As to the OP: the form was not supposed to be visible to the traveling public. Beyond that, the government has a form for everything. Are you really so surprised this one exists?

I must ask, exactly what attitude do you think the passenger displayed? I listened to the recording a number of times, and found the passenger to be polite, calm, and courteous. I also thought he was quite reasonable in insisting on understanding his rights, and that he was quite generous in volunteering personal information once his questions about his rights were (sort of) answered.

While I agree that Mr. Bierfeldt came to the checkpoint prepared for a confrontation, I don't think he was seeking to instigate a confrontation. I have heard nothing to indicate that he was seeking to instigate a confrontation. How, exactly, does he share blame for the incident?

And this is precisely where things get Constitutionally murky. LEO's require reasonable suspicion. TSO's don't. Since they don't require it, they may not have it when they refer to an LEO.

So now we have a situation where no reasonable suspicion exists and if the LEO were the only person doing the observating, he wouldn't be able to do anything. But somehow just because there's somebody else doing the observation of the exact same set of circumstances, reasonable suspicion magically occurred? There's absolutely no Consititutional basis for this.

If wishes made it true.

Just because TSA does something doesn't mean it has the authority or that it's legal under law or the constitution. Like you say, TSA's wishes don't make it true.

I'd really like to see how you answer Spotnik's questions, considering Spotnik also works for TSA as a BDO.

TSA has the authority to ask anything they like, without restriction. They DO NOT have the authority to compel an answer.

Very possibly yes. If he had actually read the blog then he also would have known how to address the issue without forcing a confrontation.

Really? Just which right was that? To ask a question? I�d agree with that, he sure did have that right, just as the TSA did (warning, I�m baiting you here). To refuse to answer? Yep, he has that one as well. Hell, he could have just stood there and not said a word, he had that right as well, or sing songs, or dance in place, or any one of a multitude of other things.

TSA had the right to ask the questions. As for the confrontation, both sides had the opportunity to avoid it. Neither did. Both are to blame.

Quote:
Thanks very much. Now we are getting somewhere.

So according to you, (1.) the correct answer to Steven Bierfeldt's question, posed to a TSO like you (remember, he asked the TSO, "Am I legally required to answer that question?") is "DY...T?" That's it?

(2.) In the event a TSO like you asks, "Where did you get this money?" or "Why are you carrying so much cash?" and the criminal, er, pax responds, "None of your business," (or if an international itinerary is involved, the crook, er, taxpayer says, "I'll be visiting the Customs office inside security to fill out the appropriate form, now am I free to go?") the correct response for that TSO is to call over an LEO and insist on an investigation, as you have now established a reasonable suspicion of a crime for that LEO and that lazy LEO must do his or her duty, right?

(3.) In the event a pax on a domestic itinerary with no international connections shows up at your security location with $10,000.01 that you find in his or her carry-on, and starts in with a lot of prattle like "Am I legally required..." or "None of your business" to your questions (thus raising reasonable suspicions of the money being related to a crime), then you are more or less required to keep that $10,000.01 out of the sterile area of the airport, because it is defined by TSA as contraband at that point, and you must do your duty, right?

And, why? I mean other than just following orders, do you have any sense that in any of these three scenarios you have moved the air security gauge even one iota in the direction of "safer"?

Passengers have this authority too, I suppose, under the First Amendment. As a matter of fact, I think when I fly out of BNA this afternoon I just might use this authority to ask the screeners if they are also dirty enough to be infected with scabies, like their brethren at BOS.

Yes, but he probably didn't feel like letting TSA violate his privacy by rolling over and playing dead when it came to his fourth amendment rights.

Yes, but we all know that when you refuse to answer a TSO's questions they get all whiny and immature. Most TSA folks I've met can't stand it when reality contradicts their image of themselves as America's protector or front-line defense in the "war on terror". Refuse to answer a question, and they'll go running to an LEO, crying about they've just caught the next Timothy McVeigh.

This is where I think that many will still disagree with you. As an individual citizen, yes, we all have the right to ask questions of each other. But your (and any TSO's) role and freedoms as a private citizen stops the moment you put your bellhop uniform and Junior Detective badge on. You then become an agent of the government and any actions you take are acting on the government's behalf.

This is where a number of restrictions do come in to play... this is why TSOs do not have the ability to detain people. (Doing so as an agent of the government without probable cause-- which TSOs are not trained to detect-- is a flagrant civil rights violation.) I know you've asserted otherwise elsewhere on the forum, but I think that most attorneys would tell you that you're dead wrong. When acting as an agent of the government, there are certain things you can and can't do.

But, but, but...I am Wonder TSORon, a Federal Officer, be afraid.....be very afraid......

Now say that again, this time using an Elmer Fudd accent...

+1 ^

Thanks for saving me the time of typing out a response to the TSA Crusader.

Sadly enough there are to many posters here who with limited experience with the TSA automatically assume the absolute worst about the officers charged with ensuring the safety of the flying public. Most if not all have been exposed to this forum, the EOS blog, and occasionally to actual TSO�s on the check point 15 seconds at a time. Its easy to take a single poor interaction with someone and hold it like the security blanket of our childhoods, never letting it out of our sight, never straying very far from it. We hold it so close that we can rarely see beyond its phantom comfort.

You can only see them as jack-booted thugs, intent on ruining your day, taking your personal property, and delaying your transit to the sterile area. You fail to see the humans behind the uniform. The men and women who get up at 1:30am to be on the checkpoint by 3am, who endure the continuous changes of policy and procedure, who were courageous enough to accept jobs on the front line of America�s Anti-Terrorism efforts, dangerous though it may be. They endure low pay, long and unusual hours, less than perfect working conditions, unidentified hazardous materials, the diseases and infections of those passengers they come into contact with, undeserved attitude and the occasional cussing out, and a whole host of other things that make the job less than pleasant at times.

On the other hand, we get to deal with the people. 98% of them are really nice to work with. Some not quite so, but the ones that make life interesting are those that impart a portion of their life on the TSO and make our day by being not only prepared for the checkpoint but pleasant to have there. Kids specially are great to have on the checkpoint. Curiosity is the biggest thing we see from them. They want to know what�s going on, and why. Kinda fun to hear the parents try and explain things to them.

One of my favorite jobs on the checkpoint is the TSO at the Walk Through Metal Detector. Imagine the reaction of a 9 year old when I ask him if he has any Buicks in his pocket, or washers and driers, or PSP�s, DVD, Game Boys, or rocks. Or when I tell a new mother that we don�t allow babies in the X-Ray. The WTMD is an opportunity for me to have a bit of fun while working. Fun with the passengers, fun with the kids, and still get them through to their aircraft with a minimum of fuss.

So much of the posting here is complaints. Sure, I didn�t start here in the best of ways, but then again this conversation has been going on a very long time, and I have been here only a few weeks. You people have been screaming your complaints for a few years now, and yet you continue to do so to this day. I get the feeling its no longer about improving the situation, but about the complaining. Some of you just don�t realize that, your having to much fun complaining.

There you go again with absolutes. As a federal officer, many will answer your question when they wouldn't to the person on the street. Color of office is something to be considered.

For example, you can't ask questions that would constitute sexual harassment. It would be improper for you to ask someone to sleep with you, which a pax might easily interpret as a requirement to pass through your checkpoint.

Any update on the Continental-style knife?

I'll just say you paint with a very broad brush and leave it at that.

If you want to see what we've said, as a summary of what we've said over the years on this site (much of what has been said on the blog and subsequently ignored), check this thread.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...?highlight=tsa

The thread used to be stickied for a time but was unstickied after about 4 months.

Enjoy.

I am glad all airport workers (including TSA) are willing to wake up at 1:30 AM. But dangerous? Really?

Don't see airport screener on the list.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/26/pf/jobs_jeopardy/

I�m not sure if I should cue the violin music, or start humming "When Johnny Comes Marching Home".