was just released yesterday in Nashville, TN were a murderer has been released because of failure to Mirandize:

http://www.wsmv.com/news/18404206/detail.html

Did the suspect feel he was in custody? sitting in a closed police interview room and being asked incriminating questions by two armed detectives, I would think so. So did the TN Supreme Court.

If I walked up to you on the street and asked if you killed your neighbor, technically your confession would be admissible because you are not in custody at this point. Even when I arrest people, I rarely Mirandize them because I don't ask any incriminating questions. A lot of the drunks like to make "utterances," but as courts have held, those are admissible.

True ^

I happen to travel to the USA with more than $10,000 on some occasions. I always fill out the correct form.(no big deal.) If I happen to encounter a check by CBP in the USA they will have a record of the transaction in Their computer. CBP does not give a receipt of the form at the source. If now TSA stops me with my money how long will they detain me before I can continue on my travels?
Does TSA have access to CBP computer files?

I gotta' ask (my background and experience will speak for itself): Did it ever occur to you that the friendly photographer might be eliciting the daylights out of you doing his job as a trained foreign intelligence officer?