Originally posted by Jamio:
Christine!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
That's horrible! Did they ever apologize? quote:
The TSA wouldn't comment on the lawsuit, but said in a statement that the movement of large amounts of cash through a checkpoint may be investigated "if suspicious activity is suspected."
quote:I suspect suspicion!
Originally posted by scifibum:
Here's a text article
Gotta love the statement from the TSA:
quote:
The TSA wouldn't comment on the lawsuit, but said in a statement that the movement of large amounts of cash through a checkpoint may be investigated "if suspicious activity is suspected."
quote:I suspect you of cynicism.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
I suspect suspicion!
quote:The former. I happened to know about it because it involves Ron Paul, but I commented on it because it's not only wrong, but creepy.
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
Lisa, did you post this as something wrong worth commenting on, or because it involves Ron Paul?
quote:He asked them whether he was legally obligated to answer them. They refused to say. Americans shouldn't have to answer questions because some dude in a uniform asks them with no legal authority.
Originally posted by Dobbie:
The suspicious part was that guy's refusal to answer a simple question.
quote:Really? Why? Am I going to use the money to blow the plane up somehow?
Originally posted by Scott R:
If you're walking through the airport with that much cash, OF COURSE it's suspicious
quote:I don't know about that-- it might very well be one of their tasks to enforce the law within the jurisdiction of the airport.
It's NOT TSAs job to deal with suspicious activity. It's their job to deal with suspicious activity that deals with flight safety.
quote:This is really the crux of the problem, I think -- that they did not explain his rights. They just tried to bully him. Also, I don't think he should have had to answer. It's not like he could blow up a plane with $4700. In fact, the fact that he was carrying that much money would make me more likely to suspect he wants to get to his destination safely. We are allowed to travel in this country without having people in our faces and in our business. Suspicious behavior must actually be something that appears threatening, not simply out of the ordinary. (Although $4700 doesn't seem like that much money in the grand scheme of things.)
Originally posted by Scott R:
He did eventually answer them-- even though according to his statements they never told him his rights. The policeman at the end of the article knew where the money came from and asked for an affirmation of that.
If you're walking through the airport with that much cash, OF COURSE it's suspicious, and they were right to pull him aside for questioning.
And of course, the TSA agents should have been able to tell this guy what his rights are, and they should have done so right away, long before threatening him with arrest, etc.
quote:I had a bad run-in with the TSA as well. They gave me privacy, but the insisted on doing a full search of me, including running their hands along my breasts and thighs. It was humiliating and the worst part is the same people did it TWICE. In the Kansas City airport, you have to leave security to use the bathroom. Really annoying (pre-9-11 setup). So I left the very minimally busy terminal, came back five minutes later with nothing on my person but my ID and ticket, wearing the same rather fitted clothes, and I assure you that I hadn't gained any weight in that time period. Yet they insisted on once again checking to see if I really did have large breasts or if there was a bomb under my bra. I was in tears by the time it was over and I did give the TSA a piece of my mind. I understand a lot of women did.
Originally posted by katharina:
Ever since I was pulled aside and treated badly (threats, ignoring me while searching passengers that came later first) by the TSA because I wouldn't take off a cardigan in public because doing so would expose more of what I had underneath than I was comfortable with, I am prone to believe crappy stories like this one. I don't think they are well-trained. The ones I encountered were powermad and happy to be bullies in their tiny little sphere.
quote:No, but I'd certainly see it as suspicious and worthy of questioning.
Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
Carrying 4700 dollars isn't against the law.
quote:Why? What crime that is under the jurisdiction of the TSA consists of carrying money?
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:No, but I'd certainly see it as suspicious and worthy of questioning.
Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
Carrying 4700 dollars isn't against the law.
quote:Why do you ask that? Are we to insist the TSA turn a blind eye to any suspected crime that doesn't directly impact airline safety?
Why? What crime that is under the jurisdiction of the TSA consists of carrying money?
quote:Unless, of course, it's in the movies.
Originally posted by katharina:
You can't blow up a plane with money.
That's horrible! Did they ever apologize?
quote:I want to know what crime has been committed by carrying $4700 that is in ANYONE's jurisdiction. No, nobody should turn a blind eye to a suspected crime, but there is NO CRIME in carrying money. It is a perfectly legal thing to do.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Why do you ask that? Are we to insist the TSA turn a blind eye to any suspected crime that doesn't directly impact airline safety?
Why? What crime that is under the jurisdiction of the TSA consists of carrying money?
There's no question the TSA has acted badly in this and quite a few other cases. Asking questions isn't one of the things they did wrong. Pretty much everything after the first asked question was, though.
quote:No. But after enough women complained, they had to discontinue that type of search.
Originally posted by Jamio:
Christine!
quote:How is it "of course suspicious"? The TSA isn't the police. Their purpose is to prevent danger, not to probe people carrying cash. And since when does carrying a few thousand dollars constitute a "suspicious act" in this country?
Originally posted by Scott R:
If you're walking through the airport with that much cash, OF COURSE it's suspicious, and they were right to pull him aside for questioning.
quote:Potentially, money laundering. Pretty sure that is not under TSA's jurisdiction, though.
Originally posted by Christine:
I want to know what crime has been committed by carrying $4700 that is in ANYONE's jurisdiction.
quote:So you've said. Twice, now. And you've failed to give any reason for it. People should be subject to search and seizure for anything someone deems suspicious? We're getting rid of the Fourth Amendment now? The Ninth and Tenth weren't enough?
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:No, but I'd certainly see it as suspicious and worthy of questioning.
Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
Carrying 4700 dollars isn't against the law.
quote:Since the War on Drugs has associated the carrying of large sums of cash with being a drug dealer or being involved in the drug trade in general in pretty much everyone's mind. Also with the existence of check, card and plentiful banks it's rare for anyone to travel with cash. Everyone just uses other - safer - methods of payment for large transactions. *shrug*
And since when does carrying a few thousand dollars constitute a "suspicious act" in this country?
quote:Large sums are a lot large than that. Banks make you fill out a form if you want to deposit over $10K in cash. Which is bad enough, really. We're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in this country. "We want to stop money launderers" isn't sufficient justification to treat everyone as guilty until proven innocent. It's not like money laundering poses a clear and present danger.
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Potentially, money laundering. Pretty sure that is not under TSA's jurisdiction, though.
Originally posted by Christine:
I want to know what crime has been committed by carrying $4700 that is in ANYONE's jurisdiction.
If this had been an international flight, it would be another story. There are legal limits on transporting large sums of US (and other) currency in and out of the country.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Did they ask the first question before or after detaining the guy? If they asked him in the security line why he had $4700, then I would tend to agree that wasn't terribly wrong, although it wasn't necessary or appropriate in my opinion. They're allowed to ask questions out of curiosity, I suppose.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Why do you ask that? Are we to insist the TSA turn a blind eye to any suspected crime that doesn't directly impact airline safety?
Why? What crime that is under the jurisdiction of the TSA consists of carrying money?
There's no question the TSA has acted badly in this and quite a few other cases. Asking questions isn't one of the things they did wrong. Pretty much everything after the first asked question was, though.
quote:Don't get ahead of yourself.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:So you've said. Twice, now. And you've failed to give any reason for it. People should be subject to search and seizure for anything someone deems suspicious? We're getting rid of the Fourth Amendment now? The Ninth and Tenth weren't enough?
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:No, but I'd certainly see it as suspicious and worthy of questioning.
Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
Carrying 4700 dollars isn't against the law.
quote:Without commenting on the good/bad aspect of this case, I suspect that is precisely what happened. Its obvious from the transcript that the passenger was making an issue of whether he had to answer and he ran into a TSA guy who was abusing already abusing his authority. It's like a collision of two immovable objects
Originally posted by Lisa:
...
quote:He asked them whether he was legally obligated to answer them. They refused to say. Americans shouldn't have to answer questions because some dude in a uniform asks them with no legal authority.
Originally posted by Dobbie:
The suspicious part was that guy's refusal to answer a simple question.
I once flew from Israel to Chicago with a little over $3K cash in my pocket. The idea that I could have been detained for that by some overzealous punk with a uniform just really squicks me out.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote:This^2
Originally posted by scifibum:
... I don't trust them to screen out potential employees who might really enjoy patting down a traveler, or making them cower, and are happy to make an excuse to get the opportunity.
quote:I dunno, a host of crimes that would involve carrying large amounts of cash on one's person, many involving drugs.
What suspected crime?
quote:With equal passion, I'd like to know where I indicated otherwise.
I want to know what crime has been committed by carrying $4700 that is in ANYONE's jurisdiction. No, nobody should turn a blind eye to a suspected crime, but there is NO CRIME in carrying money. It is a perfectly legal thing to do.
quote:Lisa, Scott quite clearly said questioning.
So you've said. Twice, now. And you've failed to give any reason for it. People should be subject to search and seizure for anything someone deems suspicious? We're getting rid of the Fourth Amendment now? The Ninth and Tenth weren't enough?
quote:Why not? For a given definition of 'treated as suspicious', that is.
But I agree that it really shouldn't be treated as suspicious.
quote:They're not always larger than that, though.
Large sums are a lot large than that.
quote:Well, as freedom of speech is guaranteed in the first amendment then yes, anyone can ask anything....law enforcement, the TSA, and the passenger in the next seat. This does not translate to the right to detain, however. It is also pretty pointless. Question: "Why are you carrying $4,700?" Answer: "Oh, a big drug deal just went down and now I'm off to buy more crack."
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
I never said there was a crime in carrying large amounts of cash undocumented on one's person.
Just that, in certain circumstances - such as boarding an aircraft traveling long distances - it can appear suspicious. If law enforcement folks see something that appears suspicious, they're allowed to ask about it. It's really that simple.
quote:I don't think this is true of airport security.
Detaining someone requires more than suspicion. It requires probable cause.
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I don't think this is true of airport security.
Detaining someone requires more than suspicion. It requires probable cause.
quote:Why is airport security exempt?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
quote:Searching does not equal detaining.
Originally posted by Scott R:
It is explicit noted in the security lines that your possessions and person may be searched. That is the cost of doing business with the federally regulated but privately held airlines.
quote:Do you recognize the right of the airlines to deny you service if you don't abide by their regulations?
Asserting that a person will not be allowed to continue his journey without answering questions.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.quote:Not quite-- if they'd thought it was a crime, they would have arrested him.
So carrying $4,700 is not a crime, but doing so does set you apart, and that is considered a crime by the paranoid.
quote:As I understand it, the TSA screeners don't have the authority to detain people.
I'm not comfortable with the idea of these people having the authority to detain people
quote:They are not there to detect crime unless it is a threat to airport or travel security. They are not customs agents who are charged with stopping smuggling. Carrying cash - even if it illegally gotten cash or will be used for illegal purposes later - represents no clear risk to the flight. TSA are not police. Police should know what their constitutional limits are.
The Transportation Security Administration protects the Nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce.
quote:I will never say that.
Well, let it never be said my mind can't change...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(And I don't plan to change my mind on that.)quote:I'd probably meekly answer the question and move on. I think that's because I'm more concerned with having a smooth experience at the airport than personally supporting the bulwark of individual rights against intrusive government. In other words, I'm selfish and not an activist.
Originally posted by Scott R:
What would you do if they asked you where the money came from? Would you answer like the Ron Paul guy did? Or would you volunteer the info and move on?
I think I'd probably answer the question and move on... I'm not invested in engaging in a pissing contest with Barry the Hall Monitor.
quote:Yep. I'm with you there. If mysterious cash in the airport was against a federal regulation, or against an airline policy (one that was disclosed to passengers before money changed hands), I think they'd have justification to stop the person from continuing. The quoted example was not a very good one, since there are definitely times where a person is blocked from going on an airplane that I wouldn't call 'detention'. My bad.
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Do you recognize the right of the airlines to deny you service if you don't abide by their regulations?
Asserting that a person will not be allowed to continue his journey without answering questions.
quote:I'd most likely do the same thing, because it's more personally convenient. For me, that's why it is important to support the people who are willing to go through the inconveniences and injustices to stand up to abuses of power like this. Cases like this work as lightning rods to bring all the grievances that people who have had with the TSA over stuff like this to effect. You may not have been willing to go through the hassle that they would put you through at the time, but now you don't have to.
What would you do if they asked you where the money came from? Would you answer like the Ron Paul guy did? Or would you volunteer the info and move on?
I think I'd probably answer the question and move on... I'm not invested in engaging in a pissing contest with Barry the Hall Monitor.
quote:So you do want the TSA to turn a blind eye to suspected crimes that have nothing to do with aircraft and passenger safety?
They are not there to detect crime unless it is a threat to airport or travel security. They are not customs agents who are charged with stopping smuggling. Carrying cash - even if it illegally gotten cash or will be used for illegal purposes later - represents no clear risk to the flight. TSA are not police. Police should know what their constitutional limits are.
quote:It wouldn't to me either.
Anyway, it wouldn't occur to me to think of someone carrying around a bunch of cash as suspicious. Maybe I just hang around with more rural and old-fashioned folk or maybe I'm just ridiculously pollyannaish.
quote:They could handle it the way we do at the bank. They could fill out the proper forms and file them with the IRS. Then the IRS looks at your situation as a whole and decides if it's suspicious.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:So you do want the TSA to turn a blind eye to suspected crimes that have nothing to do with aircraft and passenger safety?
They are not there to detect crime unless it is a threat to airport or travel security. They are not customs agents who are charged with stopping smuggling. Carrying cash - even if it illegally gotten cash or will be used for illegal purposes later - represents no clear risk to the flight. TSA are not police. Police should know what their constitutional limits are.
quote:How would that be part of your job? What threat to air travel does a passenger having around $5000 on them pose?
But if I were in security at an airport, and someone strolled onto a plane with that much money, I'd at least be curious, seeing as how that's part of my job and all.
quote:Part of informing them of their rights is telling them that they are under no obligation to answer your questions. So, are you suggesting they pull someone out of line and say, "So, I'm just curious and you don't have to answer, but why do you have that money?"
Pulling someone aside and asking them questions, after advising them of their rights
quote:See, this is where things go south in a hurry. You can't consider someone exercising their rights as suspicious!
IMO, the thing that was most suspicious in this situation was not the carrying around of nearly five grand, it was the refusing to say why he was carrying around nearly five grand
quote:Being curious is part of their job. Or do you think it's really possible to be effective at security if you're only curious about things that already appear to be related to security matters and are also suspicious?
How would that be part of your job? What threat to air travel does a passenger having around $5000 on them pose?
quote:I wouldn't phrase it like that, but something along those lines, yes.
Part of informing them of their rights is telling them that they are under no obligation to answer your questions. So, are you suggesting they pull someone out of line and say, "So, I'm just curious and you don't have to answer, but why do you have that money?"
quote:I think that encouraging curiosity in things that are clearly not part of their security concerns (and also none of their business) is most likely going to lead to a decrease in performance in their actual job of providing security.
Being curious is part of their job. Or do you think it's really possible to be effective at security if you're only curious about things that already appear to be related to security matters and are also suspicious?
quote:Are you really arguing that TSA is especially effective now?
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Being curious is part of their job. Or do you think it's really possible to be effective at security if you're only curious about things that already appear to be related to security matters and are also suspicious?
quote:Really? What would that accomplish? If a TSA agent thinks that someone reading the book or Mormon is suspicious, and they pull them out of line and asks them if they are a member of the LDS church, but says that they don't have to answer that if they don't want to, what does this accomplish? Besides intimidation of religious minorities, I mean?
quote:I wouldn't phrase it like that, but something along those lines, yes.
Part of informing them of their rights is telling them that they are under no obligation to answer your questions. So, are you suggesting they pull someone out of line and say, "So, I'm just curious and you don't have to answer, but why do you have that money?"
quote:In what way is it clear that carrying large sums of cash cannot in any way ever be linked to a security threat? Just as an easy example, terrorists need to transfer funds somehow, or would you argue that unless someone is boarding a plane to endanger the security of that particular flight, the TSA shouldn't express interest?
I think that encouraging curiosity in things that are clearly not part of their security concerns (and also none of their business) is most likely going to lead to a decrease in performance in their actual job of providing security.
quote:Since there is often a limited amount of time before the person boards a plane, and since there aren't sky marshals on every single flight, refusing to as you say 'indulge their curiosity' in effect will often amount to turning a blind eye.
They don't have to "turn a blind eye" they could inform people who do have the authority to question someone. They can be a curious as they like; they don't have the authority to indulge that curiousity unless it is a threat to travel safety. If they don't know whether or not it is a risk there is a whole long list of things they are supposed to check.
quote:Bullcrap. I know, personally, several people who work for my local government just as an example, and they're not power hungry bullies. But I realize that I'm hardly going to dissuade you from your blanket generalization, so I'll just disagree once.
BTW, anyone in government is a power hungry bully. We just see it most where we interact the most.
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Mr. Squicky,
quote:In what way is it clear that carrying large sums of cash cannot in any way ever be linked to a security threat? Just as an easy example, terrorists need to transfer funds somehow, or would you argue that unless someone is boarding a plane to endanger the security of that particular flight, the TSA shouldn't express interest?
I think that encouraging curiosity in things that are clearly not part of their security concerns (and also none of their business) is most likely going to lead to a decrease in performance in their actual job of providing security.
quote:Yes. "This is your authority. Don't exceed that authority."
kmbboots,
quote:Since there is often a limited amount of time before the person boards a plane, and since there aren't sky marshals on every single flight, refusing to as you say 'indulge their curiosity' in effect will often amount to turning a blind eye.
They don't have to "turn a blind eye" they could inform people who do have the authority to question someone. They can be a curious as they like; they don't have the authority to indulge that curiousity unless it is a threat to travel safety. If they don't know whether or not it is a risk there is a whole long list of things they are supposed to check.
As for not having the authority to indulge their curiosity unless there's a threat...how do you imagine they find out if there's a threat? But there are lists, you say. Are we supposed to tell the TSA, "You are only allowed to investigate matters if they show up on this list we've given you?"
quote:I believe that, in the long run, too much leeway is far worse. Power will, by its nature, reach out to grab more power. This is especially true when people are fearful. That tendency needs to be actively and adamantly resisted.
I'm not comfortable with the way the TSA is run, and obviously giving too much leeway is a bad thing, but you're suggesting we allow no initiative on their part at all, which strikes me as just as bad (if not worse, should worse come to worst) but in the opposite direction.
quote:Of course not. That seems obviously outside their purview.
In what way is it clear that carrying large sums of cash cannot in any way ever be linked to a security threat? Just as an easy example, terrorists need to transfer funds somehow, or would you argue that unless someone is boarding a plane to endanger the security of that particular flight, the TSA shouldn't express interest?
quote:I'm not sure, but it looks like you are arguing against yourself here. If there is a limited window for them to ensure flight security, how is them using that time and resources to focus on things not related to flight security not going to degrade their performance?
Since there is often a limited amount of time before the person boards a plane, and since there aren't sky marshals on every single flight, refusing to as you say 'indulge their curiosity' in effect will often amount to turning a blind eye.
quote:Law enforcement and security must, by their natures, include such things as 'probable cause' and 'suspicion'. I'm not saying issue blank checks. I'm saying let's not pretend that this is strictly an academic issue.
Yes. "This is your authority. Don't exceed that authority."
quote:Fortunately I'm not advocating too much leeway. All I'm advocating is that if a TSA employee were to say, "Excuse me sir, we work on security for this flight, and we were wondering why you were carrying so much cash? You don't have to answer this question if you don't want to; we don't have the authority to compel you," that wouldn't be objectionable in the slightest. And to answer Mr. Squicky's question, I think it was, yes, even that would serve some good. Reactions could be gauged. The story could conceivably be checked if the reaction raised red flags.
I believe that, in the long run, too much leeway is far worse. Power will, by its nature, reach out to grab more power. This is especially true when people are fearful. That tendency needs to be actively and adamantly resisted.
quote:I'm not suggesting they should make it a part of their mission. I'm saying that if they happen across something that might be dangerous in the future, there's nothing wrong with lawfully (such as advising the subject of their rights) asking a few questions.
Of course not. That seems obviously outside their purview.
quote:Thankfully, I'm not using 'could conceivably further terrorism' as my standard. I'm just rejecting the repeated notion expressed here of, "C'mon, a wad of cash? That cannot possibly be involved with anything dangerous to an aircraft!"
Just about anything could conceivably be used to further terrorism. If that's your standard for the limit of their authority, there is no effective limit. Thankfully, it is not the job of a little bit above minimum wage workers to address terrorist conspiracies. Their authority is limited to immediate flight security.
quote:Again, it's not always crystal clear what is related to airline security and what isn't. And the TSA will, by nature of their job and the information we're required to submit to board airliners, have quite a bit of a leg up in the 'check this out' department. In this instance, for example. Let's say that the TSA did everything* right, and after advising the guy that he was under no legal obligation to answer their questions, he told them he worked for the Ron Paul campaign, and that the money he had was campaign contributions.
I'm not sure, but it looks like you are arguing against yourself here. If there is a limited window for them to ensure flight security, how is them using that time and resources to focus on things not related to flight security not going to degrade their performance?
quote:No one is disagreeing that they have a right to ask, but perhaps we disagree how much can be gaged by their answer. You see, even though you have tried to explain how the answer can be used, I still insist that it is a pointless question. Unless you think the refusal to answer raises red flags, or unless you think that they will tell you that they got the money from a drug deal, or unless you honestly think that law enforcement has nothing better to do than to check into the story behind why someone has $4700 in cash. As has already been pointed out, the movements of greater than 10k in cash is already tracked. There is already a standard in place for determining how much money is suspicious enough to be worth investigating.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Fortunately I'm not advocating too much leeway. All I'm advocating is that if a TSA employee were to say, "Excuse me sir, we work on security for this flight, and we were wondering why you were carrying so much cash? You don't have to answer this question if you don't want to; we don't have the authority to compel you," that wouldn't be objectionable in the slightest. And to answer Mr. Squicky's question, I think it was, yes, even that would serve some good. Reactions could be gauged. The story could conceivably be checked if the reaction raised red flags.
quote:No one said "no matter what might stumble into their laps." If they find illegal drugs in someone's suitcase, for example, I've got no problems with them detaining a passenger and holding them for regular law enforcement. But that's not what we're talking about here.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
It's frankly baffling to me that folks appear to think that the TSA should concern themselves only and to the exclusion of all else only things that directly impact airline security, no matter what might stumble into their laps. As well to chastise a firefighter for helping direct traffic or something at a fire they encounter while on vacation abroad.
quote:For the first part, I'm not sure if you missed the part where we talked about them being completely able to pass things onto the appropriate authorities, because it would seem to disagree with your characterization of what people said.
It's frankly baffling to me that folks appear to think that the TSA should concern themselves only and to the exclusion of all else only things that directly impact airline security, no matter what might stumble into their laps. As well to chastise a firefighter for helping direct traffic or something at a fire they encounter while on vacation abroad.
quote:The standard that you seem to be using - "could somehow aid terrorists" - applies to just about any thing in existence. It also exists far, far, far outside the authority and capabilities of the TSA.
Thankfully, I'm not using 'could conceivably further terrorism' as my standard. I'm just rejecting the repeated notion expressed here of, "C'mon, a wad of cash? That cannot possibly be involved with anything dangerous to an aircraft!"
quote:What would this accompilsh? Real terrorists will either lie, say nothing, or not have lots of cash to begin with.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
All I'm advocating is that if a TSA employee were to say, "Excuse me sir, we work on security for this flight, and we were wondering why you were carrying so much cash? You don't have to answer this question if you don't want to; we don't have the authority to compel you," that wouldn't be objectionable in the slightest.
quote:Since when are TSA agents trained to accurately read facial expressions?
And to answer Mr. Squicky's question, I think it was, yes, even that would serve some good. Reactions could be gauged. The story could conceivably be checked if the reaction raised red flags.
quote:A 10K engagement ring could very easily be converted to a 5K wad of cash, if necessary. Do you think TSA agents should stop everyone with a big diamond ring, and ask what they intend to do with it?
Thankfully, I'm not using 'could conceivably further terrorism' as my standard. I'm just rejecting the repeated notion expressed here of, "C'mon, a wad of cash? That cannot possibly be involved with anything dangerous to an aircraft!"
quote:If the TSA agent is anti-Semetic, he's going to think any story told to him by a Jew is going to sound fishy.
Let's say that the TSA did everything* right, and after advising the guy that he was under no legal obligation to answer their questions, he told them he worked for the Ron Paul campaign, and that the money he had was campaign contributions.
*googles the guy's name* Not especially difficult or time consuming. And that's only if they felt there was something fishy about the guy's story or something.
quote:For the first part on my end, wouldn't that also fall under your and kmbboots's definition of going too far? Remember, the TSA is only supposed to be concerned with things directly impacting airline safety, and not one step further. It's not their business to be concerned about any other sorts of crimes, remember?
For the first part, I'm not sure if you missed the part where we talked about them being completely able to pass things onto the appropriate authorities, because it would seem to disagree with your characterization of what people said.
quote:It's a shaky comparison, I know, but it stems from the idea expressed here that government employees - law enforcement/security employees specifically - should be concerned only with what is obviously and specifically within their mandate, and anything else that crosses their eye simply isn't any of their business. It smacks of, "It's not their job," to me, and that's an excuse I'm just not very fond of. I don't see why we can't a) encourage initiative and b) discourage unauthorized and unlawful practices simultaneously.
For second, I don't understand what thinking leads to drawing that equivalence. Could you explain?
quote:That's not the standard I'm using. I only ever brought it up in response to repeated statements on this thread about how carrying large sums of money couldn't possibly be in any way related to a threat to an aircraft.
The standard that you seem to be using - "could somehow aid terrorists" - applies to just about any thing in existence. It also exists far, far, far outside the authority and capabilities of the TSA.
quote:Heh, well why don't we just call ammunition 'little bits of metal with some dry chemicals jammed in one end' while we're at it?
Tell me how you think lots of paper (which is what cash is minus what it stands for) could be dangerous on an airplane. Should we ban books and magazines as well? He can't buy stuff on an airplane that would be dangerous to have on an airplane.
quote:Yeah, you're right. Security and law enforcement should just never ask questions ever, because after all, real criminals will have stuff already prepared.
What would this accompilsh? Real terrorists will either lie, say nothing, or not have lots of cash to begin with.
quote:How many cops do you think are 'trained to accurately read facial expressions'? Are the only people we're going to permit to question anyone else people who meet this standard? IRS Agents better get to training!
Since when are TSA agents trained to accurately read facial expressions?
quote:You're right, we should definitely gear our security and law enforcement infrastructure to eliminating anything that, if abused, will negatively impact lots of people.
Prejudiced jerks are going to think that everyone of the wrong race/sex/religion/ethnicity/whatever are guilty. It only takes a small number of prejudiced jerks to impact thousands and thousands of people.
quote:Caught me! Man, I was in favor of the TSA harrassing people before, but now I've seen the light.
There are legitimate reason to wear big diamond rings, just like there are legitmate reasons to carry lots of cash. So if you have TSA harass everyone doing that, terrorists will just stop carrying big wads of cash, and will move their money in other ways. Like rolexes. The only people who will be 'caught' are the innocent ones.
quote:Who ever said anything about every story? I just mentioned that one person's story could be checked with a very quick, painless Internet search, that's all.
And you obviously can't google every person's story.
quote:Yeah, again, we should totally just not even ask people questions. Because, after all, all criminals are Moriarty, and none are ever foiled by routine checks and procedures.
Real terrorists would make alibis that would survive google scrutiny. Innocent people wouldn't plan that much, nor should they have to!
quote:Not any more than it is mine. I could mention to someone who has authority that I noticed something suspicious. I could not detain them while I googled them or till they answered my questions. Or intimidate them by flashing a badge and wearing a uniform.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Mr. Squicky,
quote:For the first part on my end, wouldn't that also fall under your and kmbboots's definition of going too far? Remember, the TSA is only supposed to be concerned with things directly impacting airline safety, and not one step further. It's not their business to be concerned about any other sorts of crimes, remember?
For the first part, I'm not sure if you missed the part where we talked about them being completely able to pass things onto the appropriate authorities, because it would seem to disagree with your characterization of what people said.
quote:
I don't see why we can't a) encourage initiative and b) discourage unauthorized and unlawful practices simultaneously.
quote:We could. It still has physical properties that are dangerous on an airplane. Cash does not.
kmbboots,
quote:Heh, well why don't we just call ammunition 'little bits of metal with some dry chemicals jammed in one end' while we're at it?
Tell me how you think lots of paper (which is what cash is minus what it stands for) could be dangerous on an airplane. Should we ban books and magazines as well? He can't buy stuff on an airplane that would be dangerous to have on an airplane.
quote:It did seem to me as if you were defending this particular event and encouraging more authority for the TSA. Seeing that I was mistaken, I don't think there's anything more to say on the matter.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Well, I'm getting really tired of being responded to as though I'm either a) not upset that this particular event happened, or b) encouraging sweeping expansion of the TSA mandate, or c) other ridiculous notions.
quote:The people in power (and the idiots that support them) think the only purpose of privacy is to hide wrongdoing.
Exercising your right to privacy should not be considered suspicious behavior.
quote:Amen. Ben Franklin said "It is better one hundred guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer." Bismarck said "It is better that ten innocent men suffer than one guilty man escape." It used to be that Americans thought more like Franklin. Apparently, that's gone out of vogue.
Originally posted by scifibum:
I'm pretty sure I do want government agencies to have very little zeal and interest outside of their specific purview, to be honest, and after a little thought. I'm leaning toward not caring whether a few crimes go undetected as a result.
quote:Absolutely! We should not be required to surrender our right to privacy because simply because we need to travel by airplane. Safe airline travel does not require that we answer questions reguarding any and all suspicious activity. The authority of TSA to search and question people should be strictly limited to those things which could reasonably be a threat to fellow travelers. If TSA uncovers evidence of tax fraud or drug smuggling that evidence should not be admissible in court.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Why do you ask that? Are we to insist the TSA turn a blind eye to any suspected crime that doesn't directly impact airline safety?
Why? What crime that is under the jurisdiction of the TSA consists of carrying money?
quote:We can add this to the long list of things I didn't say we should be doing.
Absolutely! We should not be required to surrender our right to privacy because simply because we need to travel by airplane.
quote:Dear God, no.
Originally posted by scifibum:
Suppose I go to the bank a couple of times and by coincidence an INS agent is in there too, for personal reasons, and observes a couple of possibly-structured transactions taking place? Do we want him to follow me when I leave, and try to figure out what I'm doing with all that cash?
quote:But Rakeesh, This is in effect exactly the result of what you say we should be doing. Except in an airport, an officer of the law can't demand to see the contents of my bag without a warrant or at least probable cause. We believe that the risks of hijackings and terror attacks on airplanes are high enough to surrender part of that right. If we allow TSA security agents broad authority to use the information they find in their searches to instigate criminal investigations that have nothing to do with airline security, we have in fact eliminated the right to privacy for everyone who choose to travel on commercial aircraft.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:We can add this to the long list of things I didn't say we should be doing.
Absolutely! We should not be required to surrender our right to privacy because simply because we need to travel by airplane.
quote:That's only a partially fair comparison, because after all, we don't necessarily have a right to board a privately-run airliner without any sort of conditions the way we have a right not to be searched or seized without probable cause.
Except in an airport, an officer of the law can't demand to see the contents of my bag without a warrant or at least probable cause.
quote:That's not something I was advocating either.
If we allow TSA security agents broad authority to use the information they find in their searches to instigate criminal investigations that have nothing to do with airline security, we have in fact eliminated the right to privacy for everyone who choose to travel on commercial aircraft.
quote:It'd be great if someone could tell me how exactly one is supposed to know if a given suspicious behavior (less obvious than, say, a dude who is ticking) is relevant to airline security.
For this reason, TSA security agents should absolutely be forbidden from doing what you call 'taking the initiative' to follow up on suspicious behavior unless that behavior is explicitly relevant to airline security.
quote:Umm, then I don't understand what you were advocating when you asked
That's not something I was advocating either.
quote:My answer to that question was quite straight forward. Yes, we are absolutely to insist that TSA turn a blind eye to any suspected crime that doesn't directly impact airline safety.
Are we to insist the TSA turn a blind eye to any suspected crime that doesn't directly impact airline safety?
quote:The searches are not required by the privately-run airliners. They are required and executed under federal law. It's a completely fair comparison if you look at the full context of what I have posted. I wasn't arguing that TSA officials shouldn't be allowed to search bags. My point was that authority to search my bags without warrant or probable cause is not awarded in other common circumstances because it is a violation of our civil rights. This authority is justified only because of the obvious dangers to other passengers and the community. For this reason, the this authority needs to be strictly proscribed so that aircraft passengers are not required to surrender any more of their right to privacy than is required for airline safety.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Rabbit,
quote:That's only a partially fair comparison, because after all, we don't necessarily have a right to board a privately-run airliner without any sort of conditions the way we have a right not to be searched or seized without probable cause.
Except in an airport, an officer of the law can't demand to see the contents of my bag without a warrant or at least probable cause.
quote:Which is precisely why some of us are arguing that TSA should never be investigating "suspicious behavior" that is less obvious thatn a dude who is ticking. Otherwise, we've given TSA a blank check to detain and harass people completely arbitrarily. All they have to do is say they think thought the color of their hair or the scent of perfume they were wearing seemed suspicious. (Although personally, I think it should be forbidden to wear any type of perfume on an airplane. Many many people are allergic to perfume. The thought of having to sit next to someone drenched in perfume for 10 hours on an overseas flight is pretty horrifying.)
It'd be great if someone could tell me how exactly one is supposed to know if a given suspicious behavior (less obvious than, say, a dude who is ticking) is relevant to airline security.
quote:Under the current law, you can carry knitting scissors with sharp tips as long as the blade is less than 4 inches long. I did actually have a TSA agent measure the length of my scissors one time, they passed. I think that was fully justified.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
TSA agents should be concentrating on making sure that my two-inch knitting scissors have rounded tips rather than trying to play detective.
quote:If you accidentally found any of those things in someone's personal possession, would you call the police?
I would even agree that it is reasonable to grant them discretion for evidently dangerous items not covered by the FAA lists. But if they find something in that search which arouses suspicion of some criminal activity that does not pose a direct threat to the airplane, passengers and crew -- TSA should absolutely turn a blind eye to it. We as a society did not grant them the authority to search our bags so they could find money launders. drug smugglers or kiddy porn traffickers and they should absolutely not be using their authority to those things.
quote:I think this question (I mean, the apparent rhetorical purpose of the question) ignores a crucial distinction. TSA has been given authority to inspect our belongings, so it's not very "accidental." It's not like somebody just noticing that there seems to be some cocaine sticking out of a bag. They are scrutinizing possessions, allowing nothing to remain hidden. That they are doing this at all is a drastic departure from the norms of privacy and probable cause. We've submitted to this, but I think Rabbit has a very good point that we submitted to this for a very particular purpose, and perhaps we should demand that this seeming exception to ordinary civil rights be strictly constrained.
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:If you accidentally found any of those things in someone's personal possession, would you call the police?
I would even agree that it is reasonable to grant them discretion for evidently dangerous items not covered by the FAA lists. But if they find something in that search which arouses suspicion of some criminal activity that does not pose a direct threat to the airplane, passengers and crew -- TSA should absolutely turn a blind eye to it. We as a society did not grant them the authority to search our bags so they could find money launders. drug smugglers or kiddy porn traffickers and they should absolutely not be using their authority to those things.
quote:Yes, asking a question - which is the only thing I was advocating - is a definite enormous time-drain, and suggesting they should ask questions on a case by case basis only if something already makes them curious, that's going to be a huge drain on resources.
TSA agents should be concentrating on making sure that my two-inch knitting scissors have rounded tips rather than trying to play detective.
quote:I'm not sure how I can be clearer about what I was advocating: the asking of questions if something odd comes up, coupled immediately with advising one of their rights. I never said anything about taking something that might be evidence of a crime and using it to further an investigation.
Umm, then I don't understand what you were advocating when you asked
quote:Only if you imagine pretty much the same conditions wouldn't exist if the government didn't impose them. Or do you think the private companies wouldn't run very similar searches if the government didn't compel them to?
The searches are not required by the privately-run airliners. They are required and executed under federal law. It's a completely fair comparison if you look at the full context of what I have posted.
quote:Bunk. Seriously false choice here. There's obviously some ground between 'license to detain and harrass everyone' and 'investigate suspicious behavior'. We have it for law-enforcement too.
Which is precisely why some of us are arguing that TSA should never be investigating "suspicious behavior" that is less obvious thatn a dude who is ticking. Otherwise, we've given TSA a blank check to detain and harass people completely arbitrarily.
quote:You are correct scifibum. That is what I am advocating. I don't know whether or not warrants really exist that limit a search to one specific type of evidence but it really doesn't matter. Airline searches are warrentless searches. Since the only thing that justifies these warrentless searches is airline security, the searches need to be strictly limited to things that directly impact airline security. If TSA officials stumble across something that could possibly related to another crime, they should absolutely forget they ever saw it.
Originally posted by scifibum:
Isn't there a type of search warrant that only permits police to search for one specific type of evidence, and anything else they turn up they have to officially ignore? Or is this a product of my imagination, or Law & Order fantasy?
Sounds like Rabbit is advocating something similar, that TSA should be limited to noticing things that impact flight security, and anything else they should pretend they didn't find. This is a more strict view than I was initially taking, but I'm leaning that way now.
quote:You are ignoring the key point. There are no other situations in our society where I am required by law to allow a person to search my belongs without a warrant or probable cause. I suspect we could find a lot more drug dealers and kiddy porn traffickers if everyone were require to undergo a routine search of their purses, brief cases and cars say everytime they entered the freeway. But we don't do that because we believe people have a ride to privacy even if they operate their cars on a public road way. Why should people who fly not have the same right to privacy? There is only one thing that can justify it and that is the consequence of airline hijackings and bombings. Therefore these searches should be strictly limited to things directly related to airline security.
Though if during a routine search a TSA screener discovered a stash of kiddie porn, or something else that was a crime in and of itself to possess...hell yes that should be reported to the police immediately.
Y'all seem to have this strange belief that the only things law enforcement are ever, ever allowed to get involved in are things for which they were specifically investigating for in the first place. That's just not true. What we don't allow our law enforcement and security officials to do is search someone claiming it's for one thing, but really just fishing for another thing and then when they find that other thing, bust `em for it.
quote:*sigh* OK, if you're going to equivocate like this, there's really not much point in discussing things further, Rabbit. Suffice it to say I was referring to certain forms of media which are unquestionably child pornography; that is, that there cannot be any doubt that there is a benign or even non-malignant intent behind them.
It's entirely possible that what the TSA agent thinks is a stash of kiddie porn, is really grandma's pictures of the grandkids in the tub. There is no law against having naked pictures of your grandkids and no reason grandma should be asked to explain let alone potentially have police knock down her door with a warrant to search for kiddy porn.
quote:I mean this nicely, Rakeesh, but for a guy who complains a lot when people put words in his mouth, you might not want to do it so much yourself.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
kmbboots,
Because, after all, those items are the only ones which could possibly be used in something that would endanger airline safety.
In fact, it's a perfect list. Everyone on that list is dangerous, and nothing on it is so slightly dangerous that it shouldn't be on there in the first place.
quote:Yes. I think that, given the volume of people that go through security, indulging their curiousity about things that aren't their job to be curious about makes already slow lines even slower. I would think that is obvious.
quote:Yes, asking a question - which is the only thing I was advocating - is a definite enormous time-drain, and suggesting they should ask questions on a case by case basis only if something already makes them curious, that's going to be a huge drain on resources.
TSA agents should be concentrating on making sure that my two-inch knitting scissors have rounded tips rather than trying to play detective.
quote:And that ground needs to be zealously guarded.
There's obviously some ground between 'license to detain and harrass everyone' and 'investigate suspicious behavior'. We have it for law-enforcement too.
quote:'So much', eh? In this one discussion it's been done to me almost constantly, so I think I'm entitled to a bit of snark at this point, thanks very much. You're welcome to point out where I do that elsewhere, and I'll be happy to respond with examples of folks responding to me about things I didn't actually say.
I mean this nicely, Rakeesh, but for a guy who complains a lot when people put words in his mouth, you might not want to do it so much yourself.
quote:Since we're disputing whether or not it is or should be part of their job, there's not much point in arguing this.
Yes. I think that, given the volume of people that go through security, indulging their curiousity about things that aren't their job to be curious about makes already slow lines even slower. I would think that is obvious.
quote:Except that up until recently (unless I missed it elsewhere, and I just checked, so I don't think I did) you weren't just saying the ground needs to be zealously guarded. You were saying that ground is absolutely, unquestionably sacrosanct.
And that ground needs to be zealously guarded.
quote:Scifibum has it right. If I am just walking down the street, you don't have the right to compel me to show you what's in my pack. If you accidentally see what's in my pack, its because I chose not to keep it concealed. The police don't have the right to compel me to show what's in my backpack unless they have a warrant or probable cause. We have the right to keep things concealed. We have a right to keep things secret. We shouldn't have to give up that right in order to travel on an airplane.
If you accidentally found any of those things in someone's personal possession, would you call the police?
quote:I disagree. I don't think that I have written anything that entitles you to be snarky to me and I don't think it helps the conversation.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
kmbboots,
quote:'So much', eh? In this one discussion it's been done to me almost constantly, so I think I'm entitled to a bit of snark at this point, thanks very much. You're welcome to point out where I do that elsewhere, and I'll be happy to respond with examples of folks responding to me about things I didn't actually say.
I mean this nicely, Rakeesh, but for a guy who complains a lot when people put words in his mouth, you might not want to do it so much yourself.
quote:What do you think their job is? Specifically.
quote:Since we're disputing whether or not it is or should be part of their job, there's not much point in arguing this.
Yes. I think that, given the volume of people that go through security, indulging their curiosity about things that aren't their job to be curious about makes already slow lines even slower. I would think that is obvious.
quote:Not sure where I said "sacrosanct", but how is that contradictory? One should zealously guard that which is "sacrosanct". The lines that delineate the power and authority of the government are important.
quote:Except that up until recently (unless I missed it elsewhere, and I just checked, so I don't think I did) you weren't just saying the ground needs to be zealously guarded. You were saying that ground is absolutely, unquestionably sacrosanct.
And that ground needs to be zealously guarded.
quote:What part of misuse of authority doesn't make sense. Would it make sense to you if I put it in an entirely different context. Consider the two scenarios. 1. You are at a social gathering and you overhear a conversation where someone is talking about there kiddy porn ring? Do you report it to the police. 2. You are the Bishop of your ward and someone in a private interview confessing to being involved in buying and selling of kiddy porn. Do you report it to the police?
I don't see the logic in your position, Rabbit
quote:The two situations aren't quite comparable, exactly. In one, someone hears people discussing physical acts of pedophilia. In the other, a Bishop charged with confidentiality hears of someone engaged in viewing and owning media of pedophilia. In fact, the difference between the two situations is exactly that in which clergy can (legally) remain silent...and when they cannot.
I don't know what your stance is on this, but I know what the stance is of the law and the LDS church. The LDS church says the Bishop has a solemn obligation to keep the secret. The law respects that obligation. But legally, if the same Bishop had simply overheard the conversation, the situation is very different both from church policy and the law.
quote:I think the word you might be searching for here is accidentally, not illegally. Different things. I also take issue with qualifying it as 'fairly forgiving'. To my mind, if while lawfully investigating one crime, police discover evidence of another crime (especially one they had no reason to suspect in the first place, truly an accidental discovery) there's no reason to say, "Well, the cops didn't pay their soothsayer bill this month, so they didn't know to investigate for this other thing and get a warrant for it. We can't let this criminal be prosecuted."
My reading on the exclusionary rule for evidence seems to indicate courts have taken a fairly forgiving stance, allowing illegally obtained evidence to be used in court if police believed in good faith they were making a constitutional search, or had some other extenuating circumstance. It appears evidence tends to get included by default.
quote:It also certainly doesn't mean we should push for that, either. In this case I'm not talking about seeking out unrelated matters, I'm talking about not turning a blind eye to them if they're stumbled upon in the course of investigating related matters.
With that in mind, it seems unlikely that any government agency or court will agree that TSA or other special security officers tasked with thwarting one specific kind of threat will be constrained to maintain an artifice of privacy for unrelated matters. It doesn't mean we can't push for that, though.
quote:*shrug* I say it's not absurd. If someone is caught driving drunk, it's a bit absurd that their car is searched, to be frank. What need is there to search the car? Either they are drunk or not; tests will demonstrate one way or the other without searching the car. Searching the car is simply a way to see what else the person is up to. It isn't necessary to investigate the suspected crime of drunk driving. I would be dismayed if courts have ruled that one infraction qualifies as probable cause to search for evidence of other infractions (as opposed to the extent of the known problem).
It's frankly absurd to insist that police and security not deal with criminal issues that literally fall into their laps just because they didn't expect them to end up there.
]quote:By 'broad suspicion and follow up' I mean the position you have taken which encourages TSA screeners or other personnel with similar duties to notice and ask questions about suspicious behavior or items that aren't clearly related to the reason for their security authority [wild speculation is to be discouraged, IMO]. There are certainly degrees to this - white powder or blood stained clothes could easily be innocuous, while explicit child porn is unlikely to be so. However, my understanding is that you have defended the right and responsibility of TSA security screeners to indulge interest in and potentially follow up on pretty much anything they think might be evidence of a crime (such as the box-o-cash), not just the nearly unmistakable types. I actually DO think my description of this position as an endorsement of "broad suspicion and follow up" is fair, but will avoid that label going forward if you want.
'd be interested in hearing Rakeesh's opinion on the exclusionary rule (well, anyone's opinion, really. But I wonder if the attitude that broad suspicion and follow up on the part of TSA or other security officers is OK correlates to a position on the exclusionary rule).
quote:IANALBIPOOTI
This thread is BEGGING for a lawyer to comment
quote:Actually my (layman's) understanding of the thing is that if an unconstitutional search is done, it often doesn't matter if there was good lawful intent on the part of the police officers. The standard that is often used is that if in the course of the investigation, the seized evidence would've been found some other way, that evidence can be admissible. But only if there's a very clear chain of events that would've led to it either way.
I'm talking about unconstitutional searches that uncover clear evidence of crimes. It's the closest analogue I can think of, although I can't say that it's a direct parallel. I do believe you're right and police go ahead and investigate any crime they find evidence of, even if a warrant only mentions something unrelated.
quote:Let me clarify. Suppose the guy who is actually ticking is searched (silly example, but just bear with me). During this search the TSA screeners discover he's carrying a few pounds of cocaine strapped to his body. The ticking was just from an especially loud watch he was carrying. The idea some of y'all have is that the cocaine should be ignored. No threat to airline safety, and that is the absolute 110% only thing the screeners should ever, ever concern themselves with.
I think "stumbling" upon the evidence in an airport baggage search is nearly an oxymoron, though. They are searching for stuff, they find something. That is not really stumbling onto something. And things aren't falling into their laps, either. They are sniffing around, searching for things. That's crucial to the argument that they should be constrained in what they officially notice.
quote:It's illegal to carry an opened container of alcohol inside a car. There you go. Could be hidden:)
quote:It's frankly absurd to insist that police and security not deal with criminal issues that literally fall into their laps just because they didn't expect them to end up there.
*shrug* I say it's not absurd. If someone is caught driving drunk, it's a bit absurd that their car is searched, to be frank. What need is there to search the car?
quote:My opinion is in line with what my understanding of the rule is. If the only way the police would've discovered the evidence was through the illegal search, for example, that guy shouldn't go to jail, because that's an important tool in making sure illegal searches don't happen, among other things.
So, knowing that you feel that TSA screeners should "deal with [suspected] criminal issues" that come to their attention, even if they are not related to air travel security, I was wondering your opinion of whether evidence of crimes ought to be suppressed when it was obtained unconstitutionally. The evidence says what it says: the guy did a bad thing. How it was obtained doesn't reflect on whether the guy did the bad thing. Should he still go to jail for the bad thing if the cops violated his constitutional rights in the search?
quote:My understanding is that if it is determined evidence was illegally obtained the consequence is that this evidence can not be used in court. The person does not become immune to prosecution nor is he set free because his rights were violated in the search. The simple consequence is that the illegally obtained evidence can not be used in the prosecution of the crime. If there is sufficient legally obtained evidence to convict him, he will still go to jail.
My opinion is in line with what my understanding of the rule is. If the only way the police would've discovered the evidence was through the illegal search, for example, that guy shouldn't go to jail, because that's an important tool in making sure illegal searches don't happen, among other things.
However, I don't believe that if an illegal search is done, that guy is 100% immune to any sort of legal punishment for his crime just because it happened, either. In my opinion that goes too far for the concern for criminal/suspect rights, and not far enough for the concern for victim/society rights.
quote:That's not actually the case, Rabbit. And there are other exceptions as well.
My understanding is that if it is determined evidence was illegally obtained the consequence is that this evidence can not be used in court.
quote:Yes, that is what I am saying. Airport screenings are for all intents and purposes unwarranted searches and any evidence found in such searches that does not directly pertain to air transportation security should be held to the same standard as evidence found in any other unwarranted search. If the evidence would not have likely have been found without the airport search (like a bag of cocaine hidden under someones clothes), it shouldn't be used for any legal purpose.
Let me clarify. Suppose the guy who is actually ticking is searched (silly example, but just bear with me). During this search the TSA screeners discover he's carrying a few pounds of cocaine strapped to his body. The ticking was just from an especially loud watch he was carrying. The idea some of y'all have is that the cocaine should be ignored. No threat to airline safety, and that is the absolute 110% only thing the screeners should ever, ever concern themselves with.
quote:There's an important court case that discusses similar issues.
Let me clarify. Suppose the guy who is actually ticking is searched (silly example, but just bear with me). During this search the TSA screeners discover he's carrying a few pounds of cocaine strapped to his body. The ticking was just from an especially loud watch he was carrying. The idea some of y'all have is that the cocaine should be ignored. No threat to airline safety, and that is the absolute 110% only thing the screeners should ever, ever concern themselves with.
quote:I did not mean to imply that was always the consequence, I meant to clarify that the exclusionary rule did not preclude prosecuting the criminal it at most precluded the use of evidence found illegally.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:That's not actually the case, Rabbit. And there are other exceptions as well.
My understanding is that if it is determined evidence was illegally obtained the consequence is that this evidence can not be used in court.
quote:I guess that depends on whether you consider concerns over the protection of civil liberties a strictly academic matter.
As for the distinction seeming academic...ironically, it's more likely not to seem academic to those with a primarily academic interest in the matter.
quote:First off, I'm not sure what you mean by 'unwarranted'. Do you mean literally without a search warrant? Or do you mean unlawful-except-by-necessity?
Airport screenings are for all intents and purposes unwarranted searches and any evidence found in such searches that does not directly pertain to air transportation security should be held to the same standard as evidence found in any other unwarranted search.
quote:Any law enforcement or security searches are too easy to abuse. That doesn't mean we completely hamstring them. You're acting as though criminal/suspect and civil rights are the absolute only consideration here. They're not. There is a balancing act that must be done. That's why we have those airport searches in the first place.
Airport searches would simply be too easy to abuse.
quote:Of course it's justifiable, at least in a few cases on your list. Yes, you've got a right to privacy. No, you actually don't have a right to launder money or have pedophile-friendly materials (actually, I'm not so sure about that last, just possessing child pornography). And if someone - be it another private citizen, a fire fighter, priest, bishop, pizza delivery boy, doctor, or police or security officer happens to discover you're laundering money or trafficking in child pornography, and hasn't done anything wrong in making that discovery?
So if in the course of a routine search, a TSA official sees the contents of the papers I'm carrying they should be required to keep that information strictly secret. It does't matter whether they saw the most recent draft of my novel, my medical records, nude pictures of my husband, records of money laundering or kiddy porn. The point is that I have a right to keep the contents of my papers secret and unless TSA officials are required to keep what they see secret, I lose that civil right to privacy if I need to fly somewhere. That isn't justifiable.
quote:I don't consider it an academic matter. It's actually quite important to me. I was just highlighting that there's a component of the problem you're ignoring, that's all.
I guess that depends on whether you consider concerns over the protection of civil liberties a strictly academic matter.
quote:By unwarranted I meant literally without a warrant.
First off, I'm not sure what you mean by 'unwarranted'. Do you mean literally without a search warrant? Or do you mean unlawful-except-by-necessity?
In either case, you're omitting the 'consented-to' component of those searches. Because they are, you know.
quote:I would actually call for a higher standard for airline travel searches than for warranted but unrelated searches since warrants must be obtained for a specific individual or location when there is a good reason to believe that individual or place has evidence regarding a crime. Airline searches are indiscriminate searches of everyone. Hundred of millions of people fly yearly in the US. There is no reason to suspect those individuals of any crime. There is no reason to demand that people surrender their right to privacy simply because the need or choose to fly. The only reason to infringe on these privacy rights is the threat of attacks on the airline and so searches should be strictly limited to meeting that need. Anything else uncovered in such a search, should be allowed to remain private.
So the truth is, evidence of crimes not concerning airline safety should be held to the same standard as evidence found on a warranted but unrelated search.
quote:Fair enough, but you are aware that search warrants are not a requirement for all searches, right? There are exceptions. The closest related one concerns public safety, emergencies, and danger.
By unwarranted I meant literally without a warrant.
quote:Nonsense. While people will complain about long waits and delays, not all of them actually object to being searched before they board an airliner. For many other people, flying after being screened is a necessity. Some folks regard it as 'at best' (interesting choice of words there, at best) a search under duress, others do not.
'Consent to' in the case of airline searches is certainly at best consent under duress since one is not allowed to fly unless one consents. For many people, flying is a practical necessity.
quote:Well, the truth is as you've already said, the standards you'd call for are no standards at all: It's simply never, ever to be allowed. And just for accuracy, the term is 'probable cause'. Anyway, my reasoning is this: screenings before boarding a passenger airliner are lawful-that's not actually opinion, that's fact, Rabbit, however objectionable you find it. So long as unlawful reasoning isn't used to determine who will actually be searched - such as deciding that guy looks too 'Arabic', for example - the random searches as well are also lawful.
I would actually call for a higher standard for airline travel searches than for warranted but unrelated searches since warrants must be obtained for a specific individual or location when there is a good reason to believe that individual or place has evidence regarding a crime.
quote:I would object strongly to the first sentence except, strangely, you go on in the very next sentence to describe the big reason we do have.
There is no reason to demand that people surrender their right to privacy simply because the need or choose to fly. The only reason to infringe on these privacy rights is the threat of attacks on the airline and so searches should be strictly limited to meeting that need.
quote:Only if you believe people have a right to keep crimes private unless a search warrant is issued specifically for evidence of that crime, in that place, on that person, at that time. Fortunately that's not the standard we use.
Anything else uncovered in such a search, should be allowed to remain private.
quote:I agree with this, though I have no doubt I'd set the bar on 'absolute minimum that still allows them to protect air travel' farther from 'nothing' than you would.
Since privacy is a right protected by the constitution, airline safety inspections should aim towards the absolute minimum invasion of that privacy which will still allow them to protect air travel.
quote:Yes, it does. But then again, so do the searches and screenings in the first place. Just because it potentially creates an incentive for abuse is not a compelling argument to disallow it entirely.
Allowing information uncovered in airline searches to be used for any purpose other than air safety, creates an incentive to expand the searches and questioning in ways that violate peoples right to privacy unjustifiably.
quote:Certainly the vast majority of people who are searched before boarding passenger airliners have legitimate reasons for keeping their lawfully-owned items private. The searches aren't concerned with those folks. But the only way to get at the folks they are concerned with is to search lots of innocent bystanders.
People have legitimate reasons for wanting keep the things they carry on an airplane and their travel activities private. Most of those reasons aren't criminal which is why the constitution enshrined a right to freedom from unwarranted searches.
quote:The appropriate way to address this very real potential is not, as you'd desire, to hamstring the organizations in question, but rather to have very strong oversight of them on the one hand, and on the other hand very harsh penalties for violations on the other hand.
The potential for abuse is enormous which is why I think very strict limitations on how information uncovered in airline searches can be used are needed.
quote:It is a compelling argument to keep the searches limited to what they are designed to so. Which is what is being argued here. You seem to be saying that since searches of any kind create an incentive for abuse, we shouldn't disallow the abuse.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Yes, it does. But then again, so do the searches and screenings in the first place. Just because it potentially creates an incentive for abuse is not a compelling argument to disallow it entirely.
Allowing information uncovered in airline searches to be used for any purpose other than air safety, creates an incentive to expand the searches and questioning in ways that violate peoples right to privacy unjustifiably.
quote:What we have decided is that having our persons and our carry on luggaged searched for items that could be dangerous on an airplane is an acceptable sacrifice. We have not decided that having TSA agents exceed their authority is an acceptable sacrifice.
quote:Certainly the vast majority of people who are searched before boarding passenger airliners have legitimate reasons for keeping their lawfully-owned items private. The searches aren't concerned with those folks. But the only way to get at the folks they are concerned with is to search lots of innocent bystanders.
People have legitimate reasons for wanting keep the things they carry on an airplane and their travel activities private. Most of those reasons aren't criminal which is why the constitution enshrined a right to freedom from unwarranted searches.
The innocent bystanders have collectively come to a decision that this is an acceptable sacrifice in this case. If that's troubling to you, you really ought to target your arguments to your fellow innocent bystanders (us) rather than the organization we've created to enact our will (law-enforcement and security), since these hypotheticals we're discussing aren't cases of abuse on their part, but objectionable - to you - searches.
quote:I think that discouraging TSA agents from exceeding their authority in the first place makes more sense than harshly penalizing them afterwards.
quote:The appropriate way to address this very real potential is not, as you'd desire, to hamstring the organizations in question, but rather to have very strong oversight of them on the one hand, and on the other hand very harsh penalties for violations on the other hand.
The potential for abuse is enormous which is why I think very strict limitations on how information uncovered in airline searches can be used are needed.
quote:No. What I'm saying is that since all searches carry with them an incentive for abuse, but since we as a society agree we must have some searches sometimes, the resolution of this problem does not necessarily (either from a practical or logical standpoint) mean permitting searches and the use of search results to the tiniest degree possible. Probable cause is the requirement, not near-certainty.
It is a compelling argument to keep the searches limited to what they are designed to so. Which is what is being argued here. You seem to be saying that since searches of any kind create an incentive for abuse, we shouldn't disallow the abuse.
quote:That's not what I said. I'll repeat and re-explain myself. First off, since we as a society have decided to allow airport searches, we can't - as you and Rabbit appear to insist - treat them as unlawful searches that we all just live with. They're not unlawful searches. We've made laws that make them lawful.
What we have decided is that having our persons and our carry on luggaged searched for items that could be dangerous on an airplane is an acceptable sacrifice. We have not decided that having TSA agents exceed their authority is an acceptable sacrifice.
quote:This is extremely frustrating. You're putting words into my mouth, kmbboots. You're putting words in my mouth even though the proof that I didn't say what you're suggesting lies right in the quoted text you're responding to. I did not say we should handle the problem of potential abuse by penalizing afterwards. I said we should do two things. They're right there in the portion you're quoting. Very strong oversight and harsh penalties.
I think that discouraging TSA agents from exceeding their authority in the first place makes more sense than harshly penalizing them afterwards.
quote:I don't see how preventing information uncovered in a TSA search from being used in any way but to protect air safety 'hamstrings' TSA. This limitation would not hinder their job of protecting air travelers in any way.
The appropriate way to address this very real potential is not, as you'd desire, to hamstring the organizations in question, but rather to have very strong oversight of them on the one hand, and on the other hand very harsh penalties for violations on the other hand.
quote:Exactly! Exactly how can TSA tell that the white powder I'm carrying in my bag is cocaine and not gluten free flour without doing some sort of test that isn't required for airline safety? The x-ray machine won't tell them that the stack of papers in my briefcase are evidence of money laundering or that the money in my wallet is counterfeit or stolen or that the files on my computer contain kiddy porn.
What we have decided is that having our persons and our carry on luggage searched for items that could be dangerous on an airplane is an acceptable sacrifice. We have not decided that having TSA agents exceed their authority is an acceptable sacrifice.
quote:I haven't suggested that we treat these searches as unlawful. If that was what I was suggesting, I would be arguing the searches should be prohibited all together. What I'm arguing is that the laws which make airport searches legal can not override our constitutional rights. The 4th amendment to the constitution says 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.'
First off, since we as a society have decided to allow airport searches, we can't - as you and Rabbit appear to insist - treat them as unlawful searches that we all just live with. They're not unlawful searches. We've made laws that make them lawful.
quote:As a society, we have not made any such blanket finding. At most, these things are reviewed on a case by case basis and there are many situations where evidence uncovered in warranted searches is excluded from consideration in court. Many warrants are very restrictive allowing police to search for only one type of evidence as in the case Black Blade referenced. It has frequently been ruled that evidence of other crimes uncovered in good faith under a very limited warrant should excluded from consideration.
Second, we as a society have decided that if in good faith evidence of another crime is discovered while executing a lawful search in investigation of a different crime, law enforcement does not simply have to turn a blind eye to the evidence of the unrelated crime found.
quote:Airport searches are only lawful because of the high risks associated with commercial airplane travel. Under the laws that require airline searches, hundreds of millions of people who are not suspected of any crime are searched. Many of those people consent to the search only duress. Most would certainly not consent if they had a reasonable alternative. The 4th amendment to the constitution says 'no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.' Given that wording, one could reasonably argue that the laws requiring all commercial airline passengers submit to being searched are unconstitutional. I won't go that far because I think the searches are necessary, but since we are already stretching the constitution here, it seems prudent to hold evidence uncovered in airline searches to the highest standards that are ever used not the lowest. If courts have ever ruled that evidence uncovered in good faith in a lawful search violated 4th amendment rights against unreasonable searches(and they have done this), then airline searches should at a minimum beheld to that standard.
Third, since airport searches are lawful, and since use of evidence for prosecution of unrelated crimes found in lawful searches is also lawful, use of evidence for crimes unrelated to airline safety found in lawful airport searches is acceptable.
quote:I'm curious what type of oversight you would suggest that would protect my right to privacy in an airline search. What limitations would you suggest are appropriate and clear?
The appropriate way to address this very real potential is not, as you'd desire, to hamstring the organizations in question, but rather to have very strong oversight of them on the one hand, and on the other hand very harsh penalties for violations on the other hand.
quote:It certainly is when you respond to that one thing I wrote with a rebuttal that I also wrote, but you failed to respond to.
Rakeesh, addressing one part of what you wrote and not another is not putting words in your mouth.
quote:For what it's worth, I don't lump them together with law enforcement. They are, however, two distinct groups which are allowed to make lawful searches under a given set of circumstances. That's the relevant part, and that's why I link them in this discussion.
I think that establishing that there is a big difference between TSA agents and police is important. Lumping them together under "law enforcement" is part of the problem.
quote:If this could be instantly and painlessly achieved, certainly it wouldn't. However, as you have pointed out, 'settings' so to speak from high up the chain have a way of resulting in consequences down the chain that weren't necessarily intended.
I don't see how preventing information uncovered in a TSA search from being used in any way but to protect air safety 'hamstrings' TSA. This limitation would not hinder their job of protecting air travelers in any way.
quote:They could taste it, or smell it-does cocaine have a distinct smell, and does flour? You're clutching at straws here. You're seriously insisting the TSA ignore a plastic-wrapped bundle of fine white powder hidden beneath one's clothing taped under their armpit because they can't 'know' it's illegal? Gimme a break.
Exactly! Exactly how can TSA tell that the white powder I'm carrying in my bag is cocaine and not gluten free flour without doing some sort of test that isn't required for airline safety? The x-ray machine won't tell them that the stack of papers in my briefcase are evidence of money laundering or that the money in my wallet is counterfeit or stolen or that the files on my computer contain kiddy porn.
quote:*sigh* Fortunately, I'm not suggesting the TSA should be permitted to do these things. I wonder how many times I have to say that? Do I need to have a bolded disclaimer at the start of every subsequent post in this thread proclaiming it?
When I travel, I consent to have TSA check my person and bags for weapons that might endanger the flight, crew and passengers. I do not consent to have them count the money I'm carrying, test the items in my bags for chemicals (other than explosives), read my mail, check the serial numbers on my electronic devices, sniff my socks or check the size of my bra.
quote:But, just to be clear, even in that case you would disapprove of the TSA doing anything about that lawfully found child pornography. If they opened the briefcase and discovered a huge screaming title that said, "PLAN TO MURDER MY WIFE WHEN I GET HOME FROM THIS BUSINESS TRIP," you still would insist they shouldn't do anything about it.
I suppose there is the bizarre possibility that someone might be carrying kiddie porn in their briefcase that would be seen instantly by anyone who opened the brief case.
quote:On this I agree. But (and I wish I had this on speed-dial equivalent of posting at this point), I'm not advocating that the TSA should be permitted to rifle through passenger papers.
If TSA is allowed to report evidence of this type to the police, it creates an incentive for them to open plane brown envelopes.
quote:With regards to how evidence of other crimes are handled when discovered by those searches, you certainly have. In a lawful search - which you're now saying these are? - if you discover unexpected evidence of an unrelated crime, the state is allowed to follow up on that evidence. You don't want that to be done for airport searches.
I haven't suggested that we treat these searches as unlawful.
quote:Which is it? The 4th Amendment doesn't say anything about airport searches. It doesn't say anything about whether a random person might be planning to harm others. The exceptions the 4th Amendment lists against search and seizure involve things like probable cause, which doesn't exist in random airport searches.
I maintain the right to secure the privacy of my person and effects in so far as those effects pose no threat to the airplane.
quote:I disagree.
My privacy can not be protected in an airline search unless TSA agents are required to turn a blind eye to anything they see in a search that is not relevent to airplane security...
quote:Did you read the case Black Blade mentioned? It specifically dealt with a lawful initial search that one cop took too far, taking the second 'plain sight' search into unlawful areas. Had the cop been able to read the serial numbers without moving anything, for example - in other words, had he been able to read the serial numbers without making the search unlawful - things would've been different.
quote:Second, we as a society have decided that if in good faith evidence of another crime is discovered while executing a lawful search in investigation of a different crime, law enforcement does not simply have to turn a blind eye to the evidence of the unrelated crime found.
As a society, we have not made any such blanket finding. At most, these things are reviewed on a case by case basis and there are many situations where evidence uncovered in warranted searches is excluded from consideration in court. Many warrants are very restrictive allowing police to search for only one type of evidence as in the case Black Blade referenced. It has frequently been ruled that evidence of other crimes uncovered in good faith under a very limited warrant should excluded from consideration.
quote:I agree. And if during that search for dangerous items on an airplane, evidence of another crime is discovered, that's fine and they shouldn't turn a blind eye to it-because they did nothing wrong in finding it.
In other words, airline searches should be consider equivalent to a search under an extremely restrictive warrant which limits the search to items that could reasonably be considered dangerous on an airplane. They should be required to turn a blind eye to everything else.
quote:For example, surveillance of all searches and all TSA employees involved in searches. TSA employees being required to give a reason for any searches, and to justify themselves promptly and concisely if asked by a passenger. Any TSA employee discovered engaging in an unlawful search (such as rifling through a hard drive) would be immediately fired, all benefits severed at once, and potentially face criminal charges, along with being blacklisted from any other government job in the future. More dubious violations allowing only one or two repetitions before firing. Random and anonymous inspection by a sort of 'Internal Affairs' section of the TSA, if it exists. If it doesn't, create it.
I'm curious what type of oversight you would suggest that would protect my right to privacy in an airline search. What limitations would you suggest are appropriate and clear?
quote:It is not all that surprising that folks don't know this when in the previous paragraph you suggested that TSA agents be allowed to test white powder by tasting or smelling it.
quote:*sigh* Fortunately, I'm not suggesting the TSA should be permitted to do these things. I wonder how many times I have to say that? Do I need to have a bolded disclaimer at the start of every subsequent post in this thread proclaiming it?
When I travel, I consent to have TSA check my person and bags for weapons that might endanger the flight, crew and passengers. I do not consent to have them count the money I'm carrying, test the items in my bags for chemicals (other than explosives), read my mail, check the serial numbers on my electronic devices, sniff my socks or check the size of my bra.
quote:
They could taste it, or smell it-does cocaine have a distinct smell, and does flour?
quote:This is some pretty good double-talk. Oversight is discouragement. Your response was phrased in such a way to suggest I didn't favor pre-emptive discouragement. I do. It's called oversight. That's pretty clear.
Rakeesh, discouraging TSA agents from investigating things that they shouldn't be investigating by not allowing them to use what they find in investigating is different from "strict oversight" while allowing them to investigate.
quote:I wonder how many 'folks' really were confused as to my meaning. Because, after all, I didn't say items in bags should be tested for chemicals. I suggested that a bag of white powder of the consistency of cocaine discovered taped under one's armpit could be tasted or smelled.
It is not all that surprising that folks don't know this when in the previous paragraph you suggested that TSA agents be allowed to test white powder by tasting or smelling it.
quote:How is tasting or smelling different from "testing"?
Because, after all, I didn't say items in bags should be tested for chemicals. I suggested that a bag of white powder of the consistency of cocaine discovered taped under one's armpit could be tasted or smelled.
quote:'Strict oversight' also means that I don't, as you replied to me earlier, favor harsh penalties for violations as opposed to proactive discouragement.
Rakeesh, "strict oversight" means that they will follow the rules that I don't think are strict enough. So that is not going to help.
quote:And just for kicks, before you spoke of discouraging TSA officers from exceeding their authority. Now you're saying even the authority they have is wrong. Which is it?
I think that discouraging TSA agents from exceeding their authority in the first place makes more sense than harshly penalizing them afterwards.
quote:I can see why you'd be confused by the second part. I didn't mean to suggest that tasting and smelling is different from testing. But why, why did you completely ignore the first part - the part where I said that testing the cocaine-like white powder someone is clearly smuggling, as opposed to carrying in their bag normally - in favor of busting me on the apparent quibbling over 'testing'?
Because, after all, I didn't say items in bags should be tested for chemicals. I suggested that a bag of white powder of the consistency of cocaine discovered taped under one's armpit could be tasted or smelled.
quote:A racist TSA agent can say that he smells or tastes a trace amount of cocaine in the bag of a black traveler. But an objective test won't show that.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:How is tasting or smelling different from "testing"?
Because, after all, I didn't say items in bags should be tested for chemicals. I suggested that a bag of white powder of the consistency of cocaine discovered taped under one's armpit could be tasted or smelled.
quote:I just want to be clear here. You're claiming that finding a plastic-wrapped bag of white powder hidden and taped under one's armpit or inner thigh and deeming it smuggling is subjective?
Rakeesh, because I think that clearly smuggling is still a subjective judgment call and I don't want TSA agents making subjective judgment calls.
quote:I don't think it's a quibble either, as I acknowledged above. I can see why you thought otherwise, but I clarified myself.
And I don't think that pointing out that tasting or smelling white powder is testing it is a "quibble".
quote:Again with this sort of thing. Reading documents is something I specifically said they shouldn't be permitted to do!
Unless they have to read a document in order to determine whether it would be a danger to the plane, they shouldn't read even the first page.
quote:Your making a point of that only and not addressing the other part was what's strange, as I already said.
If you don't think it is a quibble either, why is my making a point of it a mystery?
quote:When they're doing an X-Ray of the stuff, they see something that very much looks like explosives. Turns out when they open the briefcase it's actually a bunch of play-doh. The writing is so large they can't help but read it, without moving anything around, or making any effort to read it.
Then how would they know a document said "PLAN TO MURDER MY WIFE WHEN I GET HOME FROM THIS BUSINESS TRIP"?
quote:Deciding that a passenger attempting to carry a firearm onto a passenger airliner is also subjective. Maybe they just carry a gun to feel safe. Maybe it's not loaded. Maybe it's been spiked so it cannot be fired. Maybe they're actually a secret agent who got sloppy and had their gun discovered. Just because something is subjective doesn't mean it's automatically disallowed, so your complaint that it's subjective - especially when discussing a lawfully discovered bag of cocaine taped under someone's armpit - is absurd.
And, yes, deeming that a bag of white, cocaine-looking powder is smuggling is subjective no matter how or where someone is carrying it. Common sense is subjective. DEA agents could use their subjective judgment to determine if it needs additional testing; they are trained for it and have that authority. Same goes for customs agents. That training and authority should not apply to TSA agents.
quote:Actually, I do agree that the TSA officers (actually, I think the correct term is 'screeners') shouldn't be the ones testing it. However, in no way at all does any rational person need DEA or customs training to realize, "Hey, that painstakingly hidden bag of white powder that looks like narcotics is narcotics!"
That training and authority should not apply to TSA agents.
quote:It's quibbling because you persist in attempting to recast every single possibility as, "They shouldn't have noticed it in the first place." I'm not talking about finding something while snooping based on an otherwise lawful search, I'm talking about when executing a lawful search no one could help but notice the evidence of a different, non-airline-safety-related crime. The powder under the armpit for one, the child pornography pictures that accidentally fall out of the briefcase for another.
It isn't quibbling at all. It is the point. Once the door is opened to TSA screeners making subjective judgments, it makes room for subjective judgment calls. One person's reasonable common sense is another person's racial profiling. Clearly some TSA screener thought it reasonable common sense to detain someone for carrying cash.
quote:There is effectively zero training involved in knowing that someone concealing a bag of powder under their armpits is definitely, unless we're in Bizarro world or the Twilight Zone or something, smuggling narcotics. Your suggestion that the training needed to spot narcotics is thus groundless, given that I'm not suggesting they should, y'know, test a bottle of pills or something.
ETA: I am less concerned with the training needed to recognize narcotics than I am with the training in what constitutes probable cause and a legal search of someone's person and belongings.
quote:Technically, tasting and smelling are chemical tests, although they are far less accurate than any test that would generally be considered admissible in court. But more to the point, tasting or smelling the powder are not required to determine that it wouldn't be dangerous on an airplane. I don't see how this would be significantly different than reading serial numbers that couldn't possibly be or contain drugs.
Because, after all, I didn't say items in bags should be tested for chemicals. I suggested that a bag of white powder of the consistency of cocaine discovered taped under one's armpit could be tasted or smelled.
quote:Thank you. I never felt I would persuade you more to my line of thinking on this, but man it was tough as all get out to get you to acknowledge even the possibility of exceptions!
I'll admit that if the airport x-ray machine revealed a dead baby in my bag, we ought to make an exception. But with that single exception, I can't think of anything TSA could discover in a search that would be obviously illegal without requiring more examination than was necessary for airline security.
quote:A, uh ..
I'll admit that if the airport x-ray machine revealed a dead baby in my bag, we ought to make an exception. But with that single exception, I can't think of anything TSA could discover in a search that would be obviously illegal without requiring more examination than was necessary for airline security.
quote:You do not have a right to fly on a plane. You do not have a right to be in an airport terminal. By agreeing to fly on a private plane or enter certain areas in an airport you must give consent to screening and being searched. If you do not agree to those conditions, then you cannot board the plane or be in restricted areas.
Airport searches are fundamentally different from any search done under a warrant or the investigation of a crime. Airport searches aren't done because there is reason to believe a crime is being committed. There is not probable cause, no oaths or affirmation on which a warrant might ever have been issued. And hundreds of millions of people who are doing nothing more than traveling are required to undergo these searches. There is no comparable example in our society in terms of either scope or magnitude. For this reason, these searches need to be more strictly limited than other legal searches.
quote:Such as a brick of cocaine?
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Sam, If you had been following the thread you would realize that I long ago agree that airport security had the right to use any information that was pertinent to airport security so that is not under debate. The debate has for some time revolved around things that could not reasonably be considered dangerous if carried on board and airplane.
quote:Whether you do or not - and I don't grant that the right to travel freely doesn't exist - simultaneously the government also doesn't have the right to stop you from doing those things without some sort of cause.
You do not have a right to fly on a plane. You do not have a right to be in an airport terminal.
quote:This isn't actually true either, or at least not entirely true. There are exceptions, qualifications, etc. Lots of people think stores have that right, and lots of stores seem to think so as well...but it's not always true.
If a grocery store thinks you are stealing items they can inspect your bags.
quote:Quite a few more than should be, I think. Suspicion of theft is by no means whatsoever grounds for privately-employed mallcops to detain someone. I overuse italics here to illustrate the problems with your statement.
How many people are detained daily in shopping malls for suspicion of theft?
quote:I do not understand your response to this - maybe there is an extra word?. I am saying that whether or not a law enforcement officer can identify cocaine is less important in this situation than whether a law enforcement officer is aware of the laws regarding searches.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ETA: I am less concerned with the training needed to recognize narcotics than I am with the training in what constitutes probable cause and a legal search of someone's person and belongings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is effectively zero training involved in knowing that someone concealing a bag of powder under their armpits is definitely, unless we're in Bizarro world or the Twilight Zone or something, smuggling narcotics. Your suggestion that the training needed to spot narcotics is thus groundless, given that I'm not suggesting they should, y'know, test a bottle of pills or something.
quote:To someone who knows enough engineering, or other skills, pretty much any two items can be combined to form a deadly weapon. Are you really sure, for instance, that a ordinary looking knitting needle and a ponytail holder couldn't be used to blind from a distance?
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
And of course, what would you say if a hypothetical TSA screener was a big-time mechanical and electronics nerd. This guy reads all sorts of periodicals about strange inventions. While conducting a perfectly lawful search, he discovers, "Hey, these two items when combined form a deadly weapon." But because he's such a nerd, his knowledge is on the cutting edge. The two items he's found aren't on the list.
quote:Say a laptop is reported stolen. It's just common sense that young black guys in jeans wouldn't have laptops of their own, right? So they should be forced to prove that their laptops really are theirs. White guys in suits need not bother.
"TSA screeners should be allowed to use common sense as their basis for searches." (In this thread, it's really important, apparently, that I point that out.)
quote:Really? Would you be wililng to bet $1000 that there isn't some alt-med treatment out there that calls for some white powder to be held in some smie-permiable bag close to a sensitive part of the skin? Or some exotic religous sect that requires its members to do odd things? Because if you are wrong, and someone misses their flight, you've just cost someone $1000 of inconvenience.
There is effectively zero training involved in knowing that someone concealing a bag of powder under their armpits is definitely, unless we're in Bizarro world or the Twilight Zone or something, smuggling narcotics.
quote:All they would need to do, is swab it and put the swab in their explosives detector. That would tell them its not explosives but wouldn't tell them whether its baking soda, cornstarch or cocaine.
The problem with such an analogy is that a white powder could be a danger to flight security. I think they need to check into it if they notice it. But the likelihood of them detecting it is small.
quote:I think they can if the police are notified to a possible crime (shoplifting)
Suspicion of theft is by no means whatsoever grounds for privately-employed mallcops to detain someone.
quote:No he shouldn't. That a) takes time away from his job of screening, and b) involves using his authority to search people in a manner completely unrelated to airline safety, remember?
If a TSA screener finds what he thinks is a dead baby, he should contact actual law enforcement people.
quote:Well, as a standalone statement then, I agree. I thought you were using it as a response to the TSA screener noticing cocaine, though, suggesting that they should rather focus on laws regarding searches rather than being 'trained' to know that plastic bag taped under a guy's armpit is actually a narcotic.
I do not understand your response to this - maybe there is an extra word?. I am saying that whether or not a law enforcement officer can identify cocaine is less important in this situation than whether a law enforcement officer is aware of the laws regarding searches.
quote:Is this addressed to me, kmbboots, or are you just making a general statement?
Exactly. And once TSA screeners start to use their common sense, some of them are going to use that common sense to detain people for carrying cash.
quote:Actually, are you allowed to bring knitting needles onto a passenger airliner? I have no idea myself, but it seems strange that if they'll break your chops on a pair of nail clippers as I remember hearing somewhere, a needle would certainly be restricted.
To someone who knows enough engineering, or other skills, pretty much any two items can be combined to form a deadly weapon. Are you really sure, for instance, that a ordinary looking knitting needle and a ponytail holder couldn't be used to blind from a distance?
quote:I didn't say anything about imagine.
You really want TSA agents to be able to stop anyone whose items they imagine can be combined into a deadly weapon?
quote:That's fine, except the guy in my example isn't an idiot.
What if the nerd guy is wrong? What if he's read too many comics, and what he thinks is feasible isn't feasible at all?
quote:Dude. You didn't actually read my post at all, did you? I specifically said I was not making that claim, that common sense was enough.
Well, maybe not common sense to you, but common sense to some TSA agents.
quote:I'd be willing to bet a million dollars that there is no medical treatment out there that involves effectively smuggling a bag of medicine under one's armpit that wouldn't also be avowed by the person being searched.
Really? Would you be wililng to bet $1000 that there isn't some alt-med treatment out there that calls for some white powder to be held in some smie-permiable bag close to a sensitive part of the skin? Or some exotic religous sect that requires its members to do odd things? Because if you are wrong, and someone misses their flight, you've just cost someone $1000 of inconvenience.
quote:Of course it does. That means we should gear law enforcement and security towards those people, right? Nonsense.
Are you arguing that he world does not contain lots of Bizarro and Twilight Zone type people?
quote:Maybe what I actually figure is that it's irresponsible to gear our security structure entirely towards the abuses. Potential abuses must be taken into account, but they're not the only part of the picture either.
The really obvious signs are only the tip of the iceberg. Everyone else is worried about what TSA agents will do the 99% of the time when it's not so obvious, but you seem to take for granted that everything will be fine. Maybe you figure no jerk of a TSA is going to single you out for harassment. Not everyone is so lucky.
quote:*sigh* Taped under your armpits, right? Wait. No, you actually said, "In my suitcase." That's...wait, lemme think about it...yeah, that's actually very different.
You think its just a silly hypothetical, but I routinely travel with a suitcase half full of plastic baggies containing white powders.
quote:Sure. Just a part. Your policy, if enacted would be only 99.99% abuse. They might catch one dumb criminal for every 10,000 people who were unnecessarily hararsed.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Maybe what I actually figure is that it's irresponsible to gear our security structure entirely towards the abuses. Potential abuses must be taken into account, but they're not the only part of the picture either.
The really obvious signs are only the tip of the iceberg. Everyone else is worried about what TSA agents will do the 99% of the time when it's not so obvious, but you seem to take for granted that everything will be fine. Maybe you figure no jerk of a TSA is going to single you out for harassment. Not everyone is so lucky.
quote:It's crystal clear to me you don't actually have a good idea of what 'my policy' would be. Despite repeating ad naseum to the contrary, you think I support a 'common sense' approach to TSA screening.
Sure. Just a part. Your policy, if enacted would be only 99.99% abuse. They might catch one dumb criminal for every 10,000 people who were unnecessarily hararsed.
quote:You've also, on at least as many if not more occasions, advocated TSA screeners not taking the slightest action in excess of things only very clearly oriented towards airline safety.
I have on a couple of occasions advocated TSA alerting actual law enforcment officers or their own supervisors when something was egregiously suspicious. My objection (which is different than The Rabbit's) is to TSA agents detaining people and investigating (tasting powder, counting money) on their own.
quote:Let's see. I never said documents should be read or hard drives should be investigated, so I'm not sure why that's on your list. I only ever said questions can potentially be asked only if an advising-of-rights is coupled right with those questions. And even then, they're generally going to have more important things to do.
No action such as asking questions of the passenger (beyond what is required). No tasting or smelling powder to see if it is narcotics no matter how suspicious they are. No reading documents to see if they are about wife murdering or kiddie porn. No investigating of any kind or detaining the passenger.
quote:Doesn't this conflict rather directly with your opinion that they should do absolutely nothing not directly related to airline security? The seconds they spend calling a cop are seconds they could spend doing the absolute-minimum job they ought to be doing. Using their knowledge of suspicious behavior to inform a police officer is using their search authority in a way not directly tied to airline safety.
At the most, calling a supervisor or, if they themselves have access, a police officer to report egregiously suspicious activity. I think this would eventually be self-correcting as police officers would get to know which TSA agents had over active imaginations and won't want to look foolish or get in trouble for investigating ghosts without probably cause.
quote:This has to be like the third time I've said this today. I don't support a common-sense check-anything approach. Now do I get to complain about words being put in my mouth, or will you lecture me again?
Given that, I would prefer The Rabbit's position than that of letting TSA agents use their common sense and check anything out themselves.
quote:While technically true, it is also a pointless argument. Air travel is heavily subsidized and government backed. It is heavily regulated, and because of the massive regulation and capital costs it is almost impossible to find acceptable behavior via free market competition.
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
You do not have a right to fly on a plane. You do not have a right to be in an airport terminal. By agreeing to fly on a private plane or enter certain areas in an airport you must give consent to screening and being searched. If you do not agree to those conditions, then you cannot board the plane or be in restricted areas.
If a grocery store thinks you are stealing items they can inspect your bags.
quote:Personally, I would advocate such a position but for the sake of compromise I'm willing to modify it to something like this: confiscate the material, turn it over to qualified personnel for testing. 'If' (and I use that word with a sigh) it turns out to be contraband, it is destroyed, but cannot be used as evidence of a crime against the passenger. If it's not, it's promptly returned to the passenger with apologies and, I dunno, free tickets or a go to the head of the line at the next TSA screening line ticket or something.
Do you advocate the position where a TSA agent could detain a passenger to taste or smell white powder about which, for whatever reason, he is clearly according to the TSA agent, smuggling?
quote:So long as the child pornography is found in a lawful way, absolutely. Like, absolutely^23 in fact.
Do you advocate a position where a TSA agent could question a passenger about child pornography found in his luggage?
quote:Would you support increased police presence at airports to specifically address this lack? And, again, you're seizing on 'suspicious behavior'. Why in the hell do you keep doing that? You and I rarely see eye to eye on political discussions, but I can't recall such a discussion with you where you so repeatedly - it seems to me - at best respond only to very select portions of my posts, and at worst fully misrepresent me. Like you're doing now. Where have I said TSA screeners should search someone on the basis of 'suspicious behavior'?
My assumption is that we do not have sufficient police at airports to respond to TSA agent allegations of suspicious behavior and that almost all of the time (barring a plague of dead babies in carry-on bags) police will tell the TSA agents to mind their own business and no action will have been taken.
quote:Well technically, no. Dead bodies are pretty well covered under things you aren't allowed to carry on a plane for health and safety reasons. Transportation of dead bodies is heavily regulated. It wouldn't be legal to have one in your checked baggage unless you had special transport permits and informed the airlines ahead of time. It wouldn't be legal to have one in your carry on under any circumstances. So even if it turns out the baby died of natural causes, was properly embalmed and being transported somewhere for burial in the family cemetery, you wouldn't be allowed to carry it on board the plane. It's not something that generally posted on the lists, but dead bodies are not allowed in carry-on baggage. And this actual a safety issue. So no, TSA reporting dead bodies in baggage to police is covered under their mandate of securing airline travel along with aerosol cans, fire extinguishes, camp stove fuel, and fireworks.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Thank you. I never felt I would persuade you more to my line of thinking on this, but man it was tough as all get out to get you to acknowledge even the possibility of exceptions!
I'll admit that if the airport x-ray machine revealed a dead baby in my bag, we ought to make an exception. But with that single exception, I can't think of anything TSA could discover in a search that would be obviously illegal without requiring more examination than was necessary for airline security.
quote:As much as I appreciate your willingness to compromise on this, I'm not sure how that address the concerns about right to privacy on minimizing inconvenience to travelers. Suppose that what TSA confiscates turns out to be a legal owned prescription drug. Suppose the person needs that drug with them while they are traveling. The simple threat of confiscation will create pressure for people to disclose medical information they have the right to keep private.
Personally, I would advocate such a position but for the sake of compromise I'm willing to modify it to something like this: confiscate the material, turn it over to qualified personnel for testing. 'If' (and I use that word with a sigh) it turns out to be contraband, it is destroyed, but cannot be used as evidence of a crime against the passenger. If it's not, it's promptly returned to the passenger with apologies and, I dunno, free tickets or a go to the head of the line at the next TSA screening line ticket or something.
quote:Let's say that 10 people are at the airport with $5000, and all 10 say they work for Ron Paul, but googling can't prove that. What would your TSA agent be authorized to do then? If he can't do anything, then what you've got is a completely useless and pointless excuse for racist and cruel TSAs to hassle and harass innocent travelers.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
I only ever said questions can potentially be asked only if an advising-of-rights is coupled right with those questions. And even then, they're generally going to have more important things to do.
quote:Wait, so you think TSA agents should be testing contraband, but not prosecuting smugglers? So it's not about catching criminals, it's just about stopping a tiny vial of cocaine from going from one city to another? Thousands of innocent people will be harrassed for doing legitimate things, and this won't result in the prosecution of a single criminal?
confiscate the material, turn it over to qualified personnel for testing. 'If' (and I use that word with a sigh) it turns out to be contraband, it is destroyed, but cannot be used as evidence of a crime against the passenger. If it's not, it's promptly returned to the passenger with apologies and, I dunno, free tickets or a go to the head of the line at the next TSA screening line ticket or something.
quote:How is the TSA agent supposed to find a baggie taped under an armpit if he's not searching people? How is he supposed to determine whom to search that closely? A lottery?
Like you're doing now. Where have I said TSA screeners should search someone on the basis of 'suspicious behavior'?
quote:Excellent point!!
Wait, so you think TSA agents should be testing contraband, but not prosecuting smugglers? So it's not about catching criminals, it's just about stopping a tiny vial of cocaine from going from one city to another? Thousands of innocent people will be harrassed for doing legitimate things, and this won't result in the prosecution of a single criminal.
quote:Heh, don't narcotics fall under the same area, for similar (though not identical) reasons? Isn't transportation of narcotics heavily regulated?
Well technically, no. Dead bodies are pretty well covered under things you aren't allowed to carry on a plane for health and safety reasons. Transportation of dead bodies is heavily regulated.
quote:I wonder how most folks would classify 'drug smugglers' on a range of safety concerns, Rabbit.
And this actual a safety issue. So no, TSA reporting dead bodies in baggage to police is covered under their mandate of securing airline travel along with aerosol cans, fire extinguishes, camp stove fuel, and fireworks.
quote:A right to privacy is a crucial element. 'Minimizing inconvenience', on the other hand, is not. As for the 'medicine'...you're asking me to suppose a passenger would carry a legally owned prescription that is, in fact, a several-kilos pound plastic bag of white powder, and that they'd carry that taped under their armpit?
As much as I appreciate your willingness to compromise on this, I'm not sure how that address the concerns about right to privacy on minimizing inconvenience to travelers. Suppose that what TSA confiscates turns out to be a legal owned prescription drug. Suppose the person needs that drug with them while they are traveling. The simple threat of confiscation will create pressure for people to disclose medical information they have the right to keep private.
quote:I have considered you and your bags of flour. At least once in this thread already in fact. As I asked you before, where do you store your baggies of flour? Do you tape them to your body and hide them beneath your clothes?
Consider me and my baggies of flour. I buy them when I travel because I can't get them where I live. If they are confiscated, it is a big inconvenience for me. And its food stuff, so after its been opened for laboratory testing -- its not simple to return safe and uncontaminated.
quote:Because these things aren't found because of 'suspicious behavior' in the situations I've been talking about. They've been found through purely lawful searches by TSA screeners. Maybe they show up on the X-ray machine. Maybe they fall out of a guy's coat. Maybe another passenger sees it and reports it to a TSA screener.
Carrying your baggie of white powder taped under your arm would be suspicious behavior. Carrying a corpse in your carry-on (a carrion carry-on!) would be suspicious behavior. How am I misrepresenting you?
quote:Maybe when you actually quote me, you could respond to the entire quote instead of just a part, particularly when the entire quote refutes your own rebuttal.
Perhaps you would like to somehow indicate the parts of your posts that you want me to respond to?
quote:In your opinion.
In the positions you are advocating above, TSA agents are far exceeding their authority to keep dangerous items and people off of airlines.
quote:Well, actually if I were completely running the show, I'd still say have `em call the police, because the cops are better trained. I'd also say, however, that if someone were lawfully caught smuggling something that looks very much like drugs (even if - ha! - it turns out they had a special kind of flour taped under their arms), they'd be permitted to detain them until the police arrive.
Would you advocate (assuming you didn't have to compromise) a TSA agent tasting or smelling white powder in a baggie in someone's luggage? Pocket? In a vial in someones luggage? Pocket? How about a sort of hidden pocket or in a hidden compartment in the luggage?
quote:Pills too. If it's being smuggled, confiscate, detain, call the police. If it's lawfully discovered that is.
What about pills instead of powder in a baggie taped under the arm?
quote:Given that your and Rabbit's responses to situations involving substances being smuggled under armpits has included, "What if it's special flour?" frankly I'm dubious that your hold on 'common sense' on this issue is very tight.
Here is where I think we get into judgment calls and what is "reasonable" and what is "common sense".
quote:Well, let's just be clear. Your objection that it would screw up a potential prosecution doesn't hold much water, because frankly you don't want their to be a prosecution in the first place. Or an arrest, or anything. You'd prefer the TSA screeners just hand the guy back his bag of cocaine and wish him well...or maybe call the police, but it's not really clear to me why that doesn't 'exceed their authority'.
I think that having TSA agents confiscate the property of passengers is a very bad idea. Not only would it screw up actually catching and convicting people with probable cause and chain of evidence issues (since the actual LEO would not be catching the passenger with the stuff on him), it would be a temptation for theft.
quote:It's not especially important for cocaine and child pornography not to get on a plane. It is especially important to identify and possibly apprehend and prosecute drug smugglers and child pornographers when and where we find them through lawful means.
Why is it important that this not-dangerous-on-a-plane stuff doesn't get on a plane?
quote:Well, I didn't actually think you would. I was just pointing out that your objection, "They should call the police!" was a bit of a cop-out - pun intended - because you wouldn't support there being enough police to respond to such calls in the first place.
No, I would not support more police at airports. Why would I? I don't think this is a lack! I don't think that passengers should be harassed because TGS agents are exceeding their authority. It is a good thing that police would almost all the time tell TSA agents to mind their own business.
quote:OK, so when I've said repeatedly that TSA screeners shouldn't be reading documents or asking questions without immediately advising or rights...what happened there? In one ear and out the other, or what?
Let's say that 10 people are at the airport with $5000, and all 10 say they work for Ron Paul, but googling can't prove that. What would your TSA agent be authorized to do then? If he can't do anything, then what you've got is a completely useless and pointless excuse for racist and cruel TSAs to hassle and harass innocent travelers.
quote:Ugh! Goddamnit, no, that's not what I think! I specifically offered that up as a compromise. Read my freaking posts. And 'thousands of people'? Really? Thousands of people conceal little bags of white powder under their armpits that are perfectly legal?
Wait, so you think TSA agents should be testing contraband, but not prosecuting smugglers? So it's not about catching criminals, it's just about stopping a tiny vial of cocaine from going from one city to another? Thousands of innocent people will be harrassed for doing legitimate things, and this won't result in the prosecution of a single criminal?
quote:Oh, I see what the problem is. All this time I was talking about rubber stamp oversight! Silly me, how stupid I was.
Put some signs up to that effect, that would curb abuse much better than some rubber stamp "oversight".
quote:Maybe he sees a strange bulge under the guy's arm. Maybe a drug sniffing dog nearby starts barking. Maybe it shows up on an x-ray machine hidden in a secret pocket of a big jacket.
How is the TSA agent supposed to find a baggie taped under an armpit if he's not searching people? How is he supposed to determine whom to search that closely? A lottery?
quote:That part is left in just to make you happy even though I am not responding to it.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Rabbit,
quote:Heh, don't narcotics fall under the same area, for similar (though not identical) reasons? Isn't transportation of narcotics heavily regulated?
Well technically, no. Dead bodies are pretty well covered under things you aren't allowed to carry on a plane for health and safety reasons. Transportation of dead bodies is heavily regulated.
quote:I wonder how most folks would classify 'drug smugglers' on a range of safety concerns, Rabbit.
And this actual a safety issue. So no, TSA reporting dead bodies in baggage to police is covered under their mandate of securing airline travel along with aerosol cans, fire extinguishes, camp stove fuel, and fireworks.
quote:A right to privacy is a crucial element. 'Minimizing inconvenience', on the other hand, is not. As for the 'medicine'...you're asking me to suppose a passenger would carry a legally owned prescription that is, in fact, a several-kilos pound plastic bag of white powder, and that they'd carry that taped under their armpit?
As much as I appreciate your willingness to compromise on this, I'm not sure how that address the concerns about right to privacy on minimizing inconvenience to travelers. Suppose that what TSA confiscates turns out to be a legal owned prescription drug. Suppose the person needs that drug with them while they are traveling. The simple threat of confiscation will create pressure for people to disclose medical information they have the right to keep private.
What legally carried prescription is even issued in several-kilos amounts to a private citizen? What legally carried prescription is carried in a plain plastic bag taped under someone's arm?
quote:I have considered you and your bags of flour. At least once in this thread already in fact. As I asked you before, where do you store your baggies of flour? Do you tape them to your body and hide them beneath your clothes?
Consider me and my baggies of flour. I buy them when I travel because I can't get them where I live. If they are confiscated, it is a big inconvenience for me. And its food stuff, so after its been opened for laboratory testing -- its not simple to return safe and uncontaminated.
Didn't think so.
quote:What do you think I mean by suspicious behavior? Taping a bag of white powder to your arm is suspicious behavior. In and of itself. As in, "this guy taped a baggie of white powder to his armpit. I thought that was suspicious behavior." Or, "The behaviour of carrying a severed hand in her purse made me suspect that the woman was up to something."
-------
kmbboots,
quote:Because these things aren't found because of 'suspicious behavior' in the situations I've been talking about. They've been found through purely lawful searches by TSA screeners. Maybe they show up on the X-ray machine. Maybe they fall out of a guy's coat. Maybe another passenger sees it and reports it to a TSA screener.
Carrying your baggie of white powder taped under your arm would be suspicious behavior. Carrying a corpse in your carry-on (a carrion carry-on!) would be suspicious behavior. How am I misrepresenting you?
quote:So someone should be detained until police arrive for carrying a vial of pills in their luggage? How would the TSA agents know it was being smuggled? This is what customs agents are for. Not TSA agents.
quote:Maybe when you actually quote me, you could respond to the entire quote instead of just a part, particularly when the entire quote refutes your own rebuttal.
Perhaps you would like to somehow indicate the parts of your posts that you want me to respond to?
quote:In your opinion.
In the positions you are advocating above, TSA agents are far exceeding their authority to keep dangerous items and people off of airlines.
quote:Well, actually if I were completely running the show, I'd still say have `em call the police, because the cops are better trained. I'd also say, however, that if someone were lawfully caught smuggling something that looks very much like drugs (even if - ha! - it turns out they had a special kind of flour taped under their arms), they'd be permitted to detain them until the police arrive.
Would you advocate (assuming you didn't have to compromise) a TSA agent tasting or smelling white powder in a baggie in someone's luggage? Pocket? In a vial in someones luggage? Pocket? How about a sort of hidden pocket or in a hidden compartment in the luggage?
quote:Pills too. If it's being smuggled, confiscate, detain, call the police. If it's lawfully discovered that is.
What about pills instead of powder in a baggie taped under the arm?
quote:Right. People do not agree on what is common sense. That is why I want TSA agents to follow rules rather than make "common sense" judgment calls.
quote:Given that your and Rabbit's responses to situations involving substances being smuggled under armpits has included, "What if it's special flour?" frankly I'm dubious that your hold on 'common sense' on this issue is very tight.
Here is where I think we get into judgment calls and what is "reasonable" and what is "common sense".
quote:It does actually. But I could understand that it might be tough for a TSA agent to ignore a corpse, so I thought I would allow a loophole.
quote:Well, let's just be clear. Your objection that it would screw up a potential prosecution doesn't hold much water, because frankly you don't want their to be a prosecution in the first place. Or an arrest, or anything. You'd prefer the TSA screeners just hand the guy back his bag of cocaine and wish him well...or maybe call the police, but it's not really clear to me why that doesn't 'exceed their authority'.
I think that having TSA agents confiscate the property of passengers is a very bad idea. Not only would it screw up actually catching and convicting people with probable cause and chain of evidence issues (since the actual LEO would not be catching the passenger with the stuff on him), it would be a temptation for theft.
quote:Would you support car searches on highways? Say at toll booths they also searched your car? How about searches before you got onto a bus? If not, why would air travel be different other than the fact that we want to keep dangerous things off airplanes?
As for a temptation for theft, that's addressed with not too much difficulty: extremely thorough surveillance on all TSA screeners. Security cameras watching the watchers as well as the watchees, as it were.
quote:It's not especially important for cocaine and child pornography not to get on a plane. It is especially important to identify and possibly apprehend and prosecute drug smugglers and child pornographers when and where we find them through lawful means.
Why is it important that this not-dangerous-on-a-plane stuff doesn't get on a plane?
quote:I would hope so. Who is talking about neck hair tingling? So are drugs and kiddie porn the only things for which you would have people detained?
quote:Well, I didn't actually think you would. I was just pointing out that your objection, "They should call the police!" was a bit of a cop-out - pun intended - because you wouldn't support there being enough police to respond to such calls in the first place.
No, I would not support more police at airports. Why would I? I don't think this is a lack! I don't think that passengers should be harassed because TGS agents are exceeding their authority. It is a good thing that police would almost all the time tell TSA agents to mind their own business.
And, again, I'm not talking about TSA screeners calling the police because a passenger makes their neck hairs tingle! I'm talking about TSA screeners calling the police if they find coke or kiddie porn on a passenger. Are you seriously telling me that in such cases, cops would say, "Mind your business?"
quote:I don't see that this makes a difference. So the 10 guys with $5000 are all notified of their rights, and all claim to be working for Ron Paul. Your TSA agent google them, as you claimed was appropriate for him to do, and can't back up their story. What happens then?
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
[QB] swbarnes,
quote:OK, so when I've said repeatedly that TSA screeners shouldn't be reading documents or asking questions without immediately advising or rights...what happened there? In one ear and out the other, or what?
Let's say that 10 people are at the airport with $5000, and all 10 say they work for Ron Paul, but googling can't prove that. What would your TSA agent be authorized to do then? If he can't do anything, then what you've got is a completely useless and pointless excuse for racist and cruel TSAs to hassle and harass innocent travelers.
quote:What does that matter? If this is a scenario that you think is acceptable, then you think it's acceptable.
quote:Ugh! Goddamnit, no, that's not what I think! I specifically offered that up as a compromise.
Wait, so you think TSA agents should be testing contraband, but not prosecuting smugglers? So it's not about catching criminals, it's just about stopping a tiny vial of cocaine from going from one city to another? Thousands of innocent people will be harrassed for doing legitimate things, and this won't result in the prosecution of a single criminal?
quote:If you give all TSA agents the right to be "curious", thousands and thousands of people will be harassed. How many people do you think you have to search to find the one-in-a-million guy who is hiding a tiny bag of drugs on his body?
Thousands of people conceal little bags of white powder under their armpits that are perfectly legal?
quote:It may not have been your preference, but it was the compromise you suggested. And swbarnes did in fact make an excellent point about that proposal.
Rabbit, it's not an excellent point, because it's not what I wanted.
quote:Except that you're not willing to compromise at all. You've said, repeatedly, that TSA screeners should do and are legally empowered to do only an absolute minimum.
A good compromise isn't simply meeting people half way. Its a solution in which both parties give up some of their less critical desires to achieve the most important objectives for both.
quote:...it will stop drug smuggling where we find it, drug smuggling being a crime that's involved in all sorts of other crimes, notably violent crime? Isn't that obvious?
Why do you want TSA agents to be able to report evidence of criminal activity like drug smuggling to the police? What do you see will be the major advantage of this?
quote:I too want to protect privacy rights of travelers. Where we differ is that you believe that that is an absolutely overriding goal, which completely and effortlessly trumps all other concerns except airline safety. And even that you only grudgingly tolerate what you perceive to be a violation of privacy rights.
What I want is to protect the privacy rights of travelers. Since TSA agents are bound to see and hear things that have nothing to do with airport security, the best we can do to protect our privacy is to demand that the TSA agents keep those things strictly confidential.
quote:I'm not sure why you think you have a right o keep secret criminal activity, if it's lawfully discovered. The fact is you don't.
Furthermore, I'd like to have as little inconvenience as possible associated with airport searches. I don't want to have TSA open envelopes, unwrap presents, strip search me, confiscate my property or detain me for irrelevant questions, but those are still less important than insuring that they don't share any of my secrets they might find.
quote:The line is blurry. Yes, I grant that. I've never disputed it. But certain specific actions are so far past the line that it is, frankly, indisputable to any reasonable person that they're illegal. Child pornography and smuggled narcotics being two easy examples.
You can't add an "unless they suspect it is associated with a crime" and make it workable because far too many completely legal things can look suspicious. You seem to think that some actions, like hiding a white powdery substance in your arm pit, are so highly likely to be associated with a crime that we can clearly distinguish those from other types of suspicion. But that line is anything from clear, that's why there are constant legal battles in this country over the 4th amendment. You haven't even attempted to clearly define where that line other than to give some examples which you thick are definitely over the line. How can we possibly have strict oversight unless the line is very clearly defined?
quote:We deal successfully with that very same problem in actual law enforcement all the time. Just because the line is blurry doesn't mean the proper response is 'do nothing'.
How can we possibly have strict oversight unless the line is very clearly defined?
quote:They've already got a list of detailed regulations on what they can and cannot look at, may or may not open, so no, what I've suggested isn't actually much more of a deterrent than already exists.
Furthermore, if you are actually concerned about hamstringing TSA, a set of detailed regulations about what they can and cannot look at, may and may not open or the questions they may not ask, along with the threat of job loss if they do it wrong is going to be far more of a deterrent to them actually doing their jobs than anything I've suggested. After all, the chances that you might harass an innocent traveler are far great than the chances of you actually missing that 1 in a billion bomb in a carry on.
quote:The statistics are roughly the same for bombs in luggage too, I imagine, and yet we permit it to be searched without - mostly - complaint.
After all, the chances that you might harass an innocent traveler are far great than the chances of you actually missing that 1 in a billion bomb in a carry on.
quote:Not especially, because he said it was what I wanted. It wasn't.
It may not have been your preference, but it was the compromise you suggested. And swbarnes did in fact make an excellent point about that proposal.
quote:Two big differences, first, narcotics are illegal to transport because they are illegal to possess. To the best of my knowledge there are no regulations regarding the transportation of illicit drugs by commercial aircraft that differ from regulations about transporting illicit drugs by foot. It isn't an airport security issue. For example, if you have legal prescription narcotics, you are not required to get a special permit to transport them by plane. You aren't required to report it to the airlines.
Well technically, no. Dead bodies are pretty well covered under things you aren't allowed to carry on a plane for health and safety reasons. Transportation of dead bodies is heavily regulated.
Heh, don't narcotics fall under the same area, for similar (though not identical) reasons? Isn't transportation of narcotics heavily regulated?
quote:Isn't it obvious that Rabbit is arguing for an interpretation of existing law OR new law to make it so criminal activity unrelated to flight security cannot be "lawfully discovered" in a TSA search?
I'm not sure why you think you have a right o keep secret criminal activity, if it's lawfully discovered. The fact is you don't.
quote:What about blurry lines and stuff?
In contrast, the average person can pretty easily identify a body when it goes through an x-ray machine.
quote:If they thought they'd found a bomb or gun, they'd open the bag-because those things are dangerous. If they thought they'd found a corpse, they'd open the bag, because those things are dangerous (though how we can possibly expect an untrained TSA screener to know a corpse from a lifelike mannequin, I don't know).
I suppose its possible someone might be carrying a skeleton for a medical class or something but the difference between that and a dead body would be immediately obvious on opening the bag -- something they would do if they thought they'd found a bomb or a gun.
quote:Heh. How, in particular? If they have a knife or a gun, that ought to get caught separately, you know.
Smuggling drugs is dangerous. Drug smugglers are dangerous. Particularly in close confined areas where there isn't anywhere to run if something goes wrong.
quote:There is a big difference between classifying drug smugglers as dangerous and thinking that someone carrying cocaine in a baggy taped under his arm presented a likely threat to an airplane? I think most people would agree.
I wonder how most folks would classify 'drug smugglers' on a range of safety concerns, Rabbit.
quote:Are you suggesting that a baggie of white powder taped under ones clothes is the only thing you would consider warranted police involvement. This is the one exception you would make. What if the TSA agent found the same baggie in a hidden compartment in the carry-on. What if he had it in his pockets instead of under his arm. So if TSA agents opened a checked bag and found 10 kilos of white powder in plastic baggies, you would not think that should arouse suspicion.
I have considered you and your bags of flour. At least once in this thread already in fact. As I asked you before, where do you store your baggies of flour? Do you tape them to your body and hide them beneath your clothes?
Didn't think so.
quote:If she's arguing for new law, it's news to me. It appears to me what she's been saying is that we have some special right to privacy in airport searches well above the right to privacy we have in other kinds of searches.
Isn't it obvious that Rabbit is arguing for an interpretation of existing law OR new law to make it so criminal activity unrelated to flight security cannot be "lawfully discovered" in a TSA search?
quote:More reason for TSA agents to not detain or question them.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Why are narcotics illegal to posses, exactly?
quote:What about blurry lines and stuff?
In contrast, the average person can pretty easily identify a body when it goes through an x-ray machine.
quote:If they thought they'd found a bomb or gun, they'd open the bag-because those things are dangerous. If they thought they'd found a corpse, they'd open the bag, because those things are dangerous (though how we can possibly expect an untrained TSA screener to know a corpse from a lifelike mannequin, I don't know).
I suppose its possible someone might be carrying a skeleton for a medical class or something but the difference between that and a dead body would be immediately obvious on opening the bag -- something they would do if they thought they'd found a bomb or a gun.
Smuggling drugs is dangerous. Drug smugglers are dangerous. Particularly in close confined areas where there isn't anywhere to run if something goes wrong.
quote:I'm not a legal scholar so I have no idea what the existing laws state. My layman's interpretation of the constitution suggests that if airport searches are allowed to be used for any purpose beyond airport security, they violate the 4th amendment to the constitution. Evidently, this is point of the ACLU law suit.
Isn't it obvious that Rabbit is arguing for an interpretation of existing law OR new law to make it so criminal activity unrelated to flight security cannot be "lawfully discovered" in a TSA search?
quote:So...if someone is dangerous, and more dangerous on an airplane, that's a reason for them to be allowed onto the airplane?
More reason for TSA agents to notdetain or question them.
quote:If it's hidden, grab it and detain the person until police arrive. If it's not, let `em go...though what I would personally do is call the airport on the other end and say, "Look, we need a drug sniffing dog on the line of people out of this airplane."
Are you suggesting that a baggie of white powder taped under ones clothes is the only thing you would consider warranted police involvement. This is the one exception you would make. What if the TSA agent found the same baggie in a hidden compartment in the carry-on. What if he had it in his pockets instead of under his arm. So if TSA agents opened a checked bag and found 10 kilos of white powder in plastic baggies, you would not think that should arouse suspicion.
quote:Everytime someone points to a specific possibility and says to me, "See, this is wrong," and I never advocated that possibility...yeah!
I still don't have any clue what you are actually arguing for and why. Everytime someone points to some specific possibility, you say we are putting words in your mouth. So make yourself clear. Are you arguing for this one exception or something else.
quote:You've already said you aren't arguing that everyone boarding the plane be thoroughly screened for drugs. If you think unarmed drug smugglers are a serious threat on airplanes, then we should screen every passenger for drugs. Otherwise, you've pretty much already agreed that carrying drugs on an isn't sufficiently dangerous to worry about.
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Heh. How, in particular? If they have a knife or a gun, that ought to get caught separately, you know.
Smuggling drugs is dangerous. Drug smugglers are dangerous. Particularly in close confined areas where there isn't anywhere to run if something goes wrong.
quote:I would have no complaints if we had drug sniffing dogs at every airport to randomly sniff for drugs in the passenger lines. Would you?
You've already said you aren't arguing that everyone boarding the plane be thoroughly screened for drugs. If you think unarmed drug smugglers are a serious threat on airplanes, then we should screen every passenger for drugs. Otherwise, you've pretty much already agreed that carrying drugs on an isn't sufficiently dangerous to worry about.
quote:I should have thought it was obvious.
You still haven't explained to me your goal and why you think it would be good for TSA to have this authority.
quote:But "beyond a reasonable doubt" is totally subjective. Can't you see that? What possible advantage could there be to this which would outweigh the potential for abuse?
How about this for specifics (not that I haven't been specific repeatedly, just misrepresented): since TSA screeners aren't actually law enforcement and aren't trained in such things, we raise the standards quite a bit higher than 'probable cause' necessary for police officers. We say 'if you've found something that is beyond a reasonable doubt' suspicious, then you can a) inform the police to question the person, using the items found in support of that or b) detain until police arrive or c) inform police on the other end of the flight to do the same.
quote:Since we are arguing over whether or not evidence of drug smuggling found in an airport search should be considered lawfully found you are begging the question.
Goal: Stop crime where it is find; make sure crime is lawfully found.
Reason: It's good to stop crime where it's found
quote:So is the list used to screen passengers and possessions.
But "beyond a reasonable doubt" is totally subjective. Can't you see that? What possible advantage could there be to this which would outweigh the potential for abuse?
quote:Actually, I'm not sure if that particular information needs to have a warrant-but I don't know for sure. Anyway, it's not important to my argument. The cops can have a drug-sniffing dog on the other end without knowing who they're looking for. Would you be satisfied with that?
You are aware that police aren't allowed to know what flight I am taking without a warrant. This is confidential information. If a police officer (or anyone else) walks up to an airline counter and asks "can you tell me if The Rabbit is on this flight", the answer is "no, unless you have a warrant". So what you are recommending is that if a TSA agent observes sufficiently suspicious behavior, they should be able to give police information that would ordinarily not be obtainable without a warrant.
quote:Not really, because I would expect TSA screeners to be truthful to the police with sharp penalties if they weren't. But I won't argue, because that at least I wasn't clear about.
Imagine that as an ordinary citizen entering the airport I see some ones suitcase accidentally fall open and think I see a dead baby inside the suitcase. The normal circumstance of events would be that I inform the police and they use my oath that I saw the dead baby to get a search warrant issued by the court. What you are suggesting is that information found by a TSA agent actually be subject to less scrutiny than information accidentally seen be an ordinary citizen.
quote:Except your demand goes too far. Since TSA searches are only justified by the need for air travel safety, their searches and procedures should be geared only towards items and behaviors and people that threaten air travel safety. If, however, in the course of following those procedures, they discover evidence of another crime, they should be permitted to inform law enforcement.
I am demanding the opposite. Since TSA searches are only justified by the need for air traffic safety, the should be restricted to items that pertain to air traffic security. Everything else seen in a search that is not relevant to air traffic regulations and security should be held strictly confidential.
quote:When I say 'lawfully found' I mean that it was discovered in a lawful way, not that it would be considered admissable later. That is, the goal is to stop crime where it's found, and to make sure that you go about finding crime lawfully.
Since we are arguing over whether or not evidence of drug smuggling found in an airport search should be considered lawfully found you are begging the question.
quote:Considering that I'm not including any drugs not actually hidden, and not including pornography in general but a very specific (and easily recognizable, with very few exceptions) kind of pornography...no, what I'm proposing doesn't, in fact, do that. No matter how repetitively you insist to the contrary.
The question at hand is does this out weigh the increased invasion of privacy and inconvenience for hundreds of millions of innocent airplane travelers. You fail to recognize that what you are proposing does in fact do that.
quote:Like I said, "lawful" is what we as a society choose it to be. Stop begging the question.
The TSA should have 'this authority' (I can't tell anymore what you think I mean by that) because they're searching people anyway, and if they lawfully discover a crime they should be permitted to act on it, either themselves or by contacting police.
quote:So what is an acceptable ratio to you of innocent people harassed versus numbers of vials of cocaine seized? 100 innocent people harassed? 1000? 10,000? Lots of people go through airports, and if only a very small percentage of TSA agents are blatently racist, they can impact a hell of a lot of people.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:...it will stop drug smuggling where we find it, drug smuggling being a crime that's involved in all sorts of other crimes, notably violent crime? Isn't that obvious?
Why do you want TSA agents to be able to report evidence of criminal activity like drug smuggling to the police? What do you see will be the major advantage of this?
quote:Saying that its appropriate for TSA agents to google people's stories while on the job is not an attitute I usually associate with a serious respect for privacy.
I too want to protect privacy rights of travelers. Where we differ is that you believe that that is an absolutely overriding goal, which completely and effortlessly trumps all other concerns except airline safety. And even that you only grudgingly tolerate what you perceive to be a violation of privacy rights.
quote:TSA agents are not magic. They are not only going to target guilty people. They are going to overwhelmingly target innocent people. Even if you managed to purge every racist out of the job, that would still happen. If you think that catching one vial of cocaine is worth hassling 10,000 people, just say so plainly. Because in real life, that's the kind of ratio you are going to get.
As for me, I think the harm done by permitting lawfully-discovered crimes such as drug smuggling or child pornography go unnoticed by law enforcement is greater than the harm done by supposedly violating the right to privacy someone carrying such things has.
quote:But you've constantly ignored it. Your drugs in the armpit is apparently the only scenario you are willing to imagine. And when people say "It won't always be that clear cut", you keep replying with "but he's got drugs in his armpit!!!"
The line is blurry. Yes, I grant that. I've never disputed it.
quote:Yes, they should. Because TSA agents are not omniscient, they don't know everything. They are supposed to know what's dangerous on a plane. That's where they should be acting.
You're not seriously going to suggest to me that a reasonable person would view a smuggled package under someone's armpit and say, "Y'know, that could be legal, right?"
quote:Again, what you are talking about is the tip of the iceberg. Everyone else is worry about the other 99% of the iceberg, but you don't seem to think that's worth talking about. It's all "He's got drugs in his armpit!!!"
The line is blurry. That doesn't mean, however, that when you've stepped fifty yards past the line you don't actually know it.
quote:You put forth an argument. How on earth is anyone supposed to see that, and conclude that you actually reject the argument you made?
quote:Not especially, because he said it was what I wanted. It wasn't.
It may not have been your preference, but it was the compromise you suggested. And swbarnes did in fact make an excellent point about that proposal.
quote:So if someone, I dunno, bursts into flames while in the line, the TSA screeners shouldn't do anything, right? Not in their mission. We must have no contingencies planned for them that have anything even slightly to do with matters even an iota outside their mission.
The mission of TSA agents is to keep airline travel safe, not to fight crime.
quote:I'm not begging the question. There's a distinct difference.
Like I said, "lawful" is what we as a society choose it to be. Stop begging the question.
quote:Except if they have a search warrant for an entire home for small, easily concealed objects (like many of the things on TSA lists) they can look under the cushions.
Just because they have a warrant to search our homes does not make everything they find legal. That depends entirely on how the warrant was written.
quote:That'd be a helluva warrant. It come with a blindfold?
Think of it as if TSA has a warrant that actually prohibits them from looking at anything that isn't on their list.
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:So if someone, I dunno, bursts into flames while in the line, the TSA screeners shouldn't do anything, right? Not in their mission. We must have no contingencies planned for them that have anything even slightly to do with matters even an iota outside their mission.
The mission of TSA agents is to keep airline travel safe, not to fight crime.
quote:
quote:I'm not begging the question. There's a distinct difference.
Like I said, "lawful" is what we as a society choose it to be. Stop begging the question.
quote:Except if they have a search warrant for an entire home for small, easily concealed objects (like many of the things on TSA lists) they can look under the cushions.
Just because they have a warrant to search our homes does not make everything they find legal. That depends entirely on how the warrant was written.
quote:That'd be a helluva warrant. It come with a blindfold?
Think of it as if TSA has a warrant that actually prohibits them from looking at anything that isn't on their list.
quote:How exactly is the relevant? We aren't talking about anything for which the TSA agents special authority makes him different from any other citizen. I think I explained this one several pages back. What the TSA agent finds in a search is fundamentally different from something an ordinary citizen discovers by accident. The thing that differentiates this is that the TSA agent has the authority to require me to submit to a search before entering a plane. The person standing next to me in line does not.
So if someone, I dunno, bursts into flames while in the line, the TSA screeners shouldn't do anything, right? Not in their mission.
quote:Then find some other word besides lawful since we are arguing about whether or not it should be lawful.
I'm not begging the question. There's a distinct difference.
quote:.
quote:So is the list used to screen passengers and possessions
But "beyond a reasonable doubt" is totally subjective. Can't you see that? What possible advantage could there be to this which would outweigh the potential for abuse?
quote:Any warrant that allows you to search hundreds of millions of people, should be one helluva warrant.
That'd be a helluva warrant. It come with a blindfold?
quote:bolding mine
Courts characterize the routine administrative search conducted at a security checkpoint as a warrantless search, subject to the reasonableness requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Such a warrantless search, also known as an administrative search, is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, " confined in good faith to that purpose," and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly. [See United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973)].
quote:How difficult it is to get a warrant depends on your point of view. For an honest cop, difficult yes. If you're swbarnes for example, though, and assuming corruption or incompetence, on the other hand, not difficult at all. As for you, The Rabbit though, given your viewing and defining this discussion largely in terms of bad-faith or violation, it's a bit surprising to hear you characterize warranted searches as difficult to obtain.
Let me make this more clear. Courts will sometimes allow evidence found in good faith in a warranted search that was not specifically listed in the warrant. But the potential for abuse of warranted searches because of these exceptions is relatively low because of the difficulty in getting a warrant in the first place.
quote:You're not using hard numbers, but I think your tone is seriously overstating the amount of evidence that will be excluded when found in a warranted search but not listed specifically in that search. The fact is, it will almost never be excluded to my knowledge unless there is a pretty clear violation involved. Such as moving objects to check serial numbers for stolen property on an emergency gunfire search, for example. Almost never just to serve the interests of protecting privacy rights, because the truth is, a right to privacy is not threatened when evidence of a crime is found in good faith on a warranted search.
Even if the police were allowed to search for drugs on every warranted search, they couldn't search millions of people for drugs. And the fact is that under many circumstances, even when a court has issued a warrant, evidence of drug crimes will be excluded because it was not listed in the warrant. We exclude that evidence because we consider the risk too high that warrants will be abused to invade our privacy unjustly.
quote:We should-where I think we disagree here is in how much we do to discourage in the first case, and where that puts us as far as discouraging in the second case.
The government does not need to have probable cause, or oaths or review by judges to open my luggage. If the potential for abuse in a warranted search is high enough that we are willing to exclude evidence of serious crimes as an incentive to ensure the police careful adhere to the conditions of warrants, shouldn't we do at least that much for airline searches.
quote:*sigh* 'When carefully followed'. I do think we should exclude evidence on an airport search when the rules and procedures of that search aren't carefully followed-and those rules and procedures are quite restrictive already, once you set aside the warrantless part of the matter.
Its off the scale. if we think our privacy is important enough to exclude evidence when a warrant wasn't carefully followed, solely to create a disincentive for abuse -- why would we do otherwise with airline searches?
quote:My stance is that for moral and ethical purposes, there is functionally very little if any difference between a TSA screener discovering evidence of an unrelated crime in a completely lawful search, than there is a passenger overhearing discussion or seeing evidence of an unrelated crime themselves, and reporting it.
How exactly is the relevant? We aren't talking about anything for which the TSA agents special authority makes him different from any other citizen. I think I explained this one several pages back. What the TSA agent finds in a search is fundamentally different from something an ordinary citizen discovers by accident. The thing that differentiates this is that the TSA agent has the authority to require me to submit to a search before entering a plane. The person standing next to me in line does not.
quote:Of course there's a difference. That's not the point. The point is that one of your objections is, "But it's subjective!"
You honestly can't see any difference between a list of items, questions and behaviors that have been carefully reviewed by experts and approved by officials and possibly the court and what one TSA agent thinks is beyond "reasonable doubt".
quote:Aren't they human beings when they're TSA screeners, too?
As a human being and not in their role as a TSA agent they could put out fires. As could anyone else there not in an official capacity.
quote:I'm not the only one talking about extreme hypothetical situations, or shall we review the flour-smuggling hypothetical again? 'What the people who disagree with you'...why not just say 'Rabbit and I'?
Seriously, you are talking about extreme hypothetical situation - dead babies in luggage, people bursting into flames. What the people who disagree with you are concerned with is the hundred of thousands of situations that are not as extreme as corpses or combustion. You seem to be trying to use these extreme situations to justify giving TSA agents authority that would almost all of the time be either unnecessary or abused.
quote:Yeah, I was frustrated there. But hell yes, I complain about you putting words in my mouth. I even specifically listed, like, three times in the past two days where you did just that. For the record.
ETA: And really, you complain about me putting words in your mouth? For the record, even though there job is keeping air travel safe, TSA agents can also breathe, sneeze, and smile.
quote:And for the record, you've accused her unfairly every time.
Yeah, I was frustrated there. But hell yes, I complain about you putting words in my mouth. I even specifically listed, like, three times in the past two days where you did just that. For the record.
quote:Rabbit, when I say one thing and then am responded to with that thing plus two or three other things that I didn't say, that's not just a case of my own miscommunication. `nuff said. I don't suggest there is malicious intent, though.
Rakeeshi, I can't speak for anyone else here. But I have never intentionally put words in your mouth or misrepresented what you are saying. I sincerely doubt that anyone else here is doing that. I am honestly trying to understand your point. If you feel that people are misrepresenting what you are trying to say, it is far more likely because you haven't clearly presented your ideas.
quote:All law enforcement and security encourages abuse. The thing I'm trying to point out is that that, in and of itself, is not sufficient grounds to reject an idea. In fact, all government activity period encourages abuse. You'll never get away from it.
I think the key problem is that most of us arguing against you are convinced that what you are suggesting is ripe for abuse. We know you aren't suggesting abuse, but I frankly can't see any way that what you are recommending would not encourage abuse. We keep pointing out ways in which what you seem to suggest could be abused. We know you aren't suggesting the abuse, we just don't see how what you are suggesting could be implemented in a way that would not allow and encourage abuse.
quote:I'm entirely aware of why evidence isn't allowed when proper procedures aren't followed, thanks. You go further than that, though. You want evidence found when proper procedures are followed to also be excluded, at least from these sorts of searches, simply to discourage abuse.
The entire rational for excluding evidence found when the conditions of a warrant are not carefully followed, was never to protect criminals, even though it does have that effect. The rational has been that this was necessary as a deterrent to those who would abuse a warrant to violate a persons privacy.
quote:If I agreed that allowing TSA screeners to report suspicious evidence (not just 'activity', I mean someone actually carrying a physical object) would encourage abuse, I can flat-out guarantee I'd be more in line with your PoV on this. But I don't, because in the idea I'm suggesting, the only way someone can report something is if they discover it while following proper procedures.
I think this sort of strong deterrent is necessary in airport searches because the potential for abuse and the number of people who might be affected by even minor abuse is so extremely high. Because the potential for abuse is so high in airport searches, we need to zealously avoid any thing that might allow or encourage abuse. Allowing TSA agents to report suspicious activity unrelated to airline safety to the police would do just that.
quote:Given your standards of 'clear evidence', I'm not surprised. The armpit bag of 'flour' being a prime example. And as for the dead baby, well, you never answered a question I asked earlier: how is the TSA screener supposed to know it's a dead baby? They're not doctors, coroners, or even lifeguards. They're not trained to recognize a corpse when they see one. You seem to think it's impossible for TSA screeners to keep private non-criminal information while reporting criminal information.
I honestly can't see that there would be more than one in tens of millions of cases where a TSA agent could identify clear evidence of a crime unrelated to airport security without being more intrusive or more intensive than necessary to detect weapons or explosives. Aside from the dead baby in the bags, I haven't seen you or anyone else propose a single exception that would meet that standard. I can see that a TSA officer acting in good faith might frequently see things that have nothing to do with airport security and which people have the right to keep private. Part of acting in good faith, at least in my opinion, means that the TSA agent is required to "turn a blind eye" to all such things.
quote:I don't see any problem with that, your solution to the example that is. All I ever said concerning money was that I didn't find it objectionable to ask a question concerning the money so long as they also advised the questioned about their right not to answer at once as well. Quite frankly I don't know why you appear to think I would have a problem with it.
Let me get to a more realistic example of how the system could be abused. Imagine that the police suspect you of laundering money. You routinely travel through a small airport where the same TSA agent has searched your bag a dozen times. The police shouldn't be allowed to ask TSA if I commonly carry large sums of cash on the plane. If the police question the TSA agent and ask whether I commonly carry large sums of cash on the plane, the TSA agent should say "that information is confidential". If it goes to court, the TSA agent should not be allowed to testify in court against me. If the police want to know what its my carry on bags, they have to get a warrant. A TSA search that might see what they are looking for could very easily be a route around a warrant that should be strictly prohibited.
quote:Then you must also think that admitting evidence discovered in a warranted search unrelated to the warrant itself also encourages law enforcement abuse, right?
I honestly can't see that a less stringent standard for confidentiality would do anything but encourage abuse of TSA searches.
quote:This is flat-out untrue, Rabbit.
And for the record, you've accused her unfairly every time.
quote:posted July 01, 2009 04:50 PM, bottom of page 2.
Anyway, I never said anything about banning it. The only thing I ever said was that it might inspire curiosity, and that curiosity should sometimes be lawfully acted on.
quote:posted July 06, 2009 11:54 AM bottom of page 3
That's not what I said. I'll repeat and re-explain myself. First off, since we as a society have decided to allow airport searches, we can't - as you and Rabbit appear to insist - treat them as unlawful searches that we all just live with. They're not unlawful searches. We've made laws that make them lawful.
quote:I think that discouraging TSA agents from exceeding their authority in the first place makes more sense than harshly penalizing them afterwards.
This is extremely frustrating. You're putting words into my mouth, kmbboots. You're putting words in my mouth even though the proof that I didn't say what you're suggesting lies right in the quoted text you're responding to. I did not say we should handle the problem of potential abuse by penalizing afterwards. I said we should do two things. They're right there in the portion you're quoting. Very strong oversight and harsh penalties.
quote:posted July 06, 2009 04:15 PM top of page 4
I wonder how many 'folks' really were confused as to my meaning. Because, after all, I didn't say items in bags should be tested for chemicals. I suggested that a bag of white powder of the consistency of cocaine discovered taped under one's armpit could be tasted or smelled.
quote:posted July 06, 2009 09:57 PM top of page 4
Again with this sort of thing. Reading documents is something I specifically said they shouldn't be permitted to do!
quote:I don't understand why you think that a big scary guy in a uniform who can keep you off a plane asking private and personal questions is such a non-issue.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
All I ever said concerning money was that I didn't find it objectionable to ask a question concerning the money so long as they also advised the questioned about their right not to answer at once as well. Quite frankly I don't know why you appear to think I would have a problem with it.
quote:Which is why we keep pointing out that, in the case of airline searches, the potential for abuse far out weighs the potential benefits unless searches are strictly limited to weapons and explosives that might endanger an airplane.
All law enforcement and security encourages abuse. The thing I'm trying to point out is that that, in and of itself, is not sufficient grounds to reject an idea. In fact, all government activity period encourages abuse. You'll never get away from it.
quote:I knew someone once that had 15 jobs in 15 years. A nice person, but unstable. Not very bright, not very competent. One of her jobs was a baggage screener for TSA.
.Because TSA agents are not omniscient, they don't know everything.
quote:I can't say I'm surprised. The little notes TSA leaves in your suitcase which say (in essence) "We searched your bag, if we stole or broke anything -- tough" practically encourage TSA agents to take stuff.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Just saw this article and I thought it was relevant.
quote:What this here Rabbit said.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I can't say I'm surprised. The little notes TSA leaves in your suitcase which say (in essence) "We searched your bag, if we stole or broke anything -- tough" practically encourage TSA agents to take stuff.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Just saw this article and I thought it was relevant.
quote:
Today’s Washington Times notes that the TSA has changed it’s rules in light of the what happened to Bierfeldt:
An angry aide to Rep. Ron Paul, an iPhone and $4,700 in cash have forced the Transportation Security Administration to quietly issue two new rules telling its airport screeners they can only conduct searches related to airplane safety.
In response, the American Civil Liberties Union is dropping its lawsuit on behalf of Steve Bierfeldt, the man who was detained in March and who recorded the confrontation on his iPhone as TSA and local police officers spent half an hour demanding answers as to why he was carrying the money through Lambert-St. Louis International Airport.
The new rules, issuedin September and October, tell officers “screening may not be conducted to detect evidence of crimes unrelated to transportation security” and that large amounts of cash don’t qualify as suspicious for purposes of safety.
“We had been hearing of so many reports of TSA screeners engaging in wide-ranging fishing expeditions for illegal activities,” said Ben Wizner, a staff lawyer for the ACLU, pointing to reports of officers scanning pill-bottle labels to see whether the passenger was the person who obtained the prescription as one example.
He said screeners get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, strictly to keep weapons and explosives off planes, not to help police enforce other laws.