Screening takes place at the checkpoint. Are you saying that the TSO would lie?

Unlike TSOs, most LEOs are very knowledgeable about, and respectful of, the constitutional limits on their police powers.

Perhaps. The ones who have tried with me in the past have failed. However, I value the Constitution and fear a government tyranny more than I do losing my preferred seat and taking a later flight.

Only if he wants to make me laugh. A TSO has no authority to remove me from the secure area or, for that matter, to make me do anything I don't want to do.

How so? Do you think they are going to pick me up and drag me out of the concourse? I'd love for them to try. By the time I was finished with TSA, I'd be able to retire on the damage award AND a few TSOs would find themselves on the wrong side of the bars in prison.

A TSO can say whatever he likes. That doesn't mean you have to DO anything in response to it.

I almost wrote, "search me." A BDO is a mind-reader who, based on a couple of days of "intensive" training, is able to look at someone and based on their "micro expressions" immediately detect ill-intent. Think of them as those crazy water-dowsers, who would walk around with a wand of witch hazel and say, "I found water! Dig here!"

At any rate, the meta-answer to your question is that TSA, and TSOs and BDOs, exist to make casual fliers think the government is keeping them safe when they fly so it's okay for them to buy that once-a-year, ultra-discounted ticket for the family so they can go visit grandma. In short, it is a dog-and-pony show that contributes nothing to security and was created for the dual-purpose of protecting airline profits and assisting an administration with no regard for the Constitution in whittling away guaranteed rights.

That's all they are -- normal security guards.

Absolutely nothing. If one of them ever tries to lay a hand on you (outside of the free massage at the checkpoint), immediately yell for a LEO and have him arrested.

Interesting question, that. My personal belief (not my legal opinion . . . don't rely on it), is that gate searches do not meet the existing legal criteria for random-stop searches and are, therefore, unconstitutional. One of these days, when I have some time, I may refuse to submit to one, just so I can bring a test case.

actually I'm just saying I don't want to have to pay you $300 an hour to prove it. :D

missing a flight, even if it came to that, would be worth it. The more I research how TSA operates, the more I'm convinced that in their current operations, they are engaging in practices that the courts will hopefully soon curtail.

If one of the TSO's ever tries to pull the "do you want to fly today" crap with me, they are in for a rude awakening. As the saying goes, I have connections in all the right places. ;)

True. In principle.

But, in practice, what if the TSO decides that you are "behaving strangely" or "being rude" and decides to summon a LEO, and the LEO decides that it's worth investigating? Airports are considered high-risk facilities in the post-9/11 world, and any kind of irregular activity could result in your detention by LEOs while they sort everything out. You could be held up for hours while they interview you and go through your possessions (assuming they determined that they had reasonable suspicion), even if you had a legitimate reason to oppose the TSO's original request.

Ultimately, even if it doesn't shake out to anything, and even if you get an apology for the delay/inconvenience, the TSO still has succeeded in preventing you from flying. Hence, I think there are circumstances where it might be better just to comply with the request and be done with it, rather than risk that the TSO will start a long, time-consuming process designed to delay you over red tape.

I'm all in favor of civil rights, but sometimes, I think: "well, technically he has no right to ask me, and I could make a federal case out of this and be here all day. Or I could show him my boarding pass and he'll let me go."

I feel the same way. I'll save my bullets for fights with more at stake than having to spend three minutes handing over a boarding pass. Nothing against those who think its worth scrappin' over ....

I tend to agree with this approach although I don't like it.

It seems to me if TSA did ID a bad guy and the bad guy thought he was made that any weapon they had would be expended right then and there taking out as many people as possible. I think the ID of a bad guy would be proven before a BDO/LEO started any kind of search.

Wouldn't have the shock value of an airplane blowing up but look at how many people are near a gate before a flight. Besides the survivors would see, feel and hear the effects of an explosion.

I still believe that the most likely avenue of introducing WEI to an aircraft will be done by an insider.

IANAL also, but I believe that the TSA can set up an administrative "checkpoint" anywhere in the secure area. Whether a single roving screener constitutes such a checkpoint I have no idea, and neither does anyone until it's challenged and ruled on.

OTOH, the handing over the BP part isn't the problem - it is giving them the inch of unwarranted power to demand that you do it by actually complying, as histrically, you give them an inch they take a mile. Mission creep at its finest.

Third theory: The LEO acts on "good faith" that what the TSO says is the law and either arrests or removes the PAX. In either case the LEO is in the clear.

Title 49 § 1540.5

It sounds like they could argue anywhere they check for WEI is a site. Of course the counter argument would be that a site is a defined area like a construction site.

Fair enough. ;)

I've already explained the standards that applies to LEOs with respect to investigation. Will some abuse their power? No doubt, but the vast majority of them won't. Unlike TSOs, LEOs receive extensive training in police procedure AND the applicable law.

By whom? Given the history of the last 7 years or so, I'd say hotels and restaurants are much higher-risk facilities. Are you okay with TSA questioning you extensively before you check into a hotel? Going through your bags in the lobby? Coming up to you in the exercise room and demanding to see your ID?

On the contrary, that simply isn't true. This incident in St. Louis was aggravated by a couple of rogue cops. They are the exception, not the rule. As long as you don't lose your cool and don't interfere with the LEO, they will not detain you.

I don't know which is more frightening -- the abuses TSA already commits or your fear that the U.S. has drifted so far from constitutional principles that this kind of Gestapo-like police-state nightmare is to be expected when one goes to the airport.

Police can't arrest and detain without probable cause. Police can't search your bags without a warrant unless the arrest you. If you are arrested, SAY NOTHING. Absolutely NOTHING. Insist on a phone call and call a lawyer (make friends with one, so you'll have someone to call). And then SAY NOTHING.

If a TSO and/or LEO tried what you've described above, I would sell shares in the huge judgment that I would collect when I sued TSA (actually, Janet Napolitano), the responsible police agency AND the individual TSO and LEO involved.

These are constitutional restraints on government power that we are talking about. If you remain cool and calm 99.999%, nothing bad will happen if a LEO is called over. On the contrary, the LEO will wish you a nice day and shoot a dirty glance at the TSO as he walks away.

There comes a point in which you either believe constitutional rights are worth defending or they're not. I happen to believe that they are (and took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution). I would rather miss a flight than let a TSO engage in unconstitutional, illegal acts of tyranny. I know the law and I know my rights. I will rely on the Constitution to protect me, confident that it will, and will not tolerate illegal acts committed against me in the name of "security."

If a TSO hassles you, ask, calmly and politely, for the FSD and the GSC. If a TSO commits a battery against you, call for a LEO. The LEO will protect you.

I didn't think the Vietnam war had anything to do with America's legitimate interests. I don't think the Iraq war has anything to do with America's legitimate interests. I do think opposing TSA when it exceeds the power afforded it by the Constitution is very much in America's legitimate interests, and I feel duty-bound to do it. My father fought in WWII for the U.S. I would have, too, if I was old enough. This, however, is my fight.

This has nothing to do with civil rights. This has to do with opposing tyranny at its most basic level.

He has the right to ask whatever he wants. He has no right to insist on your compliance with what he asks.

I'm a lawyer. Federal cases provide my livelihood. ;)

"If I just put on this yellow star, the SS won't bother me." And, yes, I think the analogy is completely valid.

This is a definitions section and says nothing about checkpoints. However:

§ 1540.107 Submission to screening and inspection.

No individual may enter a sterile area or board an aircraft without submitting to the screening and inspection of his or her person and accessible property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access to that area or aircraft under this subchapter.

This is clear: you can't enter the sterile area without submitting to screening. That's the purpose of checkpoints.

This section also says you can't board an aircraft without submitting to screening "in accordance with procedures being applied."

Two points:

1. Once I'm in the sterile area after to submitting to screening, there is absolutely nothing that permits TSA to either submit to additional "spot checks" to remain there, or, if I refuse, to remove me from the sterile area.

2. Gate screening could be constitutional, but not the way TSA does it. Gate screening is analogous to DUI checkpoints, and there is lots of law on those. Among other things, such checkpoints have to be announced in advance and the screening conducted there must be (a) truly random, and (b) no more intrusive than necessary to determine that a driver isn't drunk.

Gate screening isn't announced in advance, selection of pax for screening is not truly random, and by the standards already announced by the courts with respect to the administrative search at the checkpoint, the gate screening is far more intrusive in that (1) it takes place in the open, (2) passengers possessions are sifted through in public, and the passenger has already been cleared of weapons and explosives possession at the original screening.

Just my opinion, but that's what I think.



It sounds like they could argue anywhere they check for WEI is a site. Of course the counter argument would be that a site is a defined area like a construction site.[/QUOTE]

TSA, but not a TSA agent out of his/her whim.

Seems like a lot of ACLU types posting around this part of FT and the "I hate the TSO" crowd has ganged up again here.

If you aint got nothing to hide, why make a big deal about some TSO schmuck asking some simple questions? Why raise the red flags with the multiple why, Why, WHY requests (even though I am sure they were completley respectful?:rolleyes:)

Damn civilians with no respect for authority. :)