The job of TSA is to assure that weapons, explosives and incendiaries are not brought into the sterile area. They have absolutely no legal authority to investigate anything else. They have absolutely no legal authority to separate a child from its parent, whether or not the child remains in view of the parent. If this happens to anyone else, the parent should yell for a LEO and press charges.

LEOs are trained in questioning; TSA is not. LEO would have most likely resolved the matter in a few seconds without removing the child from the parent.

yup, plane and simple. (and it's really quite simple and can be done discretely. use "the little thing in your ear" and request a leo)

yup (redux)

Would you be OK with a random adult (not in a uniform or any real for faux authority position) coming up and asking your 12-year-old child why she was upset? Asking you to step aside while they asked the question? In an airport? Shopping mall? On the street?

What about a 10-year old? 6-year old? 2-year old? Where do you draw the line? Kids cry. Adults cry too. Big difference between a kid crying and a kid screaming/kicking/resisting/attempting-to-escape.

I don't seem much difference between a TSO and a random adult on the street. (I think based on recent "isolated incidents" the random adult on the street may be less likely to be a criminal than a TSO.)

4 strangers in uniform ganging up on and interrogating a child is unquestionably overbearing IMO. Interrogating the parent when she questions the process may well have been overbearing and abusive.

And I doubt the mom felt she could have regained control at any time with at least 4 uniformed TSOs in position to stand between her and her daughter.

I to would usually be all over TSA about this, but just from reading this post I also see nothing wrong with what TSA did here. It seemed they were concerned & then after speaking with her that all was fine. She was in mom's sight & mom was fine with it from the post.

I spent a lot of time in the 80s between the ages of 8 and 11 doing grueling last-minute multi-segment TATL round trips with one or both of my parents for family funerals, final goodbyes of terminally ill relatives, etc. At the time, I was prone to horrible airsickness and pretty much dreaded/hated the experience of flying because of it. I don't explicitly remember crying in any of the airports, but it wouldn't surprise me if I did. I do remember my parents crying in the airports; we found out my grandfather had died from a payphone @ JFK after one of the ocean crossings.

I think I see more emotional people (sad and happy) at airports than I see at any other place I might frequent in life except hospitals.

If a mall security employee saw an adult escorting a crying 11 year old out of the mall would you hope they might stop them and ask questions much as the TSA representative did? What about a hotel or apartment concierge saw an adult escorting a crying 11 year old into a taxi? A bus driver? It might depend on the circumstances, the extent of the crying, the demeanor of the child - might it not? All would be in "uniform", but would you describe them as "jackboots" as one poster did? I would not.

Same scenario with a 2, 6 or 10 year old, but with the 2 and 6 year old most of us have repeatedly seen misbehaving urchins - not so with 10, 11 and 12 year olds. When would you interfere? Would you interfere? One whack on the bottom would not concern me. A belt being taken to a child would probably result in my interfering - how about you? I have had a hearing problem since before my school days - it was discovered when I was repeatedly being hit with a ruler by a female teacher in the 3rd grade who said I had "selective" hearing issues. My hearing was in high tones and virtually all grammer school teachers then were femaloss les - simple explanation for the "selective" hearing. It might have been nice if someone had decided not to "mind their own business" in my case.

Whether or not the TSA has authority beyond inspecting luggage, there is a perception of authority and responsibility for "security" issues. The TSA representative accomplished what a private citizen may have thought right but was hesitant to pursue - is this good or bad? I guess it is up to the individual. Some would respond "I hope if my child was being abducted, someone would do this" and others would respond "Who do they think they are doing this to my child". As I understand child trafficing is a significant problem - would you rather a TSA step up or no one step up?

What I really like about this is the "ganging up" and similar hyperbole.

Great strawman argument there. A guy lying in the street with stab wounds obviously is the victim of a crime. An 11-year-old crying in an airport is not obviously the victim of a crime.

Maybe the TSA should do something about crying kids in F, that would certainly help to win the hearts and minds of a lot of FTers.

That was in ATL. I don't recall a DOS attack on Twitter, but the TSA Blog Team did end up working late at night on a weekend.

That's all fine and good, but crying 11 year olds do not pose a threat to commercial aviation, so the TSOs should stick to the task at hand; screening for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries. If they think something is amiss with a child, alert a LEO and let the professionals that have the training to deal with this sort of thing do the job.

Any time a government agent, using the authority given to him/her by the government, detains an individual for questioning without probable cause, it is inappropriate. The TSOs were acting using the color of authority and overstepping the bounds of their mandated limited "administrative search" role to question a child outside the earshot of her legal guardian.

Would you be OK with a TSO asking unknown questions to your child out of your earshot? Since we don't know the specific questions that were asked, let's change the situation just a bit and make some assumptions. Would you be OK with a TSO asking the child any of the following:
- Did mommy hit you? Is that why you're crying?
- Does your daddy touch you in bad places?
- Is your mommy doing something to scare you? What is it, dear?
- Does your mommy have any drugs?
- Where is your mommy taking you? Do you want to go?
- Is mommy or daddy a bad person? Are they mean?

I can easily see any, or all, of the above being asked during the child's interrogation by a TSO who has received exactly zero training in dealing with children. All of the above questions (and, of course, any variations) are inappropriate subject matter for a TSO with the limited authority of an "administrative search" for WEI to be asking.

Inappropriate is not just my opinion. It is the opinion held by SCOTUS in various rulings about TSA and limited administrative search authority.

Precisely. The reason why is simple: when a government agent asks questions, many times they are doing so with at least the appearance of authority. This causes many people to feel compelled to answer.

Think of it this way... You are standing in an airport with an upset child. A concerned citizen comes along and asks you if there's anything wrong, and if there's anything that s/he can do to help. You feel comfortable in replying that nothing is wrong-- or maybe even asking the person to mind their own business, depending upon the circumstances.

Now, if that person were wearing a uniform and acting as a government agent with the ability to detain or deny access to transportation, it's a game changer. Suddenly most people don't feel quite so comfortable in telling said government agent to mind their own business. Many would probably feel somewhat compelled to try to start providing an explanation.

There's also the simple fact that there are things which are inappropriate for our government to do, simply because it's a violation of civil rights. A private citizen can try and detain someone, or keep a child from going somewhere without it necessarily being a violation of your civil rights. But to detain and question (as was done in this situation), a law enforcement officer must be used and probable cause/reasonable suspicion must exist.

The answer to your "why" is because that's simply the way it is. There are different acceptable boundaries for actions when people act as a government agent (which is clearly what was happening in the OP's scenario).

Yes. Again, teachers and guidance counsellors have no business asking questions that do not pertain to their role as educators. And they would have no business in detaining a child and preventing free and open access between the child and the child's guardian, absent clear and convincing evidence that the guardian was going to put the child in imminent danger.

I don't have children myself, but can easily imagine a situation similar to the OP's at a school. If I went to the school to pick up my child but was denied access to him/her because s/he was crying, and was told that the child would have to be questioned first, I could easily imagine picking up my cell phone and dialing 9-1-1 to get law enforcement there.

So you think that TSA's intention was to help the child in this situation? Government primarily cares about a few things-- power, control, money, and getting more of all three. Maybe general welfare of the population is on the list somewhere, but it's close to the bottom-- especially with law enforcement and quasi-law enforcement agencies.

TSA representatives are entitled to the respect that they earn. Do they deserve to be treated like dirt without cause? No. But in this case, there is plenty of cause-- false imprisonment, questioning without a legal guardian or attorney present, to name two.

TSA acted inappropriately. If they had suspicions, they should have called a LEO over immediately to do an interview. And the interview should have been conducted in a much more professional manner, with the mother being fully involved in the process. Clearly that is not what happened here.

None of these are acting as government agents whose job it is to investigate crimes or catch people breaking laws. In the case of all the above mentioned, with the possible exception of the bus driver, none of them even work for the government. Hence, the same restrictions may not apply.

Now, that being said, I think I'd still have a problem with their involvement if they acted in exactly the same manner as TSA did in the OP's report. I'd probably have a large enough problem with their behavior that local media would be alerted and possibly an attorney might be contacted to file a lawsuit against the property owner and/or security company.

I would not interfere. Assuming that the child is being escorted by a legal guardian or someone else with appropriate authority, I'd assume that it's just a child crying-- nothing more.

The only time I'd consider interfering is if the child was yelling something like "Help me!", "Bad man!", "Help, help!" or something similar. At that point I think any reasonable person would at least have cause to question what's happening. But even then I wouldn't separate the child from the person and interrogate the child-- I'd talk to the adult first and see what's happening.

Bzzzt, wrong. Having the perception of being responsible does not equal being responsible, and certainly does not equate with having the legal authority or responsibility.

Unless and until TSA is given the legal authority to step in when faced with these situations, they are acting beyond their scope and potentially violating civil rights when they act. If they continue to do this, I hope they do it some day with the wrong person-- who sues TSA and the screener personally, and winds up with a lot of money in his/her pocket resulting in a screener going through significant financial hardship. It is beginning to seem like the only way to send a message to screeners about overstepping their authority is to make examples of them, and I don't think TSA has much intention of doing that in these types of circumstances any time in the near future.

Bad. Because TSA is restrained from doing so because they are acting as a government agent and doing so violates the child's civil rights, at a minimum.

How can 4 TSOs preventing a clearly emotionally upset 11 year old child from being with her mother while firing questions at her not be considered "ganging up"? I'm a grown 6' tall, somewhat chunky adult, and I'd feel that having 4 TSOs standing around me firing questions away for no good purpose was "ganging up". I'm sure that the child didn't feel more at ease or more comfortable as a result of her "encounter" with these folks.

Perhaps you should read the article a little closer, with the sentence below it would seem no one saw the stab wounds until someone took the time to not "mind their own business" and turn him over. Until his stab wound became obvious, he was for an hour just another homeless man.

If any of these people you've described separated the child from its parent, I would recommend the same course of action, i.e. call a LEO and press charges.

So what? For of all, the reason for the perception is because it is encouraged by TSA. As you note, a TSO has no more legal authority to detain and investigate than a bus driver. Intimidation isn't a substitute for legal authority.

It's bad. Very bad. TSA has no legal authority to engage in this behavior. Neither does a private citizen. Can you imagine a private citizen separating a child from its parent and questioning it? Do you, for a minute, think this comes remotely within realm of legal conduct?

I would rather one vested with the authority to take action against child trafficking step up, i.e. a LEO. I would rather TSA stop acting as a police-force-without-portfolio.

Have you ever had a negative interaction with a TSO? That is exactly what they do.

Off-topic, but...

Does this mean you advocate people walking around and poking homeless people that appear to be sleeping on the sidewalk? In my experience many of them are smelly and somewhat mentally unbalanced. I don't like coming within 10 feet of them (out of concern for personal safety), let alone turn them over to see if something is wrong.

I won't go into your entire post since it would be rehashing opinions, just the parts I find humorous or incorrect.

There comes that hyperbole again "... false imprisonment ..."? Come on! An LEO would conduct the interview in a "... more professional manner ..."? First, why do you assume the TSA was not professional? Secondly, if the TSA representative called the LEO, it would have been with the statement he suspected abuse - if the questioning occurred with the parent fully involved in the process, I suspect it would be an error in judgment on his part.

As to the teacher comments, you might want to review the following since it would appear you are flat out wrong. I would suggest that a teacher asking a few questions BEFORE contacting the LEO would be a MINIMUM courtesy and obligation to the parents - or would you prefer 2,400 LEO's be disbursed each day?

http://www.nmsa.org/Publications/Mid...6/Default.aspx

In spite of the critical role that middle level teachers play in the effort to identify, report, and prevent cases of adolescent abuse and neglect,

In fact, approximately 2,400 children are found to be victims of child abuse each day, and each week Child Protective Services (CPS) agencies throughout the United States receive more than 50,000 reports of suspected child abuse or neglect (Prevent Child Abuse America, 2003). Sadly, the actual number of incidents of abuse is probably much higher, given that most abuse occurs in closed systems (families that remain distant and isolated from other families and social institutions),

All states have enacted legislation that identifies teachers among the professionals required to report signs of child abuse (Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, Thomas, 2004). While all states require abuse and neglect to be reported if there is physical injury (Fischer, Schimmel, & Stellman, 2003), the specifics of the laws vary from state to state. For example, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, and Wisconsin do not require reporting of emotional or mental injury. However, all states currently include sexual abuse and exploitation in their definition of child abuse. The laws are not ambiguous or varied about a teacher's duty to report suspected abuse;

As is evident from these congressional acts and state statutes, educators are criminally liable if they fail to report a suspected case of child abuse in most states

It has rather more to do with the fact that your agency is populated in no small part by wannabe LEOs who think their tin badges and smurf shirts make them law enforcement. You don't see loan officers walking around thinking they're cops.

Because TSA is not a professional agency, and the people it employs are neither professional nor well-trained.