I would take much less issue with the TSA and its personnel going beyond their expected scope of work if they performed their primary function with a high degree of accuracy, consistency and - dare I say - courtesy. Too much anecdotal evidence here suggests otherwise happens frequently.

I'm a systems engineer. I implement and maintain large web applications for a commercial bank. In my current role, I work exclusively with Windows based servers. If I'm doing this poorly, I should not be lending a hand to support the Unix teams, the security and intrusion detection people or anyone else. It's beyond the scope of what I'm supposed to do and unless I am completing my own job with a high degree of efficiency, I have no business attempting to go outside of that scope.

Plenty of other ways to travel? What's the best way to get to Hawaii from the mainland? How about some towns in Alaska? I believe the cruise ships are also subjecting passengers and their luggage to examination. Greyhound and Amtrak require ID to travel it would appear. It takes a license to drive an auto.

Just because there may be a way doesn't mean that it is a reasonable alternative, so no the search is not consensual. It is implied consent based on an administrative search. A consent search is one in which the person consenting does so in an affirmative oral or written manner.



Since when is carrying money illegal? The point is that money isn't contraband so there is no reason on a domestic flight that an LEO should be called and the passenger questioned.

Saying that there are security-sensitive reasons is hiding behind the log. If they are terrorist related, then there should be arrests and convictions, which are public records.


I and probably others are willing to take you up on the offer to see those liquid explosives that are not ETD detectable, are stable to handle, can be mixed onboard an aircraft and still be able to take down a plane.

I don't know. Why would a TSA screener question anyone about a water pipe? Besides, I don't always keep my pills in a bottle. If I feel a migraine coming on, I'll wrap up one or two oxycodone in a tissue and keep them in my pocket -- I don't like to carry a whole bottle of very expensive trip-scrip pills with me when I know I only need one or two. If a LEO, conducting a legal search, asks me what they are, my answer is: "Oxycodone which I take, by prescription, for migraine, officer." If a TSO asks me, my answer is, "None of your business."

That's fine -- you're a LEO. It's your job, and you're trained to do it.

I was just going to say that. I'm not a senior citizen, yet, but I currently take 6 pills every day. I carry my medication in the prescription containers domestically only because I never know when a business trip may wind up being extended, and it's also easier to keep everything I need for a sudden trip in my computer bag. However, I've been tempted to use those dividers, only because it's a pain to have to read the labels on the bottles every morning when I take my medication. Again, if a LEO asks me about it, I'm happy to explain what my pills are and why I take them -- the LEO is doing his or her job (and, for that matter, I'd explain to a customs agent if I was ever asked). I have no intention of discussing my medical conditions with a TSO -- it's none of their business and I haven't yet reached the point in my life where I enjoy discussing my ailments with total strangers.

That's the point, though -- LEOs have the power of arrest, and their job is to enforce the law which includes laws against illegal drugs and drug paraphenalia. I'm absolutely certain that, when you began your law enforcement career, you weren't simply given a gun and a badge and told, "Arrest people with illegal substances. Use your best judgment." I'm sure you attended formal classes in which you learned the drug laws, what to look for in spotting potential violations, how to distinguish between legal and illegal substances, etc. I'm also sure you received instruction on what factors must be present for a legal search, how to conduct it, how to preserve evidence, etc., as well as education on constitutional protections, civil rights, etc. I don't know about other jurisdictions, but I believe the minimum training for a California LEO is at least 6 weeks at an academy.

No TSO has asked us about it because, as of yet, we have it with us only when we return from China. We haven't yet brought any to our friends on domestic trips. You are aware that tea has a distinctive odor, and you're also aware of the what marijuana smells like -- I know that is part of the training of a LEO, i.e. characteristics of illegal substances -- and can readily distinguish between tea, oregano and cannabis.

It depends on what the TSO says to the LEO and whether or not I feel I've been detained by the TSO (who has no powers of arrest). I am under no legal obligation whatsoever to answer any questions asked by a TSO.

And how would the TSO know that? Pu'er is a kind of tea common in the Yunan province. It's fermented and has a unique odor which is not at all like tea. Do you think a TSO would recognize a baggie full of Pu'er as tea?

I've heard of TSOs blatantly getting LEOs involved for all sorts of conduct that, no only wasn't illegal, but was constitutionally protected, e.g. writing "Kip Hawley is an idiot" on their freedom baggie, wearing a t-shirt with a picture of a transformer on it, etc.

I didn't say false arrest. I said false imprisonment. Though it's been a while since I looked at it, my recollection is that the elements of false imprisonment are satisfied if someone takes your possessions and refuses to return them, effectively confining you against your will.

Maybe not with you but, with all due respect, you are a LEO and I am an attorney. It's your judgment call whether or not to arrest someone. It's my judgment call whether I have grounds to pursue legal action against someone.

A citizen's arrest doesn't require a warrant. However, it might be simpler to simply sue for civil damages. The point, though, is this: LEOs have powers that are denied to TSOs. One of the reasons LEOs are given these powers is because they've had specific formal training that lets them function effectively, accurately, and within the limits of the Constitution. Moreover, LEOs are specifically charged with enforcement of the law, and we, as citizens, depend on them to do so. It is for this reason that I am happy to cooperate with a LEO who is doing his job, have always done so, and will always do so.

The job of a TSO is to prevent forbidden items from being brought on aircraft. Period. They are not law enforcement officers and have no specific training that qualifies them to identify items whose possession is illegal, e.g. child pornography, drugs, or other contraband. The fact that they have a uniform and a badge does not allow them to act like auxiliary police (and, in my city, auxiliary police, i.e. civilian volunteers who assist the police, actually attend the police academy before they are allowed to do so). They are, however, agents of the state and have very strict constitutional limits on the powers they may exercise. I have no patience with constitutional violations, regardless of the motive or intent. Others in this thread have characterized the actions of TSA as "police state." That's incorrect -- virtually all police in the U.S. are well aware of, and respect, the Constitutional limits on their power and, on those rare occasions when an individual officer transcends his police power, he's brought to justice. It's not the police in the U.S. that I fear (quite the contrary, I have tremendous respect for the police, who do a difficult, dangerous and very necessary job). It's government bureaucrats like TSA that don't recognize the constitutional limits of their mission and have no qualms at violating the Constitution if the whim suits them. I'm sure most TSOs don't do this but, unlike true LEOs, there is no mechanism in place to protect citizens against abuse of constitutionally-limited government powers by specific TSOs -- police departments have things like Internal Affairs, civilian police review boards, and specific mechanisms for handling civilian complaints. TSA has nothing of the sort -- "complaint forms," if they're even provided vanish into the abyss in the name of "national security." The only mechanism available is redress through the courts.

So can many other substances. Start checking for explosives rather than liquids and maybe the liquids farce would cease to be such.

Since when did possession of currency become sufficient grounds for a LEO intervention? I am not surprised at all that people use airplanes to travel with illicitly gained funds, but that doesn't mean that me choosing to carry $10K is bills is at all illegal or even close to generating sufficient probable cause for a search.

Well said.

I did not say it is illegal for you to carry $10k. We are not talking about PC to search based on a large amount of currency. I have to be careful when talking about currency, because it involves drug interdiction issues on a federal level. Bottom line, LEO intervention occurs and feds are also called, particularly DEA. Based upon several articulated reasons, the money can be seized. I would take a good guess that this would never happen to those on here, but when you have someone that has large amounts of money, no job, flying to a state bordering Mexico, and cannot give any evidence to show that the money was legally obtained, plus significant response from K9's, the money will be taken. If this occurs, there is ample opportunity to get it back in Federal court.

I am not hiding behind anything. I refuse to openly give information on a public forum about how we catch drug smugglers who take money through our airports to go buy large amounts of drugs in neighboring countries. I work closely with DEA and advising such would compromise my job and possibly the safety of those I work with.

Please explain this to me? Liquids and other substances that can be explosive are searched for during screening. I am not sure where you are going with this statement. Stop looking for liquid explosives so the "liquids farce would cease to be such?" So if we stop looking for C4 or gunpowder, people would forget about them and not try to smuggle through security?

I commend you for having your JD. I am looking to go to law school in the near future. I believe you and I can both agree that aside from law school, some attorneys have no criminal experience and how to apply what they learned in a criminal court of law, whether general sessions (prelims) or trial/circuit court. They need experience just like LEO's do once they leave the academy. You will find that I and my counterparts have been threatened on scene by attorneys who have no concept of law, even with something as simple as when Miranda applies.

I am not telling you this to imply that you would not know what to do when dealing with constitutional issues regarding TSA, searches, and detentions, but you and I both know that things work differently in the real world. Definitely so from state to state. Technically in TN, citizens have the same arrest powers as LEOs. They can arrest for a misdemeanor committed in their presence or when probable cause for a felony exists (or when a felony is witnessed). By textual law in TN, if a TSA employee observes something illegal in a suitcase, they could sign the arrest affidavit/warrant as prosecutor. Does it happen? No, but they are listed as a witness if we decide to arrest the passenger.

One might ask why joe citizen does not arrest people left and right if they have this power in TN? Well, they are not protected like LEO's are. There is too much liability at stake if they make a wrong decision.

You made some good points in your last post. I did not want to quote it all to take up more of the board than necessary. I think where you and I disagree is the involvement that TSA has when other possible contraband arises during searches. So far, the courts have favored on my side of the issue. Although TSA may not have near the education, training, or experience as LEOs, their limited involvement in the matter when something is discovered (i.e. notifying law enforcement) is not enough to warrant criminal (or civil) charges against them if the contraband turns out to be something legal. They call us and we decide what the next course of action is. The time frame is 1 - 2 minutes (at least at my airport). I do not think any court is going to feel this is an unreasonable detention/seizure and/or search. At least they have not yet, because every arrest we have had at the checkpoint has held, as I would assume the same for all other states.

As far as who is policing the TSA, I'm sure something is in place for disciplinary action against those who deserve it. From being around checkpoints, I would ask that some of you put yourself in their shoes for 1 day. Most of these folks are just doing what they are told. They get called every name in the book and regularly crapped on. That's not to say that some may instigate it, but there are far few of those than one's who just try to get by like anyone else.

With that said, if I catch anyone causing a disturbance or physically/verbally assualting any personnel during the screening process, I will make sure that a ride to jail is definite.

Are you sure about the requirement for prescription meds to be in a prescription bottle? PA and NJ are two where you are wrong. Your assertion only applies if the medication is a controlled substance - and even then it's an issue of possession without a prescription.

How many TSA screeners, or LEOs for that matter, are trained well enough to recognize all the various medications that are out there? Pharmacists go to school for six years and they often need to consult references. it'll take more than a minute or two.

As I stated, to the best of my knowledge, most states have a law (with exceptions) against carrying prescription meds outside of the bottle they came in. Most drug arrests involving pain meds involve those that have them without a prescription, and without the required containers. You imply that this rarely occurs. You would be astonished by the amount of people that illegally possess prescription meds that do not belong to them. If they have enough, we can also take it up a notch and charge for felony intent to sell/distribute.

We carry drug identification indexes and have toll free numbers to call if the pill is not readily identifiable. We have been called by TSA during the screening process if pills are found by themselves or in baggies and we hold the person until the pill is identified. If it is a controlled substance, then the person may be arrested. I have yet to be called to a checkpoint by TSA when pills were in a prescription bottle or another container that is commonly used by those who are on several medications.

I never suggested that the TSA stop looking for liquid explosives. I suggested that the TSA focus on explosives rather than liquids. Technology exists to very quickly and easily determine if a liquid container has explosives in it, regardless of size. The current farce only prevents my from bringing more than a liter of explosive into the secure area in a liquid form, not from bringing explosives into the secure area. Since the government is so adamant that the terrorists are all concocting these liquid explosives, actually testing for explosives seems the appropriate way to address the situation.

BTW, I forgot to add my welcome yesterday when you first showed up. Hope you're having fun here.

I hope you do go to law school, as you have the background and reasoning ability needed to be a good lawyer. ^

However, about that last statement: In law school there should be a class that mentions your statement is called the "Nuremberg Defense". I can't say more or Mr. Godwin will smite me.

As for your other statement: "What many of you fail to realize is that it does not take a rocket scientist to identify a drug that may be illegal."

Eagle eyed TSOs can simply look at something and identify not only its chemical composition (drug substance) but it's intent (legal or illegal). I did not realize the TSA job qualification for screeners included "must possess gas chromatograph/mass spectrometric ocular ability and ESP ability on inanimate objects." Where do they find 40,000 such qualified people?

Without getting into whether or not they should be doing so (yes I have a strong opinion one way), what you may fail to see is the frustration of frequent flyers who deal with TSOs who can make such detailed chemical analysis and intention calls about some things, yet cannot look at a bottle of water, a cup of yogurt, and a block of cheese and determine their chemical composition and intent: "That there's a bottle of water, a cup of yogurt, and a block of cheese!" and present no danger of blowing a large hole in the sky.

It is the absurd hypocrisy of TSA's selective determination of the chemical composition of some objects but not others that demonstrates a lack of consistency by a government regulatory agency that we the people find unacceptable.

Not sure how you read that into my post, I said nothing about the frequency of arrests for unlawful possession of controlled substances. We agree that controlled substances need a prescription for legal possession. The bold portion of your post implies that all prescription meds are controlled substances. That is just incorrect, and that's where you are overreaching.

Sure wish a PharmD/JD where around to weigh in on pharmacy law. But I am certain that neither PA nor NJ have a legal requirement that "regular" prescription meds be in a prescription bottle.

I'm not sure that, at this point, I'd recommend law school to anyone. For what it's worth, the LEOs I knew when I was in law school all did very, very well, and I'm sure you will, too.

You're absolutely correct. I'm a civil lawyer, not a criminal lawyer, and my knowledge of criminal law is very limited. However, my particular area of law, intellectual property, has a very strong Constitutional component, and I feel reasonably comfortable recognizing when constitutional limits have been violated, at least in such narrow areas as the First Amendment.

I have no doubt of that. I'll bet, "You're violating my rights!" is something you hear every day, and I'll also bet that the person saying it is wrong 99.999999% of the time.

Absolutely. The law is the same in CA -- a person making a citizen's arrest is held to the same liability as a law enforcement professional. The difference is that LEOs know when and how to make an arrest and civilians do not.

The courts have to the extent of affirming the validity of a LEO's arrest based on a TSO reporting the contraband. I don't question the validity of your making arrests on this basis anymore than I'd question the validity of an arrest that you make based on any citizen's report of wrong doing. If I tell you, "I just saw that guy over there buy drugs," I'd expect you to act on that information (assuming you deem it credible) just as I'd expect you to act on a TSO saying, "I just saw illegal drugs in that guy's carry-on." My argument is not, in the least, with you or how you're doing your job. I do, however, have an argument with someone being a busy-body (the legal term of art is, I believe, "officious intermeddler.") I'll bet you do, too; I'm sure you get no shortage of "good samaritans" who tell you, "That man is speaking a foreign language and I think he's a terrorist!" Though, of course, you'll be polite to this "good citizen," I'm sure, in your mind, you're thinking, "Mind you're own business and let me do my job!" The job of a TSO is to keep commercial aviation safe, not to combat kiddie-porn, fight the war on drugs, detect industrial espionage, enforce copyright law, find Amber-alert kids, etc. By every conceivable metric, they are doing an incredibly poor job -- every study I've read says they detect firearms and IEDs only 30% of the time. That's atrocious! If TSA was actually doing some good, I might be more receptive to TSOs acting like good citizens beyond the scope of their legal brief. However, not only is it not, but some (though, of course, not all, or even most) TSOs act in ways that are clearly unconstitutional. I know that you will not arrest me for saying, "Kip Hawley is an idiot." I know that you will not arrest because I refuse to engage in a conversation with a BDO. In fact, I will absolutely rely on you and specifically request your presence in the event that I think a TSO is acting contrary to law and in contravention of Constitutional limits on his power. You and your fellow police stand between me and the law breakers, not TSA.

I respectfully disagree. If a TSO refuses to surrender my carry-on to me until law enforcement is summoned because he found a baggie full of pu'er tea in it, I believe he has committed, at least, a civil violation of laws against false imprisonment (though, of course, these vary by state). If a TSO confiscates my prescription medications until a police officer can examine them and obtain an explanation from me as to what they are, I believe he has committed, at least, the civil tort of conversion. If a TSO summons a LEO because I am wearing a t-shirt with a picture of a Transformer on it, he has violated my First Amendment rights.

Please see above. The question isn't whether it is a detention or illegal search and seizure -- TSOs have no power to detain, and administrative searches have been deemed constitutional in this context. You, of course, act completely lawfully when you arrest someone for possession of contraband. That is true even if evidence of the contraband was obtained illegally by a private citizen, e.g. I can break into my neighbors house, remove evidence of drug dealing and take it down to my local police station. Though I may be criminally liable for burglary, you are free to arrest the drug dealer and the evidence won't be excluded under "fruit of the poison tree" doctrine, as it was not obtained by state action. And, if it turns out that the "evidence" I brought in was my neighbor's supply of pu'er tea, I'd expect to be prosecuted for burglary and theft.

I am aware of no basis in law that immunize a TSO for confiscation of suspected contraband that turns out to be harmless and legal. With respect to the tort of conversion, there is no time threshold before it applies. With respect to the tort of false imprisonment, it must be more than "momentary." I'm not familiar with the case law, but I'd be surprised if one or two minutes would be deemed "momentary."

Sure. That's because, when you make an arrest, it is a legitimate exercise of your police powers. The fact that you acted lawfully doesn't, in any way, justify or excuse violations committed by a TSO, who is afforded no police powers.

Would that were true. There are a number of TSOs and TSA supervisors who post here on FT and, happily, they are almost all among the ethical, honest and efficient employees of that organization. However, there have been far too many reports here of abuses by TSOs, with subsequent documented complaints simply ignored by TSA, for me to feel any level of confidence in the complaint procedure. With the exception of active investigations, policing by LEOs is pretty transparent -- any time I want, I can walk into my local police station, ask to see a commanding officer and, assuming they're not busy with other things, they'll speak with me an answer any questions I might have. I've never had occasion to complain about a policeman, but I've had a number of instances in which I wanted to discuss neighborhood safety concerns, etc., and my inquiries were addressed promptly, courteously, and informatively. There is no comparable mechanism with TSA. Too many FTers have indicated that even something as simple as asking for a complaint form can result in stonewalling, demands for ID, etc. I find it very disturbing that police departments, which are the agencies that by law could act like the Gestapo if they wanted to, never do, whereas TSA, which has absolutely no police powers whatsoever, engages in jack-booted Constitutional violations often enough that it is a major concern, both here on FT, in the media, and among the public.

I'm sure you're absolutely correct. Here on FT, we complain about Gomers and Kettles, i.e. inexperienced fliers, who make the travel process annoying and unpleasant. I'm sure that, just as we must contend with their obnoxious antics on-board, TSOs must contend with their obnoxious antics at screening. For that matter, I'm sure you encounter more than your share of people who I'd bet you like to arrest for no other reason than people that stupid and arrogant are a threat to themselves and others. The difference, however, between LEOs and a number of TSOs, is that LEOs are highly trained and skilled professionals who understand the limits of their jobs and can distinguish between someone being an a__hole who is acting illegally, and someone who is just an a__hole.

I think you'll agree that the good policeman is one who chooses the career because he or she wants to serve the community and believes that a lawful, safe and well-ordered community is essential to a free society. The bad policeman is one who wants an excuse to exercise power over others. I can honestly say that, in my 50+ years, I've never, not once, encountered an example of the latter -- I'm continually impressed by the dedication, concern and professionalism of the police officers that I meet or observe on the job. There are, however, bad apples in every barrel, but I rely on the department to deal with them. And I know the department does because there is transparency -- the media has access to and reports on the result of disciplinary proceedings within the police department. Maybe I have an overly rosy view of law enforcement, but I can only go by my own personal experience (I'd add, too, that my admiration for the job police officers do also extends to fire and paramedic personnel).

Virtually all the TSOs that I encounter are also professional and courteous. However, I have seen a number of examples of those who are not. Unlike police departments, there is no transparency at TSA. I am not aware of a single instance in which the results of a disciplinary proceeding were made public. Indeed, the only time I hear anything about TSA is when it is the police who must get involved, e.g. when TSOs are arrested for stealing from passenger luggage, etc.

Transparency is essential. I trust the police because I know that the police will discipline their own if and when necessary, and I know this because the police departments make this information public. I don't trust TSA because there is no transparency and, unlike my lifetime of positive experiences with police, I have, with my own eyes, seen too many abuses by TSOs. It's not all TSOs, not even most TSOs. It's just a few bad apples, but I see no evidence that they are dealt with.

As you should. Please stay safe and thank you for your good work.

Yikes! You guys were busy today while I was working in my garden.

OK, here goes:

Who are you to define what my job, or my agency's job, is?
My employer has instructed me to notify a supervisor if I find certain, possibly illegal, items in a bag.
Ethically, I have two choices: Comply with the directive, whether or not I personally agree with it; or resign.
Luckily, I don't have a problem with it, so hey.

If I see something that I believe to be kiddie porn, it's my job to report it. Period.

That is your opinion. My employer's opinion differs, and since the TSA is the one signing my paycheck ...

The SOP says nothing regarding Cuban pesos, ergo I have no obligation to report.

You know, I frequently hear statements bandied about on this board that such-and-such actions are a violation of the Constitution. I think posters need to clarify that IT IS THEIR OPINION that something is a violation, absence of any court ruling actually declaring it so ... and ya know what they say about opinions!

That is not to say the only avenue to policy change is through the courts -- obviously, it's not. There is, for example, lobbying.

For starters, how would the bag searcher know the passenger was 17?
The bag search TSO doesn't ask for I.D.
If a TSO sees WHAT THEY BELIEVE TO BE KIDDIE PORN, he/she required to notify a supervisor. Period.

See above.
It's not my job to try to determine who the people in the pictures are, whether they're of age or whether the photos were consentual. I am required only to notify a supervisor, who in turn is required to call a LEO.

I am even more disturbed by the suggestion we should turn a blind eye to nakey kid pics, just because they MIGHT be benign.

It seems prudence would call for a modicum of scrutiny ...

Mostly likely in the courts.

On what grounds? They would be doing exactly as required. Not sure how you can get someone fired for doing their job, but hey, you're certainly welcome to try!

Let us know how that turns out for you.

I'm not interested in being a LEO, thanks. (Besides, I'm probably too freakin' old!)

Why indeed? Questioning the PAX isn't part of our job.

I've never seen this happen, either.

And please do the same for TSO's that cross the line. It's not fair that this should be one sided, yet folks are verbally assaulted (and sometimes physically) by TSA every day.