Unfortunately Francine would not respond directly when this section was quoted to her during the mandatory ID fiasco. Perhaps it is one of the reasons why TSA eventually backed down on some of those measures according to what you have alluded to. So what are the current requirements if you don't want to show ID.

Here was part of that exchange on the blog:

No problem.

The easiest way I have found to look up statutes is to make sure I include the word "statute" in my seacrh criteria.

I will have to agree with you there. I once sold shoes, please no Al Bundy references, and I had a customer there with his woman. The customer and I were having a great time cutting up and looking for shoes. His woman got a bit nasty and said "I guess you don't care for your job". I replied "what do you mean?"

She said "(sanitized for your protection) you are playing around and making jokes" and in my normal charming self I told her while pointing to my customer "WE are having fun, you can either join in or not. Either way we were going to continue having fun even if it is to spite you" (what the hell, in for a penny in for a pound)

My customer looked at his woman and said "that's right and if you don't like it go wait in the car."

Two people dealing with the same situation, one thought I was being flippant and the other thought I was being a great salesman. (3 pairs)

I wonder if they are still together.

The shoes? Probably. Who throws away one shoe?

Oh dear, I feel a Godwin moment coming on :eek:.

No it's OK, it passed. Personally, while I have found some screeners to be obnoxious, belligerent and clearly not suited to the task, it is with this "upper level management" that the problem (or something more insidious) lies. They either ignore the laws too (cf. Francine) or else continually just push the envelope knowing that the worst that can happen is they get overruled. Not that that ever happens either.

I would never be a screener, but I have been in situations where clients and others have suggested directions of dubious legality. Was I willing just to take their word for it ? No, I made damn sure what was proposed was unqestionably legal. But hey, that's just me. Clearly it doesn't bother some.

This is a fair point. When I was screening passengers, about 10-20 out of every hundred would compliment me for providing a thorough, quick, professional screening. About 1 out of every hundred would complain that it was the most invasive, unprofessional, obscene screening they had ever received.

Actually, I would argue that field employees very much need to know the laws the pertain to our jobs. I know HQ doesn't necessarily agree with me.

If HQ teaches you the law pertaining to your job they can't claim a "whoopsie" when you over step your bounds. If you overstep far enough they will toss you under the bus like they did that TSO that got sued for making the man change his shirt.

For HQ the less you know the better.

I'd forgotten about that shirt.

Ron, the disconnect here is that I'm not your customer. At least not in the traditional sense. I don't come to you voluntarily looking for "service." You are at best, an impediment to my business or pleasure, as the case may be. The sooner I get past you and your colleagues, the happier I am. I don't try to be rude to you, and I don't need some happy-face "customer service" line fed to me as part of the "Evolution of Security." If you did your job quickly and efficiently, we'd all get along just fine. Instead, what we are subjected to on a routine basis is inefficiency and attitude from the average TSO employee. The fact that we're paying to have our travel disrupted by arrogant public servants who don't provide anything more effective than the private security firms that existed before TSA is why we don't really care for TSA.

Unbelievable. Ignorance is bliss, in other words? No wonder we're subjected to such unprofessional conduct on the part of TSA employees.

I consider pawing every area of my body to be invasive and obscene. SAme goes for the virtual strip search machines.

Courtesy & Rudeness "non-quantifiable"?
 

Not to be pedantic, but what does "quantifiability" have to do with the subject? Obviously, TSOs cannot measure their courtesy "level" with a machine, not can they measure the subjective dispositions of those transiting the checkpoint scientifically. Civilized human beings (TSO or pax) regulate their interactions with others partly by intuition of the others' dispositions, and partly by a desire to err too much on the side of courtesy. Whether there is any true charity in this desire is beside the point -- it helps to grease the wheels of social interaction. For those who try to keep even a minimally higher standard, the age-old and almost universal adage commonly known as "the golden rule" applies. None of this is quantifiable; all of this is partly subjective but partly based on the quasi-universal expectations of civilized people.

One hallmark of civilized human behavior is frequent self-examination. This is not compatible with dismissing the importance of courtesy due to the "unquantifiable, subjective" nature of that "fine line."

I have argued before in this forum that the keys to "fixing" the TSA (if that be possible) are common sense and courtesy. As another poster has said in this thread, legal hair-splitting (though it may have a certain place) is beside the point. The human element is precisely what is being overlooked by the authorities. Anyone who can glibly answer that such subjective factors do not translate well into the minutiae of SOP may be doomed to a lifetime of perplexity at the (understandably) negative attitudes of the traveling public toward the TSA.

Chicago O'hare inspectors = rude while getting the job done.
Schiphol inspectors = pleasant while getting the job done.
Helsinki inspectors = pleasant while getting the job done.

One of the things that really surprised me about both Schiphol and Helsinki airports was how quiet they were and to a lesser degree the fact that the luggage carts were free in Europe but cost here in the US.

^^ Well said.

So few of the passengers I run across each day feel the same way that you do. Most see us for what we see ourselves, there to provide them with the best possibility of a safe flight to where they wish to go. We get far more compliments at my airport than complaints. On the order of more than 100 to 1. But those complaints get a great deal of attention. Never mind the “atta-boys” or the “I appreciate it” we get on a minute by minute basis, it’s the complaints that get the attention.

I agree, you don’t need a happy face or a customer service line, but isn’t that better than the opposite? Isn’t it nice to have a pleasant experience at the checkpoint?

Attitude and inefficiency. Having traveled in the recent past I would have to agree with you in part. My fellow TSO’s at other airports are a bit sour. So much so that I don’t even identify myself as a member of the club, simply because I just don’t get their attitude. I ENJOY my time on the checkpoint. The people are good to work with, the job is a challenge, and if I can make a passengers day start out better than he could have done by on his own then it also makes my day.

No. Its called “Trust”. I trust the upper echelons of the TSA to provide me with the information I need to do my job the very best I can. Do I need to know the chapter and verse of the laws that support my job? No, not at all. The information is available if I choose to go find it, but to date I have not as my background in security tells me that the deficiencies in TSA policy and procedure are not a loss but add to the flexibility that the TSA needs to do its job in the environment it finds itself in. The security requirements of my airport are not the same as those of, lets say SFO, or LAS, or even JFK. That flexibility allows us to modify process to meet the needs of the traveling public and the TSA population both at the same time.

Congratulations. But you know that’s a possibility every time you go to the airport, right?

You make my point for me. Thanks.

One cannot be sure of the attitude of the individual they face. A guess is the best one can expect, and a hope that one has not made an error.

And another is politeness. Both given and received. About the same thing you have said, but I take it a bit further than you. Rudeness is the strongest sign of a collapsing society, and rudeness is all to common in this day. The folks at the TSA are just as guilty of this as anyone in our society, and this is why they are trying to address it using the Evolution of Security training that we have all received.

I disagree. The TSA needs uncommon sense. We face an uncommon enemy, and common thought has proven only marginally effective against them. We need to look beyond the usual and work on seeing the unusual. That is what EOS training is supposed to be teaching us. Now all we need is the other parts, the Customer Service parts of the program that are still deployed only to a few airports.

I'm just sitting here munching on my popcorn and don't have much to substantively add to this conversation except in response to the above. As I read it, what he meant is that if TSOs follow policy laid out by upper management it's not necessary for them to know every legal precedent, court ruling, etc.

For instance, as a LEO I need to know I can't shoot a fleeing felon in the back. I don't need to know that came about due to Tennessee v. Garner. :)

I now return you to your regularly scheduled bash fest.

It'd be nice to have a nice experience. Some airports are better than others. It's really hard to have a "nice" experience with the shoe carnival, etc.

Now you start to see what we're saying. A lot of screeners that post on here don't travel much. They tend to get the "tunnel vision" where how it's done at their airport is how it's done elsewhere. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Some places are certainly better than others, and have reps on here accordingly. TSA as a whole (procedures) are complained about at some airports. At others, it's that AND the screeners.

I'd be careful with that blind trust. While it's nice that you trust your employer, do you trust them enough that they wouldn't throw you under the bus and leave you on your own if TSA was sued or if something bad were to happen?

TSA, as part of the government, has sovereign immunity meaning they can only be sued if they consent to it. It's easy for them to blame the screener as a rogue screener overstepping his bounds or as an incompetent screener. Thus as others have said, by keeping you in the dark, it makes it much easier for TSA as an organization to distance itself from its screeners and throwing the screener under the bus. Ignorance of the law won't be a valid defense and TSA will probably disavow any knowledge of "asking" the employee to do something. Plausible deniability.

But would you trust your employer blindly not to give an illegal order?

You may not have to know it came from Tennesee v. Garner, but knowing that there is a court case or law showing that something bad can happen to an LEO can be helpful if a superior gives an order to shoot that felon anyway. By not knowing about that precedent, the LEO would shoot and put himself in a whole mess of trouble.

It needs something to effectively deal with unknown situations like our autistic boy Kenyon represents. Rigid training produces predictable results.

So far, however, you have not even discovered a genuine terrorist. For most people, good customer relations are common sense.

Sure, it's always better to know than not know, but if you follow policy then you're in the clear. Unless it's a policy to gas people at Auschwitz kind of policy. :)

The ones that get you jammed up are usually very clear, and almost always involve using force. You know when you're stepping over the line, every time.

Well, since you invoked Godwin's law ;) :p, "just following orders" wasn't a valid defense at Nuremberg.

I'll be honest, I don't know what happens when LEO's screw up and do an illegal search. Of course, evidence would be tossed, but I'd think that could open up the department and/or the LEOs involved for a lawsuit.

But you do know and understand Tennessee v. Garner, don't you? :D

Ron's "I'll just blindly follow the instructions of my supervisors" attitude is an excellent example of why it's impossible to take TSA and their "officers" seriously.

The assumption being that upper management is abiding by the applicable law(s). Many here do not believe they are.But you do need to know that the law does not allow you to commit manslaughter or murder or whatever the charge would be. A screener should know the bounds of their legal authority. I don't believe upper management is overly concerned whether or not they do.

Ronny, I truly believe you believe what your saying.

But there is still a disconnect.

It is the aircrew who is most responsible for getting me to my destination safely.

TSA is in place to keep dangerous things off of the airplanes. That's it! Nothing more! No more is asked for by the public!

I have been through several airports in recent months. The process is similar at each but the degree of civility is certainly not the same. I have seen TSO's who present a neat appearance to those whose shirttails are hanging out and seem to be on the job just to collect a paycheck. The same spread of treating people well to not well has been observed. This is a failure of management!

TSA has a pretty simply job, yet fails to perform that job well. Instead, TSA gets all wrapped up in things that should be of no concern. How much cash money a person has is a perfect example. ID verification is another.

Screen people for prohibited items. All of the people entering the secure areas of an airport!

Screen carry-on for prohibited items.

Screen checked baggage for prohibited items and ensure its not tampered with after screening.

Screen all cargo, mail and any thing else that is loaded on the airplanes.

There you go, the whole TSA job in just a few sentences.

TSA should concentrate on these things and leave all else to the proper authorities.

If TSO's cannot be civil, honest and happy in their work they should quit or be fired.

There is no excuse to say procedures have to be different at each airport. They don't! How equipment is arranged perhaps, but not how TSO's do their job.

Known, published rules for travelers should be available. TSO's should have to justify going outside of those rules.

An immediate means to challenge should be available at the checkpoints elevating up to the FSD or their duty representative if needed.

I think most here agree that TSA has a role to play, it just seems that TSA doesn't understand their place in the big playbook.

Comments?

How do you know how they feel? Are you a trained specialist in reading minds? Do you ask? If you're spending time that way, no wonder the lines are so long.

I truly understand why you feel this way. No one wants to think their job is not essential. And while your job is necessary, that you consider yourself to be better than what existed prior to the formation of TSA is simply laughable.

A "pleasant experience" in line would be a return to sanity. No more stupid shoe rules, water rules, laptop rules, roving BDO's, and pointless random gate screening. A cheery smile and disposition isn't going to make up for TSA's pointless inefficiency and lies.

It is not in the least ambiguous. Perhaps you'll find this more enlightening:

"Airport screenings of passengers and their baggage constitute administrative searches and are subject to the limitations of the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir.1973) (noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are “conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme” where the essential administrative purpose is “to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft”); see also id. at 895, 904. Thus, airport screenings must be reasonable. See Torbet v. United Airlines, Inc., 298 F.3d 1087, 1089 (9th Cir.2002). To judge reasonableness, it is necessary to balance the right to be free of intrusion with “society's interest in safe air travel.” United States v. Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d 899, 901 (9th Cir.1986)."

In Davis and its progeny, we have established a general reasonableness test for airport screenings. “An airport screening search is reasonable if: (1) it is no more extensive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives; (2) it is confined in good faith to that purpose; and (3) passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.” Torbet, 298 F.3d at 1089 (citation omitted); see also Davis, 482 F.2d at 913; Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d at 901.

. . .

We have previously found airport screenings which require passengers to walk through a magnetometer and submit carry-on luggage for x-ray screening to be reasonable. See, e.g., United States v. Doran, 482 F.2d 929, 932 (9th Cir.1973); Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d at 901-02; Torbet, 298 F.3d at 1089-90. Generally, such a search “is brief, is less intrusive than the typical search warrant execution, does not have a stigma attached to it, is not made by armed police, and is often made only with advance notice.” Lafave, supra, § 10.6(c) [emphasis mine].

U.S. v. Marquez, 410 F.3d 612, C.A.9 (Wash.),2005.

You also might find this interesting, establishing a hierarchy of intrusiveness for airport searches:

Third, the procedures involved in Hartwell's search were minimally intrusive. FN10 They were well-tailored to protect personal privacy, escalating in invasiveness only after a lower level of screening disclosed a reason to conduct a more probing search. The search began when Hartwell simply passed through a magnetometer and had his bag x-rayed, two screenings that involved no physical touching. See United States v. Slocum, 464 F.2d 1180, 1182 (3d Cir.1972) (an airport magnetometer screen “per se is justified”). Only after Hartwell set off the metal detector was he screened with a wand-yet another less intrusive substitute for a physical pat-down. And only after the wand detected something solid on his person, and after repeated requests that he produce the item, did the TSA agents (according to Hartwell) reach into his pocket.

U.S. v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174 C.A.3 (Pa.),2006

There is also this, from the same case:

In addition to being tailored to protect personal privacy, other factors make airport screening procedures minimally intrusive in comparison to other kinds of searches. Since every air passenger is subjected to a search, there is virtually no “stigma attached to being subjected to search at a known, designated airport search point.” See United States v. Skipwith, 482 F.2d 1272, 1275 (5th Cir.1973).

Think about how that applies to "random" gate screenings.

Here's some more:

Headnote Citing References Routine security searches at airport checkpoints pass constitutional muster *110 because the compelling public interest in curbing air piracy generally outweighs their limited intrusiveness. See, e.g., United States v. Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d 899, 902 (9th Cir.1986); cf. United States v. Ferrer, 999 F.2d 7, 9 (1st Cir.1993) (upholding warrantless search of checked luggage on alternate ground of “abandonment,” but faulting government's “falling-domino approach, by which each intrusion diminishes privacy expectations enough to permit further infringements”). Consequently, all carry-on luggage can be subjected to initial x-ray screening for weapons and explosives without offending the Fourth Amendment. In the event the initial x-ray screening is inconclusive as to the presence of weapons or explosives, the luggage may be hand-searched as reasonably required to rule out their presence. Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d at 902.

[4] Headnote Citing References Other contraband inadvertently discovered during a routine checkpoint search for weapons and explosives may be seized and introduced in evidence at trial even though unrelated to airline security. See, e.g., Skipwith, 482 F.2d at 1277-78. On the other hand, lawful airline security searches of carry-on luggage may not be enlarged or tailored systemically to detect contraband ( e.g., narcotics) unrelated to airline security. See, e.g., United States v. $124,570 U.S. Currency, 873 F.2d 1240, 1243-45 (9th Cir.1989) (upholding suppression of contraband unrelated to airline security where screeners were rewarded monetarily by law enforcement authorities for detecting such contraband in carry-on luggage).

U.S. v. Doe, 61 F.3d 107, C.A.1 (Puerto Rico),1995.

The concerns, expressed in this circuit and elsewhere, that administrative searches not become a tool for law enforcement, reflect the limited rationale supporting those searches. To sustain a warrantless search, a court must normally make a case-specific factual determination that an exception to the warrant requirement (e.g. exigent circumstances, plain view) is applicable. If the search is approved, the approval covers that case only. An administrative search is different. By approving a warrantless search under this rationale, a court places its stamp of approval on an entire class of similar searches. Because it must consider the general, long-term implications of approving a new type of administrative search, the court will focus on legislative facts-those applicable to the entire class of cases-rather than adjudicative facts-those applicable only to the case before it. The court then relies on these legislative facts to make a dual determination: (1) that the search serves a narrow but compelling administrative objective, see, e.g., Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 536-37, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 1734-35, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967); and (2) that the intrusion is as “limited ... as is consistent with *1245 satisfaction of the administrative need that justifies [it].” Davis, 482 F.2d at 910.

[6] Headnote Citing References Once a type of search has been approved under this rationale, the court is freed from the need to make a specific factual inquiry in every subsequent case. In later cases, the search is deemed proper if it is covered by the approved rationale. By the same token, the court cannot sustain a subsequent search that differs in material respects from the search initially approved, as the same legislative facts may not be applicable.

[7] Headnote Citing References In Davis, we approved airport security searches based on the understanding that they would be limited to searches for guns or explosives, and that they would be no more burdensome than necessary to achieve that objective. So long as the government officials conducting the searches pursue a single-minded objective-air safety-the rationale of Davis works well: the searches will, almost by definition, be no more intrusive than is necessary to achieve air safety. Not so where FTS officials have other objectives in mind. We can then no longer rely on the same legislative facts that underlay the search we approved in Davis.

U.S. v. $124,570 U.S. Currency, 873 F.2d 1240, C.A.9,1989.

And not to belabor the obvious, but a definition is not "ambiguous" because you don't understand it. It is ambiguous only if it has legitimate alternate constructions.

But if the policy is contained in the SOP, which is SSI, the TSO may not have the ability to offer up that evidence in defense given cases such as Gilmore.

This gives me concerns about the legality of gate searches. Those searches are more extensive and intensive than what current technology is, i.e. x-ray machines. Also, I am unaware of a case in which a prosecution has been based on a "random" search at either the screening checkpoint or the gate. Based on dicta, a strong argument can be made that a "random" secondary search exceeds what is permissible.

This is what I've been saying right along. I think there is a significant constitutionality issue with gate searches, particularly when they involve a pat-down.

There have, however, been prosecutions based on discovery of non-security-related contraband in the course of a WTMD screening search.

I agree and have had these concerns for some time about gate searches and, to a lesser degree, secondary searches when the technology such as ETD is out there but not being deployed and/or used.

As for your second paragraph, I do know about those cases. What would be interesting is a case in which the secondary search was solely based on being "random."

Having worked at Disney World for six years I can tell customer service is highly quantifiable by using several factors. However Ron started this thread to find out.

So Ron tell us after careful review do you still believe that your upper management is asking you to perform your job within the law? So who is wrong and who is right?

That’s because you let it get to you. It’s a part of the experience, take it for what it is, a necessity of one want to fly in today’s world. Neither good nor bad, it just is. If you want to be upset with someone, be upset with Richard Reid.

Not really, I just had to get to a part in the various conversations where I could mention it. I have traveled quite a bit over the years (ex-military) and have had to deal with both the civilian security as well as TSA. The Germans are pretty hard to deal with, some who complain here should go through the checkpoint in Frankfurt. It would open their eye’s.

Name me a big company that wouldn’t? It’s a fact in our world now days, and a part of the whole employment experience sad though it may be. The thing is to not vary from the written, and if you have no choice then you get the OK from your supervisor to do it. That puts the monkey on their back.

Sorry, not buying that. The government gets sued all the time. 4000 times a day. For things they did do, didn’t do, and might do. The government is the great cash cow, along with being the great satin.

Actually its the TSA that is to blame. Tell me Ron what other countries require airline passengers to remove their shoes unless they are flying to the United States. How many shoe bombs outside of the United States have occurred since Richard Reid?

Having spent twenty years in an industry that has a high level of risk management I can tell you are mistaken. If you do something that you know is wrong and your supervisor tells you to do it you are just as liable. The Nazi's at the war crimes trials claimed that they were just following orders. The Nuremberg defense didn't work for them it won't work for you.

I need to know my operational boundaries and parameters. How they got there? Not so much. I just need to know what I can do and why? Not the actual mechanism vis-a-vis that decision came about.

I wanted to head Godwin off at the pass. I'm psychic that way. ;)

Cops do. Trust me, they know when they're off the reservation. 99% of the time they know.

I used to teach this stuff though........:)

Everyone go to the nearest shelter immediately. The End Days are nigh-

I agree that gate searches are of suspect Constitutionality.

See I KNEW there was a reason I bought chickens and am making a still.

End of the world party at my house. Chicken and dumplings washed down with industrial grade shine. ;)

For any Revenuers reading this, the chickens are real the still is not. At least not yet.

No, it's not a necessity. The US is the only one that believes that and the only time it's experienced abroad is for US bound flights. Can't tell me that the US is the only terrorist target in the world. Madrid and the UK subway bombings have shown that the US isn't the only target. Even Israel doesn't have a shoe carnival and they have a damn good reason to be paranoid.

Yet, despite how often Reid is trotted out, we don't see any planes falling out of the sky, despite the bigness of the threat TSA makes it out to be.

I had a link way back from an LA Times article that both TSA and FBI reported there wasn't a single attempt at a shoe bomb since Reid. I'd post the link, but unfortunately, it's archived and accessible by subscription only. I did post snippets and some snippets are findable with a Google search. TSA would have us believe it's because of the shoe carnival, but at that time, the shoe carnival wasn't mandatory.

Securities procedures are good if they're necessary. They're bad if they're not. The shoe carnival isn't necessary. The rest of the world proves that.

FRA can be a bit "friendly" in their patdowns, but at the same time, they were also very businesslike. I wouldn't have called them friendly, but I wouldn't call them rude either. It was business. I can tell you that domestic security at HAM was much different than what I got at FRA. It was pretty sedate at FRA.

Companies can be sued. The government cannot.

While the company may blame it on an employee, they're still going to be liable. Depending on how the judge determines liability, the individual may or may not have to pay.

Take a look at the doctrine of sovereign immunity found here:

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s103.htm
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Sovereign_immunity

Enjoy.