What is the correct answer to the Steve Bierfeldt question?
Apr 9, 2009 | 2:16 pm
#46
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Doha, Qatar
Programs: Air Canada Aeroplan, Lufthansa Miles & More, Flying Blue, Hyatt Gold Passport
Posts: 1,894
No, I would have demanded to see the GSC for my airline. If the TSO refused to give me my money back, I'd call a policeman and demand that the TSO be arrested for theft. If the TSO physically prevented me from retrieving my money, I'd call a policeman and demand that the TSO be arrested for robbery. And if the TSO put his hands on me, I would defend myself and then see that he is charged with battery.
I have had run-ins with TSA before, though none as dramatic as this. I don't have time to do a search right now, but I've previously detailed an incident at LAX where a TSO took my bag while I was bending down to tie my shoes. I hadn't the slightest hesitation about yelling, at the top of my lungs, "Stop right there and bring that bag back!" This resulted in quite a commotion at the WTMD, but the end result was a supervisor promised to talk to the TSO about not taking my property without permission or removing it from my sight. It only took a couple of extra minutes of my time.
I want to be very clear: I have nothing but respect for law enforcement officers, even to the point of giving them considerable leeway when it involves what I consider border-line constitutional rights issues. The way I see it, LEOs are there to protect me and protect my property. They have a difficult, dangerous and demoralizing job and I will always try to cooperate with them.
TSOs, on the other hand, serve no purpose at all. There function is to provide the allusion of security so that the Kettles and Gomers will continue to buy tickets to fly. They are not protecting me or my property, they merely protecting airline income and I already contribute enough to that. As long as TSOs are polite and professional, I will be polite in return and allow them to that which the courts have confirmed as constitutional, but only that which the courts have confirmed as constitutional. As soon as they cross the line into an unconstitutional and illegal usurpation of government power at the expense of my individual and inalienable rights, I will resist and will not cooperate, even if it means I might miss a flight or otherwise be delayed. TSA was created by an administration that had less regard for the Constitution than any other administration in history. TSA continues primarily due to momentum and the fact that the current administration has more pressing issues to deal with. I will, however, do my part by calling out any TSO that attempts to exceed the limited powers afforded to the government under the Constitution.
I have had run-ins with TSA before, though none as dramatic as this. I don't have time to do a search right now, but I've previously detailed an incident at LAX where a TSO took my bag while I was bending down to tie my shoes. I hadn't the slightest hesitation about yelling, at the top of my lungs, "Stop right there and bring that bag back!" This resulted in quite a commotion at the WTMD, but the end result was a supervisor promised to talk to the TSO about not taking my property without permission or removing it from my sight. It only took a couple of extra minutes of my time.
I want to be very clear: I have nothing but respect for law enforcement officers, even to the point of giving them considerable leeway when it involves what I consider border-line constitutional rights issues. The way I see it, LEOs are there to protect me and protect my property. They have a difficult, dangerous and demoralizing job and I will always try to cooperate with them.
TSOs, on the other hand, serve no purpose at all. There function is to provide the allusion of security so that the Kettles and Gomers will continue to buy tickets to fly. They are not protecting me or my property, they merely protecting airline income and I already contribute enough to that. As long as TSOs are polite and professional, I will be polite in return and allow them to that which the courts have confirmed as constitutional, but only that which the courts have confirmed as constitutional. As soon as they cross the line into an unconstitutional and illegal usurpation of government power at the expense of my individual and inalienable rights, I will resist and will not cooperate, even if it means I might miss a flight or otherwise be delayed. TSA was created by an administration that had less regard for the Constitution than any other administration in history. TSA continues primarily due to momentum and the fact that the current administration has more pressing issues to deal with. I will, however, do my part by calling out any TSO that attempts to exceed the limited powers afforded to the government under the Constitution.
More important, however, is your articulation of the correct approach to the TSA -- informed, assertive, but always courteous as long as they are willing to keep it that way. And I agree 100% on your views concerning the distinction between LEOs and TSOs as well. Whilst I do try to minimise my interactions with police, I do respect what they are doing and try to make clear that my reticence to communicate is nothing personal.
Apr 14, 2009 | 3:07 am
#47
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: YXU - London, ON, Canada
Programs: NWA-SE, PC, SPG, Hyatt, Amtrak, VIA, AC
Posts: 34
Apr 14, 2009 | 7:52 am
#48
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 58,133
Apr 14, 2009 | 9:02 am
#49
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Apr 14, 2009 | 1:35 pm
#50
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: IAH
Programs: CO 1k. Still proudly carry PSA Executive Flyer smile not the fake USAir "grin!"
Posts: 152
Nor would he care about "THE Constitution" because he lives instead under a "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" written, some would suggest, taking from the "best" of our system and eliminating the "worst." 
Notably, both "best" and "worst" are subjective terms...
Moreover, if you or I were to take a public office, we would take an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic" whereas, in the land of the "Yxx" airports, they leave that part of a similar oath of office out.
God save the Queen, President Horton, and the whale preserve in Manitoba...
Notably, both "best" and "worst" are subjective terms... Moreover, if you or I were to take a public office, we would take an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic" whereas, in the land of the "Yxx" airports, they leave that part of a similar oath of office out.
God save the Queen, President Horton, and the whale preserve in Manitoba...
Apr 14, 2009 | 1:54 pm
#52
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 29,078
It seems that the TSA has got their legal counsel to answer the question, LINK. Welcome to America, your legal rights do not apply at a TSA checkpoint.
....would you please ask Francine to actually reply to the repeated question as to whether or not the traveler is REQUIRED BY LAW to answer those questions?
That was the question in the St. Louis incident, and has continued to be the question from many on this blog, and that is the question that Francine has continued avoiding.
That was the question in the St. Louis incident, and has continued to be the question from many on this blog, and that is the question that Francine has continued avoiding.
Apr 14, 2009 | 2:08 pm
#53
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Doha, Qatar
Programs: Air Canada Aeroplan, Lufthansa Miles & More, Flying Blue, Hyatt Gold Passport
Posts: 1,894
I just posted the same question (there were no published comments when I started composing my own) - SO irritating because BB starts of by noting that this is the question many want to know the answer to...and then he doesn't answer it!
Apr 14, 2009 | 2:30 pm
#55
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marriott or Hilton hot tub with a big drink <glub> Beverage: To-Go Bag DYKWIA:SSSS /rolleyes ☈ Date Night:Costco
Programs: Sea Shell Lounge Platinum, TSA Pre✓ Refusnik Diamond, PWP Gold, FT subset of the subset
Posts: 12,524
Originally Posted by Francine Kerner, TSA Chief Counsel
TSA officers routinely come across evidence of criminal activity at the airport checkpoint.
College kids with fake IDs, petty thieves with stolen credit cards, illegal aliens trying to go home, someone wanted on a drug charge somewhere. None of which would make an aircraft fall out of the sky. All this does is give the TSA chances to pat themselves on the back for doing things beyond the scope of their mission.
Apr 14, 2009 | 2:57 pm
#56
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
To whom you do not have to speak without your attorney present, if that is your choice.
Apr 14, 2009 | 3:00 pm
#57
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
You're correct -- I missed that he was Canadian. All the more surprising that he'd offer advice to Americans about how to deal with a strictly American issue.
Apr 14, 2009 | 3:04 pm
#58
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
It seems that the TSA has got their legal counsel to answer the question, LINK. Welcome to America, your legal rights do not apply at a TSA checkpoint.
"When presented with a passenger carrying a large sum of money through the screening checkpoint, the TSA officer will frequently engage in dialog with the passenger to determine whether a referral to law-enforcement authorities is warranted.
The TSA officer may consider all circumstances in making the assessment, including the behavior and credibility of the passenger. Thus, a failure to be forthcoming may inform a TSA officers decision to call law-enforcement authorities."
What she didn't state was the law: You are NOT required to answer any questions regarding cash. If the TSA refers you to law enforcement on the basis of your refusal to answer questions unrelated to security (or, better still, respond, "None of your business"), they are committing a violation of both the 1st and 5th Amendment. However, this "referral" will be interesting as TSA has absolutely no right to detain anyone, and no right to seize your money.
Apr 14, 2009 | 3:07 pm
#59
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: IAD
Programs: *wood Gold
Posts: 1,780
[/yawn]
College kids with fake IDs, petty thieves with stolen credit cards, illegal aliens trying to go home, someone wanted on a drug charge somewhere. None of which would make an aircraft fall out of the sky. All this does is give the TSA chances to pat themselves on the back for doing things beyond the scope of their mission.
College kids with fake IDs, petty thieves with stolen credit cards, illegal aliens trying to go home, someone wanted on a drug charge somewhere. None of which would make an aircraft fall out of the sky. All this does is give the TSA chances to pat themselves on the back for doing things beyond the scope of their mission.
1. Tell their screeners to stop pretending they are Kojak at the checkpoints, especially when the role they play comes across more like Chief Wiggum and Barney Fife.
2. Get rid of their behavior detection officers. The TSA isn't doing an adequate job of finding prohibited items at the checkpoint-- they need extra resources there, and should not be having people playing Madam Cleo with passengers.
3. Get rid of their ID/boarding pass checkers. These people add no security whatsoever to the process. Half of the time these guys don't even bother reading the boarding pass (I've gotten through intentionally showing the boarding pass for my next leg a few times). At a minimum, at least tell them they don't have to use their little toy lights on the boarding passes. It's embarrassing for all of us when they clearly don't know that there's nothing hidden to see on a sheet of standard 8.5x11 paper.
4. Get rid of the liquids restriction. Taking people's water bottles away does nothing to enhance security, and folks consuming time/resources for this activity could either be used elsewhere or just plain eliminated altogether.
5. Get rid of the TSA guy who sits on the airside-to-landside exit at airports. Half of the time these guys have their eyes closed or are playing with their radios or cell phones anyway. These people could be effectively and affordably replaced with alarmed one way glass partition doors.
Apr 14, 2009 | 3:16 pm
#60
Suspended
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 418
6. Roll shoe screening back (at least) to where it was before the War On Some Liquids. If you don't set off the metal detector, no problem. This would speed up security immensely and do nothing to reduce safety, since shoes aren't a danger to anyone.