...then dig up some other cite like Kyllo that invalidates unreasonably intrusive high-tech warrantless searches. Unsubstantiated opinions by either the devil's advocate or the devil's critics don't add much.

Sounds like a new thread. (Rather than the full SOPs (playbook) the TSA uses to implement its secret rules, I'd be happy (well, less mad) if the rules of the game were available for reference both on-line and at the checkpoint.)

The TSO has no right to question anyone about anything. The limits of the administrative search performed by TSOs is clear: to ensure that passengers do not have in their possession weapons or explosives. The administrative search does not involve asking any questions, nor do TSOs have any right to require answers. A TSO may be a federal officer (and I'm not even sure he is), but he is not a law enforcement officer. As a lawyer admitted to the federal court, I am considered an officer of the court as a matter of law. I may not, however, arrest, detain or question anyone, either.
A TSO has no powers of arrest or detention, and his ability to "investigate" is limited to clearing your person and your bags with respect weapons or explosives.

This is important, folks: TSOs (and BDOs) have no legal authority to question anyone about anything.

If they have no legal authority to ask questions how can they do their jobs?

Example, if I have a totally legal battery pack but the TSO is suspicious about it, how can that TSO clear it as a non threat if he is unable to question me about it?

Fairly simple answer, really. As a passenger, you're not obligated under the law to answer the TSO's questions --- or, for that matter, to comply with any of TSA's rules and regulations. And, in return, the TSO is not obligated to admit you to the sterile area, either. TSA is pretty adamant about the point that it's not a constitutional right to board a commercial aircraft ... no matter how inconvenient the alternatives are.

Lying or misrepresenting something to non-LEO federal agents is jail-worthy per Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 If you don't want to end up like Martha Stewart, watch out. You might be better off saving your answers for a local airport cop rather than these TSA federales.

They can't. That's exactly my point. Their jobs are premised on unconstitutional conduct.

A TSO should be well-trained enough to differentiate a battery pack from an explosive. However, that's not to what I was referring. Arguably, such a question would be within the constitutional scope of an administrative search.

What the TSO can not do is say, "So, where are you headed today? Why are you traveling? Where are you coming from? Is this a business trip or pleasure? Who is your employer? Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?" Such questions are outside the scope of the administrative search and you are not compelled to answer such questions.

To be clear, I have two specific constitutional objections to current TSA procedures:

1. Use of BDOs which, as I've explained above, I believe is unconstitutional.

2. Gate searches which, as currently implemented, I believe are unconstitutional because (a) they exceed the scope of the limited administrative search, and (b) the method of "random selection" is, in fact, not random and therefore violative of the standards set for this form of administrative search.

I do believe, based on existing case law, that the "standard" WTMD checkpoint procedure of boarding pass and ID examination, passing through the WTMD, screening by wand (and, to a far more limited extent that is currently practiced, by hand), x-ray and subsequent discretionary hand search of carry-ons, is constitutional).

I'm certainly not going nit-pick over a TSO who, in an effort to clear me to the sterile area, picks up an odd-looking battery and says, "What's this?" just as I have no problem with a LEO who, seeing me holding a green bottle on the street under circumstances where it would be reasonable to assume it might be a beer bottle says, "So what you got there?"

I will, however, stand firm that there is no permissible constitutional basis to conditioning my entry into the sterile area on the answers to questions about where I'm going, where I've been, why I'm traveling, etc.

That's correct. That's why my practice is to not speak to BDOs or, if they persist, to respond, "None of your business," and walk away.

You are mistaken about the basis for the constitutional objection, which is not that TSA violates the constitution when it denies access to an aircraft because you refuse to submit to the limited administrative search conducted at the WTMD checkpoint. These administrative searches are clearly constitutional but, because of the limitations on the scope of administrative searches, some TSA practices, e.g. BDO questioning, looking for "contraband" in places that could not conceal weapons, explosives or incendiaries, etc., are, in my opinion, unconstitutional irrespective of what TSA might say.

Who said that a TSO would clear it anyway even if it were a nonthreat and the pax answered the question? Read PV and you'll see that's happened a few times (homemade battery pack, etc).

ahem, shouldn't it be, "none of your business so please go spot someone else"

Money is money. An investigation into the physical nature of the money is allowed - is it really money? Is it really a dangerous item? But the amounts, where obtained, etc. are beyond their purview. That is a LE matter.

I'd hate to be accused of knowing the SOP -- it's an SSI violation, you know.

emphasis mine: you are 100% correct but as we all know, the tsa doesn't listen and makes up their own rules

Excuse me for jumping out of Devil's Advocate mode but you just hurt my brain.

How can a procedure like the forced ID verification as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area not constitute a Constitutional violation by stepping way outside the statutory bounderies of the administrative search when a BDO program or gate searches does?

No where in the statute does it give the TSA the right to examine an ID.

Come back to the light, TK. You're starting to sound like you're main-lining the Kool-Aid.