HSVTSO Dean

Ah, Pizza Hut. Happy tummy.

Anyway.

There's only one policy set in place that has any bearing on any kind of cash at all: that's the one that says if we happen to stumble across what appears to be a pile of cash that appears to be in excess of $10,000, to notify our STSO. There's nothing else to it than that. It's up to the STSO, at that point, to decide where to go from there - and if they're not flying internationally, then there's nowhere to go at all but to say, "Have a nice day, sir."

In the Steve Bierfeldt case, this is particularly of interest. All they have to do is say, "Hey, show us the policy." It's not SSI, so there's nothing that needs to be seen in-camera, and all it would take is one read-through of the thing to see that what the TSA guy did on the recording is (a) not acceptable behavior under any conditions on how to treat a passenger (which is neither here nor there in terms of judicial review of the scenario), and (b) not TSA policy.

This schmoe decided on his own to act like that, and while it is true that TSA policy has a sentence or two in there about $10K going overseas, it has nothing - nothing whatsoever - about $4700 going domestically.

Even in that other case - the Fofana case - all of the actions taken by the screening personnel were all local things, set up by the FSD there. The SOP itself, the one we get from TSA, outlines the screening for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, and that's it. There's a couple of sentences about incidental finds - specifically, illegal narcotics and large piles of money appearing to be in excess of $10K - but that's exactly what they're defined as in the SOP: Incidental. There's no policy anywhere from the national level about searching, specifically, for wads of money or for illegal narcotics.

So, if the point of the lawsuit was to force a change in national screening policy... what, exactly, needs to be changed? It seems more like a disciplinary matter for that one person in the Steve Bierfeldt case (I'm convinced that he's either an STSO or a BDO; no rank-and-file TSO should still have been in control of that situation by that point), to me.

And, of course, the matter of settling the incident with Mr. Bierfeldt, because he was, in my opinion, quite wronged.

EDIT: Not going to change it, but a quick explanation about the way some of the sentences were worded - by the time I was nearing the end, I thought this was the Steve Bierfeldt thread, not the Fofana thread. My bad~

MikeMpls

On what grounds? Findings of fact by a lower court generally can't be appealed. There has to be a constitutional or procedural issue to get a higher court's attention.

This is the bigger danger. District court decisions don't set precedents, and decisions by a Court of Appeals are binding only in the one circuit. If the DHS/TSA ignores or circumvents the decision, it eventually will take the Supreme Court to sort it out. That could take years to happen.

bocastephen

They will find some fault with the decision, perhaps on a procedural issue - anything to get it in front of another judge who has a shot at reversing. I think the ACLU needs to add this to its arsenal when it takes on the TSA in the higher courts. To date, they've been pretty useless - let's see if they can get some changes made.

jkhuggins

Mounting my soapbox ...

I think you actually hinted at the answer to the question in your own response.

From here in the cheap seats ... what I suspect has happened is that the practice of screening has drifted substantially from the written directives. Certainly, some individual TSOs are acting well outside the scope of the SOP. But I suspect that some FSDs are as well, by creating local procedures which are outside the written directives. Consequently, front-line TSOs are being given incorrect instructions as to the limits of their ability to search.

(Of course, all of this is speculative, because as a passenger, I'm not allowed to view the SOP. So, when a TSO orders me to comply with a particular procedure, I have no way to know if this is in the SOP, an overreaching local procedure enacted by a FSD, or a single overreaching TSO. If I could actually see the list of procedures I'm required to follow (paging Phil ...), I'd be able to tell the difference.)

You say that the SOP only deals with weapons, explosives, and incendiaries --- and I have no reason to doubt you. What needs to be done, IMHO, is to change the practice of screening to return to focus on those core items, and only those items. Eliminate all the local variations and inconsistencies --- which, coincidentally, also eliminates one of the major complaints against the TSA.

This means that the occasional drug smuggler or money launderer won't get caught. That's the price we pay in a free society for preserving our liberties. LEOs and prosecutors understand those limits and find ways to do their jobs within those limits. TSA employees --- at all levels --- need to re-learn those limits and embrace them as well.

(And, for the record, I'm sure there are plenty of TSA employees (like you, Dean, and many others who post here) who understand those limits quite well already.)

HSVTSO Dean

Well-spoken, Jim. We are in agreement.

I know that once upon a time, the SOP was supposed to be the Holy Writ of screening. There was even a line, right in the first few pages, that stated that no TSO, LTSO, STSO, AFSD, DFSD, or FSD has the authority to change or to deviate in any way from the screening operations outlined within, without written permission from TSA to that effect, and any changes or deviations had to be temporary in nature, and subject to hourly reports.

Kip changed all that, trying to turn TSA from a... well, in the words of the Engage! training itself: From a see=>do operation to adding think=>feel as well, and the ability to "go beyond" the SOP in the name of security.

Personally, I feel that it's one of those things that worked out better in theory than in practice. Don't get me wrong - about 80% of the Engage! training was very worthwhile, with useful information and the building blocks of even more useful skills (particularly in the customer service aspects, even though the end-result of it wasn't necessarily customer service for the sake of customer service). Personally, I think I preferred the TSA when it wasjust a see=do operation, and the rest of the stuff - intelligence, investigative work, etc - was left to the people whom's job that already was, and still is.

But that's just me, and my opinion doesn't matter for squat. I am, after all, the lowest rank possible in all of the TSA, in a relatively small regional airport.

Like, not at all? :P I was working for the TSA for, like, four years before I ever heard the phrase 'administrative search,' and then it wasn't from a TSA training document. It was me just reading on my own on the Internet, doing some research for something else.

Oh, here's a neat thing just to throw out - for all of the complaining I read here about the so-called "tin badges," I have discovered that it is the exact same badge that TSA has been handing out for years. TSOs, TSIs, and FFDOs all have the exact same, exactly identical badges. The only difference is on the banner at the top - "Officer" for TSOs, "Inspector" for TSIs, and "FFDO" for FFDOs.

So does this mean that FFDOs are "tin-badged," too?

KCK

I don't think the Bierfeldt incident can be attributed to an out of control TSO. Based on the TSA's statements about the incident--"The tone and language used by the TSA employee was inappropriate and proper disciplinary action was taken.", the TSO was disciplined only for what and how he spoke to Mr. Bierfeldt. One can reasonably assume that the TSO acted in accordance with TSA policy because TSA management did not also discipline him for acting outside of TSA policy.

lianluo

Maybe we can take a page from the Iranian students and hold protests in front of TSA HQ.....

pmocek

Nicely worded, Dean. That made me smile.

I'm still curious if they train you guys to tell a stack of singles from a stack of $100's, or if this part of your SOP is meaningless.

HSVTSO Dean

Just for you, Phil. I'm learning

Nah, just a statement about notifying the STSO. Though, just as an aside, one assumes that one's eyes work well enough for determining a stack of singles from a stack of $100's. A blind TSO wouldn't do so hot on the x-ray, y'know

Trollkiller

The blind ones get booted to the TSA legal department. Rimshot

Trollkiller

It is too hot for that, maybe we can pay the Iranian students to protest for us.

jkhuggins

The problem, IMHO, is that little phrase "in the name of security". As a computer scientist, I know that "security" and "access" are antonyms. I can make a computing system that's incredibly secure, but nobody would use it because it would be too hard to access. Similarly, most attempts to make airline travel more security by definition restrict access --- to people, or to people's possessions. There are tradeoffs, and always resolving those tradeoffs in the name of security isn't always the right answer.

I do want front-line TSOs to be able to "go beyond" the SOP. Nipple-Gate never would've happened if the TSOs would've been able to override the specific rules in the SOP in order to fulfill its overall intent. But, given other things you've said, I doubt most TSOs have the training to understand those subtleties.

Most people don't realize that customer service actually helps the service provider to do their job more effectively. At a minimum, it can dissipate tension. At its best, it turns the customer into a partner of the service provider. But when I speak about that, I'm talking about real customer service, not painting a smile on your face and wearing the required number of pieces of flair on your uniform.

(Speaking of which, has anyone seen my red stapler? I had it here somewhere ...)

Flaflyer

(following assumes new unwrinkled bills 0.0043 inch thick)
TSO Quiz o the Day: A one inch stack of bills contains 232 bills. You find a one inch stack of bills shrinkwrapped so you can only see the top and bottom bill. There is a $1 on top and bottom. How many dollars are you holding?

Times up. If the stack is all $1, there is $232. If only the outside two are $1 and the inner are $100, you have $23,002.

What if it is a "impress the girl I'm rich" stack with a $100 on top and bottom and $1 in between. Then you have $430.

The TSA $10,000 "This owner must be a criminal" level is a stack of $100s 0.43 inch high. Quite easy to hide, and split up almost invisible. Perhaps like in STL the owner does not have time/care to go to the bank and convert his $1 bills into $100s. $10,000 is a stack of ones 43 inchs high. A Grade A Level TSO sees ten stacks of bills one inch thick and thinks "Big Catch™" when it might be only $2320.

So I have to ask: How much training do all TSOs get on "Eyeball volume estimation of currency stacks and mental conversion to dollar value based on average bill denomination"?

Lumpy

Oh, jk... I actually believe your linear heart is in the right place, but neither you nor any other pax is a CUSTOMER OF TSA in ANY sense of the word. The "service" part of the phrase "customer service" I will leave up to your imagination, figuratively or literally. One really needn't peel back the layers of HSVTSO's statement about SOP and "think=>feel" too very far to arrive at the true nature of ALL SOP, either, especially the "feel" part.

Lumpy

BTW: Does this teeny lil' ol' court actually think it has any authority in the face of the Great God Ozymandias, The TSA? I feel a sudden great stirring in the dark side of The Force, children...