*****

Well crap I don't know whose side to be on.

I will assume that every case that is pursued is based on physical evidence found and not the BDO's testimony. The exception is when the search is conducted by LEOs, or away from the screening area by non LEOs, based on the BDOs observation.

If a BDO signals a TSO to do a more extensive screening of the passenger and carry on at the checkpoint you would not run into a Constitutional issue, and I would see no reason to even involve the BDO a trial.

On the other hand if a BDO contacts a LEO because they suspect that someone wiped their forehead or has some other "micro emotion" that indicated nefariousness, and the LEO took the BDO's word without any independent observation that would raise probable cause, the search would run foul of the 4th Amendment protections.

I thought it was TSA's policy goal that all TDC's would eventually be BDO's?

*****

Listen up cupcake, most of us in these forums don't consider the TSA a workable solution, it was a stopgap measure at a time of crisis that was poorly implemented. Now seven years later we have gotten tired of security plans that are reactive rather than proactive. Take for example shoe removal and the liquids ban, I can�t think of single country that requires passenger to go through this kind of nonsense and that includes England where Richard Reid�s flight originated from. The only time they do require it is when the flight is going to the United States. Germany, England, Ireland, France, Spain, and Italy have all had serious problems with terrorism that pre-date 9/11. And yet they don�t have planes falling out the skies from shoe bombs.

No one here is anti-TSA, what we would like to see is an agency that lives in the real world. For example many TSOs like to claim that the there are options to having your items confiscated, none of them are a realistic option if you were to try to use them at an airport.

There has been change within the TSA because of passengers questioning policies, those changes have included; TSA approved lap top bags, complaint forms available on line, lanes for families to name a few. The real problem is procedures that only seem to be used in America and no place else.

Which explains the high rate of failure for the Red Team tests.

Interesting because we keep hearing that a BDO's job is not based on junk science, but rather on definitive methods that can be taught to others. If you can't explain your gut reaction in court that just makes what a BDO does as nothing more than random guess work.

Our biggest problem as an organization (with regards to failing the red team testing) is technology. We are currently using 1960's-70's technology with some upgrades and patches. It limits our capability to detect some of the bad things because it was not designed to look for it. With the rollout of the new Xrays, some of those failures would be eliminated because of the new technology. Then again, some of the failures are just that, failures.

Completely agree with the technology argument.

Which is why getting the virtual strip-search machines and two waves of new uniforms before getting new x-ray machines show the TSA has a completely different mission that aviation safety.

This is an excuse, failures are failures. This LINK, is a perfect example of the failure of the TSO, not the equipment. Perhaps if they didn't have to be so focused on shoes and 4 ounce containers the scores would improve.

I don't see a problem explaining the it in court. A BDO does not need articulatable suspicion to order a more thorough screening as long as it falls within the "standard" administrative search. In Davis the 9th Circuit Court seems to agree that a screening "by one or more of the following systems: behavioral profile, magnetometer, identification check, physical search" is allowable under an administrative search.

If the responsibility is the LEO's from the hand off point the BDO should not see a court room if the LEO searches the PAX based on the fact that the LEO would need their own independent observation to see if the behavior exhibited rises to the level of probable cause.

If for some really odd reason a BDO had to testify as to his observations he would not need to reveal what "tells" lead to his conclusion that the PAX needed further screening.

BDO: "With my background experience and training I noticed certain small 'tells' that when taken together indicates a person is hiding a nefarious intent."

Lawyer: "What 'tells' did you observe that lead you to the conclusion that my client had a nefarious intent?"

BDO: "I am sorry the Department of Homeland Security has deemed that information is protected under SSI."

Ta-Da! The BDO is in the clear and the defense lawyer would need to take on the cop's articulatable probable cause.

Hmmmm, I cant speak of any security knowledge other than Germany. When I lived there you didnt even eyeball a Polizei for fear of being beat down with a big metal spring (baton) and the Frankfurt airport was patrolled in teams with German Shepards and automatic weapons. Maybe we should adopt those standards. By the way, I dont think that they have had any mass killings lately like we have either.

Might want ot double-check your facts.

What mass killings have happened lately?

Nothing to do with aircraft