RichardKenner

I don't read that the way you do. We can't be sure until the transcript of the hearing in question is available (sometime in August, if I remember correctly), but from context I don't think the judge asked the TSA for something and was told he couldn't have it, but rather that the "government" (note this means the prosecutor, not the TSA) didn't choose to submit any evidence of certain things and the Court was pointing out that this means it didn't exists because if such evidence existed, but was claimed to be SSI, there would have been a way to submit it. Note that, unlike the Bierfeldt case, the only role for DHS/TSA here is that some of their employees are witnesses.

ND Sol

If I see it in public view without having to do a search, then what I tell the LEO about it can be used as probable cause. But here the baggie is only seen in the bag search as a result of an administrative search. It is never seen in public, so I don't see it as a good analogy. Now if the passenger placed the baggie in a bin for x-ray where it could be seen by all, then you have an analogy closer to me seeing the baggie pop out of the backpack.

I have asked about it before and have not had anyone state that TSO's have training on identifying illegal drugs, large amounts of cash or child pornography. If the TSA did do this training, then the search would be unconstitutional with respect to those non-aviation security items on which the TSO's have been trained to identify.

bwhite

I can just see the TSA's response..."...provided that the amount of oregano can be consumed during the flight."

Too much oregano is clearly a threat to the safety of aviation since multiple pax could enjoy the food provided by the airlines. Entire families could deplane with a smile on their face and the TSA clearly can't have that.

ND Sol

TSO's are required to review all papers:

And now we have the answer for why TSO's are able to read any of the papers that you are carrying:

Trollkiller

I misread your post, I think I have it now. To clarify, you are talking about placing the baggie in an open bin, not something that is seen due to the x-ray, right?

ND Sol

That is correct, which is what I did try to imply when I stated it was placed in a bin for x-ray "where it could be seen by all."

RichardKenner

I do, because "seen in public" is really an issue of "expectation of privacy". If I'm walking on the street, my expectation of privacy is that people can see the outside of my bag (or things poking through), but not the inside. However, when I go to fly and know that I'll be undergoing an administrative search, I know (or should know) that my bag may be opened as part of that search. Thus, I should not have any expections of privacy on any of its contents that would be revealed merely by opening it.

pmocek

I, too, read that to mean "placed in a bin headed for the X-ray machine, which would allow everyone to see the content of any bags" not "placed in a bin where anyone could see it with the naked eye".

ralfp

Why is that "clearly illegal"? People can change their names and get new passports. AFAIK you get the old one back; perhaps sometimes they forget to mutilate the old one.

bocastephen

Yes, I am curious about this too. Having multiple passports is not illegal, nor is having multiple passports with different names. You can be a natural born citizen of Canada - John Smith - and then naturalize in the US and change your name to James Smythe, thus having two perfectly legitimate passports with different names.

ND Sol

The search at the airport is an administrative one, so I do view it differently. I have only consented at best to viewing by TSO's, not the world as in a public place, which is why the TSA provides everyone with an opportunity to search your bags in a private room.

RichardKenner

Sorry, I was too terse. I wasn't making a general statement, but talking specifically about the facts in this case. The indictment actually wasn't claiming that the passports were illegal (they were foreign passports), but that the US visas in them were.

If you look at the facts in the case (more in the complaint and indictment than the posted ruling), it's clear that even a quite cursory inspection would have revealed that these were fraudulent and not one of the valid cases above (e.g., the visas were both issued on the same date to two different people with the same picture and had the same visa numbers). This is distinct from the "bag of leafy substances" (or a bag of white powder) where a cursory inspection that could be done with a TSO (who is trained to detect fraudulent travel documents, but not illegal drugs) would not indicate whether the substance was legal or illegal.

bocastephen

Regardless, fraudulent visas are not any business of the TSA. If the person can show valid ID (which they shouldn't need to anyway, but that's another argument) and they are free of weapons, their status in the US, lawful or not, is completely irrelevant for the purposes of clearing someone into the sterile portion of the terminal and is not at all germane to the administrative search being performed.

RichardKenner

Yes, that's the whole point of the case! But what was being discussed here is that there are two different scenarios, both of which should be unconstitutional. One is where there's something in plain view when opening a bag that may be illegal and the other is where there's something that's definitely illegal, but is not in "plain view". This case is the latter situation.

KCK

Since TSA's administrative search is supposed to be limited to looking for things that could threaten aviation security/safety (weapons/explosives), a passenger should have an expectation that the search will not go beyond what is necessary to determine if such a threat exists.