was this TSA guy a jerk?
 

I was sitting in RDU waiting for my flight talking to a coworker who was waiting for his flight. (all east coast flights were delayed)

Im a chinese guy in my 30s, hes a white guy in his 50s.

A TSA agent walks up to me and says "what flight are you on?"
I said "this one (points to gate) going to NY, why?"
he just walks off, so I asked again "Why?"
He looked at me and kept walking, so I asked again "Why?"
He just walks off.

Then 5 minutes later, he comes up to me and says "Show me your id and boarding pass"
I give it to him, then ask "Why?"
He said "random check" and walks off.

Was he being a jerk?
Ive seen random checks as you are boarding, but never when you're just sitting there.

that's not exactly what I would call random.

"Sorry, that's Sensitive, (Personal) Security Information". ;)

The response to the question posed in the title "is the pope catholic?"

I think you're being too kind if you think he's a jerk.

If it ever happens to you again, I would just get the person name and file a complaint.

That is just fantastic. I see them really making sure the country is safe from everything by waiting until everybody is sitting on the plane in their seat and then TSA can come through and ask for your boarding pass and id. That'll help expedite the whole flying process. Think of how safe you'll be then!

If this ever happens to you again:

1. You are under no obligation to answer any questions of a TSO or, as this most likely was, a BDO ("Behavior Detection Officer").

2. You are under no obligation to show your boarding pass and ID to a TSO or BDO after you have already done so to clear the security checkpoint.

3. TSOs are not law enforcement officers and have no powers of arrest or detention. They can deny you access to the secured area at the checkpoint. They can't kick you out of once you're already in.

My inclination would have been to give the TSO a lecture about both civility and the Constitution and then tell, "I have no interest in speaking with you. If you don't like it, get a policeman."

Is that published someplace?

My guess would be the smurf "random" checks in the gateway would fall under #3 as detention and I'd be glad to whip out something that tells them to go smurf themselves.

Agreed, is there a source? If I'm not obligated to show BP/ID after clearing the checkpoint, then what could i do if I had a flight that was selected for ID checks?

I was under the impression that as soon as I enter the sterile area TSA can search me any time.

Sounds pretty pathetic to me ... like he was trying to make some kind of lame point about having the power to waste 3 minutes of your life. Reminds me of once when I got tired of waiting to get out of airport parking while the cashier/security guard was having a drawn out personal conversation/party with the car in front of me. I tapped the horn a couple of times. When I rolled up she walked around tapped my inspection sticker and made a comment that she was making sure it was valid. I laughed, she glared, I left.

Just curious, were you following him screaming "Why?", politely asking "Why?", or something in between? What does being Chinese have to do with it?

I wasnt screaming.
He was in front of me, I asked "Why" he started to walk away.
I said again "why" (he was 3 feet away)
I asked "why?" (he was 5 feet away)

I stated chinese, and the ethnicity of my coworker, just in case someone thought we might have fit a "profile".
We were both different races...actually come to think of it, he only asked me and not my coworker.

I thought about complaining, but I didnt want the guy to put me on some kind of watch list or something

so a tsa agent walks up to me and says......

simply respond with "please go spot someone else" and then proceedto ignore them

The flip answer is, "Yes, it's published someplace: the U.S. Constitution." The longer answer is, no, it's not published in any one place, but is a correct statement of law regarding non-LEOs, public places, producing identification, etc.

Yes. Some people are. Maybe you did not assimilate enough. :D

I thought the courts had agreed that people gave up certain rights in exchange for the privledge of riding in a shiny metal tube? :rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong, I hate the smurfs as much as most others here.

But - and this might be a far parallel - this could be the same as security at rock arena or stadium seeing something suspicious or whatever and wanting to recheck a person for something that might have been missed. If you refused to be checked, you'd probably have your ... bounced right outta that club too and you've got just as much of a right to be there.

The constitution answer is a bit broad. Like you can't tell fire in a theater or just walk into anyplace with a weapon.

Rock arenas and stadiums are privately-owned property. Airports are not. One's rights should never be abrogated in the name of "security". :mad:

I've stirred the Spiff. :cool: I just see some similarities to other places people have to go. I think those rights need to be defined and available clearly then for us to be able to, unnecessarily, defend ourselves against those kind of procedures.

My biggest issue with TSA is lack of publication of any of their so-called policies.

Is that what you think?

No, the courts have said there is no fundamental right to ride in a shiny, metal tube. Given the absence of such a right, certain restrictions are reasonable. However, and this is a HUGE however: those restrictions must be constitutional. You don't give up rights to fly in an airplane, nor can the government require that you do so.

Example: the checkpoint inspection is for the purpose of assuring that passengers do not bring with them weapons or explosives. As such, the search performed by TSA is an administrative search limited to that purpose. The fact that you voluntarily submit to an administrative search does NOT mean that you have waived your Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure and a TSA search that is intended to find evidence of criminal wrong-doing is unconstitutional and illegal.

Example: confirming that ID matches the boarding pass is for the purpose of assuring that terrorists do not gain access to commercial aircraft (I won't address the total fallacy of that assumption). As such, ID checking AND secondaries in the absence of ID, are reasonable restrictions on the ability to enter the secured area. That does not mean that you waive your Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search seizure. Current law (thanks to one of the most conservative Supreme Courts since Herbert Hoover) requires that anyone identify themselves to law enforcement officers. The LEOs, in turn, can not, however, stop someone without a "reasonable suspicion," a constitutional requirement that requires, among other things, articulable factors that lead to a reasonable suspicion. LEOs are permitted to perform a so-called "Terry stop-and-frisk" when they have stopped someone because of a reasonable suspicion. The frisk is limited to a pat-down of the outer clothing for the purpose of ensuring that the person stopped doesn't have a weapon and is justified for the immediate protection of the law enforcement office.

TSOs and BDOs are not LEOs. They have no power to stop you outside the context of the administrative search. They have no power to require that you identify yourself outside the context of the administrative search. They have no power to require production of your boarding pass outside the context of the administrative search. They have no power to demand answers to any of their questions. Their only recourse if you refuse to respond to these demands is to call a LEO. The LEO is bound by the restrictions I've described above.

A TSO is a government clerk, no different than the clerk who puts a "Received" stamp on your tax return when you mail it in. Do not be fooled by either the LEO-like uniform or the badge that they wear. They are no more LEOs than you or I, and have no LEO powers whatsoever.

Not all airports... many are privately owned and have airline service.

I'm not about to get into an argument with the finer points of the law with a lawyer (especially since they generally can't seem to agree on anything among themselves anyway), but from a practical standpoint, it would not surprise me in the least if, in the OP's situation, had he steadfastly refused the BP request, LE would have been summoned to escort him out of the secure area.

I'm a lawyer (for the federal government, even) and I agree completely with what Ptravel has said above. Moreover, I don't recall seeing anyone FT professing to be a lawyer who disagrees with the judge in Fofana regarding TSA's penchant for conducting unconstitutional administrative searches. Oh, and when I've discussed Fofana with other government lawyers, the consensus is that TSA is sitting is a deep pile of s***, in both that case and the ACLU action.

I'm also not a lawyer, but I am interested in this concept of an "administrative search." How, exactly, is that different from any other kind of search and where is the Fourth Amendment language on such a search?

Mike

hope you are right about TSA being held accountable.

... as far as not being removed from the sterile area for refusing to show BP ... let's just say that it's not going to be me that tests that one. :D

maybe there's a TSA'er or LEO around that can comment on how that would work in practice, as opposed to how it should work.

Like you, I am not a lawyer, but I would question why, even if a LEO was summoned, why the OP would have been escorted out. The LEO has greater power than the TSO, but they also have a stringent set of rules / laws they must follow. I suppose the LEO may have asked for the OP to identify himself, but since the OP was not breaking any laws and had complied with all the rules regarding entrance to secure area, I would doubt any LEO would escalate beyond that.

one theory: TSA says he is trying to screen me and Im interfering with that process which is against the law and LEO agrees

another theory: LEO is having a bad day, doesn't like my percieved attitude and trumps up a disorderly conduct charge.

maybe both theories are horseshit and Im vindicated later after a bunch of legal fees ... maybe not ... I really can't say for sure.

Unfortunately for everyone, I would have to agree that these both non-trivial possibilities. :td:

The TSA is not at any private airports. SWF was, but no longer is private.

The above is absolutely true. But, they could still ruin your day/travel plans. If you refused to produce ID or boarding pass while sitting inside the secure area, couldn't the TSO or BDO look at you and play the age-old card, "Do you want to fly today?" While they technically might not have the power to prevent you from flying after you passed through security, they certainly could create a big scene that could delay to such an extent with paperwork, etc., that you would miss your flight, even if nothing ever came of it.


Speaking of which, what the heck are the BDOs supposed to do? I've seen them wandering the terminals, just like the normal security guards do. But if they see anything suspicious, what can they do beyond summoning LEOs? Certainly they cannot ask for ID or search any bags or pax outside of the normal administrative searches (at the security checkpoints and occasionally at the boarding gates for certain "random" flights).

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.