You were doing fine until you got to "question." A TSO can't question anything outside their purview (aviation security). If they find something they think may be illegal yet outside said purview yet still within the limitations of their permitted administrative search, they can refer it to local/fed LEOs but they cannot question the pax about it. This is an Exclusionary Rule issue, with possible (probable) Miranda issues attached. They aren't LEOs but they are Fed employees and represent the G, so the Bill of Right protections attach and apply since it's no longer completely an admin issue.

Long story short - they they discover something inside their court precedent approved admin search parameters yet outside their dangerous items mandate/jurisdiction, then they can refer it to other appropriate agencies but that's it, be it drugs, money, whatever. No investigation allowed, however.

Do you know what a large stack of cash looks like on an x-ray? Could it look like a dense mass that would mimic what an explosive would look like? If it does that gives the TSO the legal right to check for explosives. Once the TSO sees the wad of cash, that is suspicious by its amount, he has the right to refer to a LEO without a 4th Amendment violation. In fact the TSO is mandated by the SOP to do so. Failing to refer to a LEO would be dereliction of duty.

Regardless of what the TSA may believe, SSI and secret directives do not usurp law. If the TSA has other charges there should be a law that allows it. You need to find the statutory law or case law that limits the TSA at the airport to one charge when dealing with passengers and/or the sterile area. Failing that and the Devil wins.

The TSA does have more than one charge as it is over all of transportation security and an allowance that is made in one area of transportation may allow allowances made at the airport. (non Devil's Advocate comment: I honestly don't know if it would)

The Devil gets to win by default if the Devil is the authority perceived to be in charge. The Angels must bind the Devil by making him submit to the will of God.

In this case God would be the Constitution and the Bible is the statutory laws. To beat this Devil you need to learn your scripture.

p.s. Being the Devil's Advocate is hard. (please feel sorry for me)

I think Bart explained that TSOWilliamReed is acting way outside of TSA procedure. It sounds like to me that the LEOs at TSOWilliamReed's airport got tired of being called over for "maybes".

It would NOT be an illegal search on the part of a LEO if a TSO explained to the LEO why he suspects that the back pack contains drugs. Example "I was searching this bag and I found what I believe is pot." At that point the LEO has probable cause that a law is being broken and can search the bag.

Before we head off on the drug question, because drugs are illegal, lets kick the cash question some more because the mere possession of cash is not illegal.

Being a Devil's Advocate can really hurt your brains.... trust me I know.

Start digging around and see if you can find case law or statutory law that supports your Devil's Advocate position. I need to do the same for mine but that may not happen fully until this weekend.

Investigation is allowed if it is a good faith effort to clear an item. Illegal items could appear suspicious but legal, like prescription meds, money or a bunch of credit cards in various names.

Without investigating (asking questions) how is a TSO supposed to know that everything is above board?

emphasis mine: pretty much the post of the year afaic ^*

*with no offense meant to our resident tsa folks (even the ones i butt heads with ;)) as it is their job but they have no say as to the rules that come their way

*****

or carry a hard copy of the form and instructions (with the applicable sections of the instructions highlighted). yeah i know, it sounds anal but i have a "tsa forms/instructions" manila folder that lives in my briefcase in case i have a situation where the screener is not correct and i will have them look at the docs. this all started with me having to wear orthopedic shoes but now includes things like a copy of the "bad items list", official tsa complaint/compliment forms, tsa's official civil rights polcy statement and fincen form 105 (it's a hold over from my vegas days)

Since TSO's are highly trained as we have been told so many times I feel no need to justify my actions to a low level government employee.

If they interfere with my movement I will take appropriate action to address that situation.

I am of the opinion that a TSO acting outside of SOP is personally liable. I hope to have the opportunity to test this opinion at some point.

No only will SOP have to be disclosed to mount a defense but a clear ruling on limits will be established.

I would hope others would consider this path if the opportunity is offered.

This is a nation of laws.

But does such lack of cooperation thus create suspicion, and therefore probable cause for further interrogation by a LEO?

I know that TSA believe this is part of their job. Quoting their own internal propaganda is not convincing proof that anyone else thinks it is, or should be, part of their job. I might decide that my job allows me to whack idiots with a 2x4 (and today I would have) but that doesn't make it so.
Unless it's labelled "$10,001", they have no way of knowing whether it's above $10k unless they stop the passenger, pull out the cash and count it. By then, they're already "investigating." And TSA directives are not law.
(Damn you, TK, I though CFR Title 47 was unpleasant to read!!) 49CFR Section XII defines the scope and authority of the TSA. The Administrator of the TSA is responsible for “security in all modes of transportation” (49CFR1502.1); I see nothing about any other law enforcement role. 49CFR1542.215, for example, says that airports need to supply law enforcement support “to respond to an incident in support of a civil aviation security program” and 49CFR1542.219 says that TSA can supply staff to fill this law enforcement role if the airport cannot. It’s all under the umbrella of “civil aviation security”, though, not “enforcing CBP currency policies” or “helping out DEA.” 49CFR1544 and 49CFR1546 define this “civil aviation security program” as (49CFR1544.201) (a) Preventing or deterring the carriage of any explosive, incendiary, or deadly or dangerous weapon, (b) Screening of individuals and accessible property. Except as provided in its security program, each aircraft operator must ensure that each individual entering a sterile area at each preboard screening checkpoint for which it is responsible, and all accessible property under that individual's control, are inspected for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries as provided in Sec. 1544.207.

There is simply nothing there about carrying out detective work, checking for drugs, unpaid parking tickets, undeclared overseas-bound cash, rescuing kittens or anything else. Just “weapons, explosives, and incendiaries.”

No. This very easily leads to any government employee running to the police anytime they seem something slightly unusual. I don't think that contributes to safety and security, it just raises the level of government intrusion into our lives.

Postmen are already walking through suburban streets; with the growth of the internet, they probably have a lighter workload. Should we allow them to enter people’s homes along the route looking for drug labs, overdue library books and dangerous bacteria in the fridge? Certainly it would contribute to safety and security, but at what cost to freedom and privacy?

I already object to the public awareness campaigns - in Australia as well as in the US - to the effect of "if you see something, say something." No one needs to be told "if you see a robbery, or a violent attack, or someone with blood on their hands, call the police" - we all know that. No, this is permission for every busy-body to worry about someone wearing the wrong kind of clothes, or speaking a foreign language, or having visitors at odd hours. It smacks of wartime Germany with people reporting on their neighbors. It's bad enough for the gov't to encourage everyone to do this, but to make it the duty of every government employee is much worse. It penalizes being different, something that America use to celebrate.

As above, by the time the TSA screener determines that it's above $10k and that the passenger is on an int'l flight, they've gone too far into the realm of "investigating."
Except it's not a crime to carry a wad of money. It's only a crime if three other conditions are met: a) it's more than $10k, b) they're going o/s and c) they haven't declared it. Only the combination of those three is a crime. Any two is perfectly legal.

Let me try another analogy. Everyone knows (from TV crime dramas) that drug deals always happen in public restrooms. Nevertheless, most people going into a public restroom are doing so for a perfectly legal reason. Should the TSA, or any gov't employee, for that matter, search anyone entering a public restroom on the grounds that they might be there for the purpose of conducting a drug deal? :rolleyes:

If having a large but undetermined amount of cash is a "potential crime" then so are many other things - driving a car could be a getaway from a bank robbery. Walking down the street could be someone casing the neighborhood. With enough imagination, any common and legal activity could be linked to something illegal. "Could be" is simply not good enough justification for violating people's privacy.

(I realize I'm providing fresh ideas for TSA to expand their powers. :( )

Why Not Take the TSA to the (Il)logical Conclusion?
 

To take the Devil's Advocate position a bit further, why not expand the TSA duties? We know that you can be denied a passport for various reasons including a federal warrant of arrest or failure to pay child support. Why not give the TSA the same opportunity to do background checks?

Give the I.D. checker a computer that has access to various state and federal databases. He scans your driver's license or passport or types your name in and, if a match pops up, he then notifies the local law enforcement agency (which will have to have someone stationed at the checkpoint continuously) and they take you into custody. Or, if you happen to be a paroled or released sex offender, they can tag your boarding pass or dye your left cheek purple to identify you to the rest of the passengers.

Wouldn't this make the world a safer place? We'd get scofflaws, criminals and all sorts of other bad people off the streets and, more importantly, out of the airplanes to make our travel that much safer. Who wants to have to sit next to a suspected petty criminal who will go through your luggage when you get up to go to the toilet or steal your wallet while you're asleep?

Probably enough to generate a D-Y-W-T-F-T? :rolleyes:

It still seems like whack-a-mole if the devil's advocation isn't more than fluffy assertions of how TSA does things. An effective devil's advocate should quote the scripture that makes the devil's case. Else, you're just sniping and telling people they don't have the rights they think they have. I did try to cut you a little slack in granting you your administrative search based on the stuff your angelic aspect cited several times and the work that Radio Girl eventually did for you.

As for a limitation, How about United States v Davis: "...screening of passengers and of the articles that will be accessible to them in flight does not exceed constitutional limitations provided that the screening process is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives, that it is confined in good faith to that purpose, ..."

If TSA don't confine itself in good faith to that purpose, it exceeds constitutional limitations and the search is unreasonable under the 4th amendment. Why does TSA have a right to search and examine each bill to count how much money is there, interrogate the passenger about how they may have come by it, or detain the passenger on the behalf of a real LEO?

Your assertion of an SSI SOP is no more authoritative than TSOReedWilliams' assertion of the SSI SOP that forces him to act as the unbound hands of the LEO.

The US v Davis ruling seems to be more vague than necessary. It allows far to much wiggle room for the TSA in its searches. Technology is always advancing, hence the MMW machines being deployed around the country, which while not really a “virtual strip search” does get to invasive for the average passenger. There is no need to go to the skin for passengers, a simple pat-down is more than sufficient to meet the needs of aircraft and passenger security.

We hear rumors all the time that the terrorists out there are getting copies of our newest SOP’s before we get them, and about fully constructed checkpoints being found in caves in Iraq and Afghanistan, complete with our equipment, the programming, and the training manuals. What is the point in keeping these things away from the public and out of the general domain? The terrorists already have it all, all TSA is doing is confounding the law abiding general flying public. Why not allow everyone to review procedures and policy, that way they know what to expect and could even offer suggestions on how to plug any holes in policy or procedure that may exist.

Disclaimer: While I may not support this argument I can certainly entertain the idea a different point of view.
:o