The officers reasonable suspicion was developed based on the statement made by the TSO. Nothing more is needed.

That might be true if the TSO said, "This man has over $10,000." It would not be true if the TSO said, "He has some money but I don't know how much."

Of course, if the TSO said the amount is above $10,000 and it turns out that he is wrong, he is guilty of filing a false police report.

I'm not interested in the officers' reasonable suspicion, I'm interested in the TSO's reasonable suspicion. That's what this whole argument is about. Without reasonable suspicion the LEO would never had been called in the first place. But you don't seem to want/be able to answer that question. I wonder why?

For the same reason he won't admit to being wrong about taking $10k out of the country.

But yet you said the following about the TSO:
What is the reasonable suspicion that the TSO had that could be transferred to the LEO?

TSO: I found this guy with some money on him (which is less than $5,000) and he is on a domestic itinerary.

LEO: That is very suspicious. Let’s interrogate him further.

And I won’t even discuss the issue of whether the TSO is a “reputable source.”


Don’t feel sad, be happy! I don’t recall ever saying that I was not a security expert. For example, I have commanded an MP unit and have prosecuted in federal court. Perhaps that experience is a detriment when dealing with the TSA because I then try to understand the security reasons behind the rules that the TSA has promulgated. And with a number of the rules, illogic and kabuki security theatre appear to rule the day.

Butter knives, by general definition have dull blades, so that shouldn’t be an issue. But yet you started by saying the following:
So metal was not allowed according to you. Then in a subsequent post you said that a supervisor had to examine every metal knife.

It has taken days and a multitude of requests just to get you to the point of conforming to the TSA website.

I know I am taking chances, but I will ask again -- my understanding is that if the knife is rounded and is serrated on only one side, then it is okay to go according to the SOP. Is that correct? After all, that is the criteria that are used by Continental in their President's Clubs and their forward cabins.

Why is it so difficult to be forthcoming about the rules and man-up when factually incorrect information has been proffered, e.g. the currency requirements, the no metal knives and the reasonable suspicion at STL?

No need to be snarky. If you feel that discussing the difference between metal and plastic knives is splitting hairs, yours must be as thick as a rhino’s skin.

And to think I thought you were here to help us understand the rules based on the following:

As folks here at FT are so fond of making a point of, TSO’s are not Law Enforcement Officers, therefore reasonable suspicion is not a legal requirement for them. If a TSO makes a statement to a LEO that LEO has the option of believing them or not, their choice (uh oh, there’s that horrible word again, “choice”).

Can I assume that you heard the recording just as I have? Was the conversation between the TSO and LEO in that recording? I didn’t hear it, so I cant comment on what the TSO stated or what the LEO used as reasonable suspicion. Obviously it was enough for the LEO, otherwise he would not have consented to interviewing the individual. One need not be a Federal Officer to be able to establish reasonable suspicion for a LEO, one only need be credible. Obviously the LEO found the TSO to be so.

OK, let's try it this way: Was the TSO acting according to your SOP when he referred the relatively low amount of money to an LEO? Short enough for you this time?

(Hate to interrupt the "TSORon vs. The World Cage Match", but since this is actually related to the OP ...)

That's a great example of how to do truly "random" selection.

Now I will note for the record that TSA isn't trying to do "random", but "unpredictable" selection; the terms aren't identical. Still, it illustrates the point; you usually get far better "unpredictable" results by relying on some sort of external source for your decision-making process.

In reference to the amount of cash observed in the bag? Good question, I cant really say. Depends on how it was packaged, stacked, denominations, etc. He might have been required to count it or at least get a better view of it to decide if it might be over the threshold. Most likely not though, $4,700 rarely looks like $10,000. My guess is that he asked questions first and received the same level of attitude from the passenger that is displayed in the recording.

As far as the attitude he received from the passenger? I’d have to say that he was justified in requesting a LEO.

Look, after reviewing the recording a few times it was easy to determine that this passenger came to the checkpoint prepared for a confrontation with the TSA, and I was not in the room. Just from the tone of voice, the wordage, and the responses he gave, he was looking to stand on what he thought was his rights and take the issue as far as he could. Was he right in doing so? Yes, but he could have done it in a way that did not ensure confrontation with the TSA. There were better ways to deal with the situation, and he knew that. Both of them had better ways to deal with the situation, and neither of them used them. Both are at fault.

What threat did the traveler present to aviation?

That is the only question that matters as far as TSA should be concerned.

Why? Because a TSO with no real authority to ask and who has no business is asking pressed the issue? I think that'd make anyone a bit testy.

If you were in the same situation, would you roll or would you stand up for your rights?

Again, why? Because a TSO with no real authority to ask and who has no business is asking pressed the issue?

If he was reading the blog, he knew it was coming based on TSA confirming that it would make an issue out of large amounts of cash.

What he thought was his rights? He was well within in his rights. It was TSA that was out of bounds here. If anything, he was just prepared.

You can't avoid a confrontation with TSA when TSA was the one that initiated it. That's exactly what happens when it asks questions it has no right or authority to ask.

And what would the screener have done if he was quiet, polite and mild mannered? I'm willing to bet the same outcome: "he won't answer questions about his money, so we'll get a cop and make him talk" is pretty much what it comes down to. Even Francine admitted as much in her blog post.

Just so I understand, a passenger who stands on his rights and doesn't defer to demands by TSOs that exceed their authority is deemed "a suspicious person"? This is not a facetious question -- I am polite and civil when I clear security, but I see no reason to accommodate what I regard as trespasses on my Constitutional rights, e.g. answering questions posed by a TSO (other than, "Nice day, isn't it?")

So, really what it comes down to (again) is that if a TSO doesn't like the passenger's attitude he can pull whatever trick he wants to without any fear of retribution.

Professional organization, yeah right!

The only thing I could think of after reading this was an announcer standing in the middle of a boxing ring, microphone in hand, saying:

"Let's get ready to STUMBLE!!!!"

:D :D :D

TSA and Attitude
 

Sadly, many TSOs are ill-equipped to handle positions of even minor authority. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Having the power to prevent someone from being able to embark on an airline journey is often far too much for some to handle. They cannot maintain the balance between safety and the rights of people in a democratic republic, so they exercise their authority because they want to be the hero in the security melodrama. Since there is a hero, there has to be a villain.

It truly is no different than some of the poor souls who haunt the governing boards of Home Owners Associations who use their power to harass people.

They do it because they can, and they believe that if everyone else just saw their vision of the world and followed along, we would achieve utopia in no time.