In April, I blogged about an incident in St. Louis where a passenger’s cash box was searched.
Since this is in the news again, I thought I would write a quick recap with some updates.
On March 29th, a metal box containing a large amount of coins and cash was flagged for additional screening. Any large amount of metallic objects in one place (loose change or rolls of coins) appear as opaque images and are difficult and sometimes impossible to clear without being searched. I blogged about this type of search last October. If we can’t see through something on the x-ray, we have to take a closer look by opening the box/bag. Due to the contents, the passenger was taken to a private screening area which is customary when screening money or high dollar value items such as jewelry.
While it’s legal to travel with any amount of money you wish to carry when flying domestically, movements of large amounts of cash through the checkpoint may be investigated by law enforcement authorities if suspicious activity is suspected. As a general rule, passengers are required to cooperate with the screening process. Cooperation may involve answering questions about their property. A passenger who refuses to answer questions may be referred to appropriate authorities for further inquiry. When traveling internationally, a passenger must file a report with U.S. Customs when flying with amounts exceeding $10,000. (or its foreign equivalent)
A TSA employee and members of the St. Louis Airport Police Department can be heard on the audio recording. TSA holds its employees to the highest professional standards. The tone and language used by the TSA employee was inappropriate and proper disciplinary action was taken.
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
226 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 226 of 226Nadine said...
"Your agents are totally out of line at some airports. They should have special training on human relations and make each passenger feel proud to have TSA working for them at the airport to protect them. Instead they are individuals that want to flaunt their power and control over anybody they so desire.
I was traveling out of Burbank airport in April, 2009 with my mother, who is 93 years old, and her caregiver. I was carrying on an ice chest with special food for my mom to eat, which is allowed according to your policy and information posted on your website. Not only would your officers not allow me to take the food on board, but they falsely accused me of battery and placed a citizen’s arrest on me. I was cuffed, hauled off to the Burbank jail, booked and held for over 6 hours. Mind you I am a 57-year old grandmother of 5, a member and temple recommend holder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the CFO for The Media Cafe, and the primary care-giver for my 93-year old mother.
What do you have to say about that?"
What can anyone say without know what happened?
Why did the police arrest you? I know they didn't just do it on the word of someone from TSA. Did they look at video of the incident? Were there other witness statements? Post more information, please.
I will tell you this. I work for TSA. I stand nearly 6'5", weigh abour 240, and I have been assulted by a woman half my size. No, I was not hurt, but it was still assult.
A TSO can NOT touch you without permission. If you require a pat-down you have to give permission, or leave the checkpoint. But no one can touch a TSO without permission either. People can not just hit, jab, poke, or push each other. No one can.
So if you want our opinion, please let us know exactly what happened. You didn't supply enough information.
RB said...
"Anon said....
"To which I say prove to me that the international flow of currency does not in some way present a threat to nations and indirectly to aviation security."
............................
Anon, I don't think anyone is saying that currency cannot be used to fund operations that could impact aviation security.
What I am saying is that no amount of cash that a person carries onto an airplane presents an immediate danger to aviation security.
TSA us charged with keeping WEI and other prohibited items from flying. Thats it, nothing more."
-----------------------
With that being said, then I think it comes down to a matter or opinion. To what extent should our government go to track hard currency leaving and flowing into our country?
Various government agencies cooperate, and from time to time over-lap their responsibilities. That is not my opinion. That is fact.
Sometimes there are clear boundaries between agencies' jurisdiction, but other times the boundaries are blurry.
TSA does not require that currency leaving the country be declared with TSA.
But TSA has been tasked, by the DHS, with determining IF said currency was declared when it is found.
This is not a hard concept to understand. But that is NOT to say you have to agree.
Personally, I think the flow of currency internationally needs to be tracked closely. Our government has in place an agency that is in a position to help to ensure that this happens.
I do not know you, but from your post I believe you have served our country in one form of the other. That being said you should be well aware of the concept of a join-task force/committe, etc.
Dunstan said...
"So you do not need to worry that I will lose my job or that I have few friends at work. Now that that worry is off your mind, you can breath easier and sleep better at night."
It is certainly true I won't lose a moment's sleep over you or your opinion. I'm sure the feeling is mutual."
GASP!!! We agree on something... did you feel it? I think the world stopped spinning for just a few seconds!
Mandalyn said...
"To which I say prove to me that the international flow of currency does not in some way present a threat to nations and indirectly to aviation security."
Well, my cousin's in-laws are small-town farmers in rural Mexico. No nearby access to ATM machines. They needed to give the father some money to buy new farming equipment and carried $75,000 in cash with them. I can assure you, the money did not go to international terrorist bogeymen or drug cartels.
I'm going to Europe next year on holiday and visit relatives. I'm going to be carrying a rather substantial amount of currency with me. And, I can assure you, I am not going to be funding terrorists, or neo-nazi's, or IRA, or Hezbollah, or Hamas, or any other violence-driven group with this money. I can bet most people don't carry cash for such groups. That's what offshore accounts are for.
Ok. So? Still didn't really respond to what I was talking about.
But as for off-shore accounts, money from those accounts can be track pretty easily as they flow into our country. What is more difficult to track is hard currency flowing out of or into our country.
And you can rest assurd that though most people do not, some people taking hard currency with them as they leave the country do so because of the illegal drug industry, support of terrorism, or to evade taxes, and even to deplete our money supply.
RB said...
"But I guess in your opinion, your opinion is the only one that matters. Yet you somehow claim to support our constitution and our democracy.
July 3, 2009 9:21 PM
...................
So I have no right to my opinion? I must agree with TSA?
TSA mirrors actions of some events in the 1930's until destroyed in the 1940's by Allied Forces.
At the hands of TSA this country has devolved into a Papers or No Travel country."
-------------------------------
I don't need to confirm to you one way or the other whether you have a right to your opinion or not. Yet you were the one who stated that you defended our country from international threats for over 20 years, when you should have been watching out for domestic ones.
My point is you seem to imply that if I don't agree with you, that if I, as a citizen, support what TSA does, I am now the major threat to this country. How is that democratic?
My understanding of a democracy is that sometimes we DONT get the things we want simply because we live in a country of many people who have different views and different wants. In fact, I find it PROOF that we have a democracy because sometimes we don't get what we want.
You've taken the position that because you TSA does not do as you wish - "this country has devolved into a Papers or No Travel country" - those who support what TSA does are now the threat to this country. To me that is not very democratic.
Sometimes in a democracy we have to accept that things might not go our way. The course of government often reflects the will of another section of our society, even if we don't like it.
Quoted:
" Nadine said...
I was traveling out of Burbank airport in April, 2009 with my mother, who is 93 years old, and her caregiver. I was carrying on an ice chest with special food for my mom to eat, which is allowed according to your policy and information posted on your website. Not only would your officers not allow me to take the food on board, but they falsely accused me of battery and placed a citizen’s arrest on me. I was cuffed, hauled off to the Burbank jail, booked and held for over 6 hours. Mind you I am a 57-year old grandmother of 5, a member and temple recommend holder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the CFO for The Media Cafe, and the primary care-giver for my 93-year old mother.
What do you have to say about that?
July 7, 2009 12:46 PM
------------------------------
Oh Please, If this was true it would be all over the media. Sounds like just another troll...
I was traveling out of Burbank airport in April, 2009 with my mother, who is 93 years old, and her caregiver. I was carrying on an ice chest with special food for my mom to eat, which is allowed according to your policy and information posted on your website. Not only would your officers not allow me to take the food on board, but they falsely accused me of battery and placed a citizen’s arrest on me. I was cuffed, hauled off to the Burbank jail, booked and held for over 6 hours. Mind you I am a 57-year old grandmother of 5, a member and temple recommend holder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the CFO for The Media Cafe, and the primary care-giver for my 93-year old mother.
What do you have to say about that?
___________________________________
Sounds a little fishy to me. First off TSA does not take food. Food is allowed to go. Ice packs are not allowed unless they are there for medical or baby needs. Which if they were there to cool you mothers medically necissary foods than they should have been allowed to go.
Now that being said. You must have been throwing one heck of a fit about something to get halled off. And I couldn't imagine them doing that for any other reason.
Now TSO's do not always follow the rules correctly. We all know that. But sometimes they follow the rules according to the passengers attitude. I know it is not right. 2 wrongs do not make a right. But we are only human and do not deserve to be treated like garbage.
To sum it all up, I believe you are leaving out an important part of this story.
The fact that you belong to this church you tell us about, who cares. I have seen many church going people act very differently outside of church.
Anonymous said...
Stupid statement yet again! You very well know that public law changes from state to state, and even city to city. Some allow the public viewing of porn, some do not. What is legal here may not be legal there. In some places it is even illegal to mail porn; other it is not.
Why should I post an answer to your question? What good will it do? The men I was talking about were arrested. I later ask one of the arresting officers what happened in that case, and he told me it never went to court, the men pled guilty to a lesser offense. To be honest with you, that all I really need to know.
But if you want to know the laws, look it up yourself. Don't be lazy. What is that old saying about laws and the public.... "ignorance is no excuse".
Well, only one of us claimed that watching porn on a computer in a public place is illegal, so I'm not feeling the obligation to have to prove that someone didn't break the law. But I did so, anyway. A search for such a law has yielded me no results.
Since you chose to insult me rather than answer the question, I'll assume that you couldn't find such a law, either.
Ignorance is no excuse. Fortunately, Americans aren't required to follow non-existent laws. Yet.
Mike
As a result of this and numerous other incidents involving the TSA's repeated misuse of power and authority, I have gone from a supporter to firmly believing that your agency should be abolished, even though I have noticed an ongoing improvement in your passenger relations. I now fly as little as possible.
The cure (your agency) is worse than the disease (potential terrorism). We can neither condone nor accept the continual abridgment of our rights and freedoms in the name of safety. I would rather take make chances and keep my freedoms. You are on shaky legal ground at best, and I can only hope the courts continue to limit your actions to protect our rights.
Still waiting for your lawyers to clarify:
1) The precise section(s) of the relevant privacy law that allow the TSA to say "appropriate disciplinary action was taken" but prohibit TSA from saying "the employee involved was terminated.
2) The justification for refusing a federal judge access to the TSA SOP, a document that is presumably provided to thousands of entry-level employees.
Anon said....
"To which I say prove to me that the international flow of currency does not in some way present a threat to nations and indirectly to aviation security."
Fingers can be used to detonate explosives and shoot guns. So prove to me why people with hands should be allowed anywhere near an airplane.
You are absurd.
Personally, I think the flow of currency internationally needs to be tracked closely. Our government has in place an agency that is in a position to help to ensure that this happens.
I do not know you, but from your post I believe you have served our country in one form of the other. That being said you should be well aware of the concept of a join-task force/committe, etc.
July 7, 2009 10:40 PM
...................................
There are times when a joint task force is the incorrect choice for certain tasks.
Currency control has numerous laws and regulations currently on the books. Not one of them mentions TSA.
TSA is tasked with an Administrative Search for WEI, that's it.
Exceeding that criteria violates the letter and the spirit of permitting Administrative Searches.
Our government does have agencies in place that are charged with currency control, TSA is not one of them and trying to do so leads to the incidents like St. Louis were TSA screwed up royally.
Mikeef said...
edited...
"A search for such a law has yielded me no results."
And if you can't find it, then no one can!
Anonymous said...
""To which I say prove to me that the international flow of currency does not in some way present a threat to nations and indirectly to aviation security."
Fingers can be used to detonate explosives and shoot guns. So prove to me why people with hands should be allowed anywhere near an airplane.
You are absurd."
----------------------
Where did I ever say that money shouldn't be allowed to be transfered internationally? Did you actually read what I post?
Your analogy comparing my statement that the international flow of currency should be declared and check, because it could represent a potential indirect danger, and people with hands and fingers shouldn't be allowed to fly, because they represent a potential danger makes no sense and is foolish.
A more accurate analogy would be to say that because people with hands and fingers can detonate explosives and shoot guns, we should check them, maybe at a place called a check-point, as we do the flow of international currency, because both represent a potential danger. But thats only if you want to draw a proper analogy between the two, which you seemingly want to do, but were unable to successfully pull off.
Now if I had said because the flow of international currency represents a potential danger we shouldn't allow it at all, then you analogy - people with fingers and hands are a dangers, thus shouldn't fly - would be correct.
Is that what you thought I said? Just wondering. And by the way, from RB's post, even he/she seems to agree that the transfer of international currency does represent an indirect danger to the United States.
Anonymous said...
"Still waiting for your lawyers to clarify:
1) The precise section(s) of the relevant privacy law that allow the TSA to say "appropriate disciplinary action was taken" but prohibit TSA from saying "the employee involved was terminated.
2) The justification for refusing a federal judge access to the TSA SOP, a document that is presumably provided to thousands of entry-level employees."
As to #1:
Why would you not be waiting? Who are you that you demand an answer to that particular question here, on a TSA blog, and expect it to be answered? Most likely, you will still be waiting for a long time. And if you want to claim the lack of an answer as a victory over TSA, more power to you.
However, here is a link to the Privacy Act. You can read it all for yourself.
http://www.usdoj.gov/opcl/privacyact1974.htm
I hope it helps.
As to #2
As far as I can tell, TSA has not disclosed SOP to lower level courts, but I may be wrong. Of all the instances I have read about, TSA has only released SOP to United States courts of appeal or higher, in camera, of course.
As to why they might refuse to allow a district judge to see SOP, I ask why would they allow it? Whatever the issue before a lower court, no matter who wins, it will be appealed, that much is certain. Why tip your hand early? Personally, I would save my best fight for later, even if it is done in camera. TSA seems to have done this many times, and to a large extent it seems to have served them well.
But on a more pratical note, no one has to submit evidence if they don't want to, not even TSA. You stand the chance of losing your case, maybe, but you still don't have to do it. So TSA has every right to not submit SOP to a lower court. It's not about refusing a judge, its about what they want their defense to look like at that point.
By the way, how do you explain such a high turn-over rate of "lower level" TSA employees, yet SOP remains secret?
Anonymous,
I'm still waiting for you to tell what law someone watching porn at an airport violated. Remember, you were the one who claimed it was illegal, not me, so the onus is on you; no one has to prove something is legal.
Mike
Mikeef said...
Anonymous,
I'm still waiting for you to tell what law someone watching porn at an airport violated. Remember, you were the one who claimed it was illegal, not me, so the onus is on you; no one has to prove something is legal.
Mike
If the porn is visible to a passersby you can be charge with, at a minimum disturbing the peace or breach of peace. Depending on state laws on public displays of obscenity the charge could be much stiffer.
Florida statute 847.011
Prohibition of certain acts in connection with obscene, lewd, etc., materials; penalty.--
(1)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c), any person who knowingly sells, lends, gives away, distributes, transmits, shows, or transmutes, or offers to sell, lend, give away, distribute, transmit, show, or transmute, or has in his or her possession, custody, or control with intent to sell, lend, give away, distribute, transmit, show, transmute, or advertise in any manner, any obscene book, magazine, periodical, pamphlet, newspaper, comic book, story paper, written or printed story or article, writing, paper, card, picture, drawing, photograph, motion picture film, figure, image, phonograph record, or wire or tape or other recording, or any written, printed, or recorded matter of any such character which may or may not require mechanical or other means to be transmuted into auditory, visual, or sensory representations of such character, or any article or instrument for obscene use, or purporting to be for obscene use or purpose; or who knowingly designs, copies, draws, photographs, poses for, writes, prints, publishes, or in any manner whatsoever manufactures or prepares any such material, matter, article, or thing of any such character; or who knowingly writes, prints, publishes, or utters, or causes to be written, printed, published, or uttered, any advertisement or notice of any kind, giving information, directly or indirectly, stating, or purporting to state, where, how, of whom, or by what means any, or what purports to be any, such material, matter, article, or thing of any such character can be purchased, obtained, or had; or who in any manner knowingly hires, employs, uses, or permits any person knowingly to do or assist in doing any act or thing mentioned above, commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A person who, after having been convicted of a violation of this subsection, thereafter violates any of its provisions, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Trollkiller said...
"Mikeef said...
Anonymous,
I'm still waiting for you to tell what law someone watching porn at an airport violated. Remember, you were the one who claimed it was illegal, not me, so the onus is on you; no one has to prove something is legal.
Mike
If the porn is visible to a passersby you can be charge with, at a minimum disturbing the peace or breach of peace. Depending on state laws on public displays of obscenity the charge could be much stiffer.
Florida statute 847.011
Prohibition of certain acts in connection with obscene, lewd, etc., materials; penalty.--
(1)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c), any person who knowingly sells, lends, gives away, distributes, transmits, shows, or transmutes, or offers to sell, lend, give away, distribute, transmit, show, or transmute, or has in his or her possession, custody, or control with intent to sell, lend, give away, distribute, transmit, show, transmute, or advertise in any manner, any obscene book, magazine, periodical, pamphlet, newspaper, comic book, story paper, written or printed story or article, writing, paper, card, picture, drawing, photograph, motion picture film, figure, image, phonograph record, or wire or tape or other recording, or any written, printed, or recorded matter of any such character which may or may not require mechanical or other means to be transmuted into auditory, visual, or sensory representations of such character, or any article or instrument for obscene use, or purporting to be for obscene use or purpose; or who knowingly designs, copies, draws, photographs, poses for, writes, prints, publishes, or in any manner whatsoever manufactures or prepares any such material, matter, article, or thing of any such character; or who knowingly writes, prints, publishes, or utters, or causes to be written, printed, published, or uttered, any advertisement or notice of any kind, giving information, directly or indirectly, stating, or purporting to state, where, how, of whom, or by what means any, or what purports to be any, such material, matter, article, or thing of any such character can be purchased, obtained, or had; or who in any manner knowingly hires, employs, uses, or permits any person knowingly to do or assist in doing any act or thing mentioned above, commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A person who, after having been convicted of a violation of this subsection, thereafter violates any of its provisions, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084."
------------------------------
Wow!! Trollkiller and I agree! I actually fainted, fell over, hit my head and had to goto the doctors office. Trollkiller you now owe me $30 for my deductable!
I didn't want to post anything that cite law where I live, because to be honest I like my anonymity. Say what you will of that.
However, I did find this, quiet easily I might add, from a quick google search:
"The driver was accused of breaking state laws prohibiting watching TV while driving, as well as another law making it illegal to exhibit sexually explicit material in a public place."
This was quoted from a news article at this address.
"http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/11/national/main605394.shtml"
Though not the direct topic of the article, it does state that laws vary from state to state, city to city, and that to display such things in public is illegal in some places.
HOwever, I won't respond to these post any more, because they are way off topic.
I simply said so long ago if I think I see a crime being comitted while at work, I have every right to report it.
And somehow we ended up here...
Everybody is missing the point on this one. Whenever a governmental entity searches or seizes a person’s personal property or person they better have probable cause or else it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Do we give up our constitutional right when we fly?
I can see where TSA might opt to interrogate an individual carrying a large sum of money if they have a criminal history (there is probable cause that the money could be related to unlawful activity), but a good US citizen? Would TSA have done that if President Obama boarded with $10,000 cash in his pocket? I don’t think so.
TSA needs to know what their boundaries are and their employees need to be smart enough to remember them.
Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
"Still waiting for your lawyers to clarify:
1) The precise section(s) of the relevant privacy law that allow the TSA to say "appropriate disciplinary action was taken" but prohibit TSA from saying "the employee involved was terminated.
2) The justification for refusing a federal judge access to the TSA SOP, a document that is presumably provided to thousands of entry-level employees."
As to #1:
Why would you not be waiting? Who are you that you demand an answer to that particular question here, on a TSA blog, and expect it to be answered? Most likely, you will still be waiting for a long time. And if you want to claim the lack of an answer as a victory over TSA, more power to you.
However, here is a link to the Privacy Act. You can read it all for yourself.
http://www.usdoj.gov/opcl/privacyact1974.htm
I hope it helps.
--------------
Who am I to be demanding an answer to the question. Well, first of all, I didn't "demand" anything. Second, as a United States citizen it is entirely appropriate for me to make such requests to government agencies. Third, this blog featured an "answer" from the TSA's lawyers that did not provide any citation of the laws that they claim prohibit them from releasing the information. It's hardly unreasonable to expect that a lawyer would provide such information and it is far from unreasonable for a citizen to ask that they provide further clarification.
Anonymous said...
"Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
"Still waiting for your lawyers to clarify:
1) The precise section(s) of the relevant privacy law that allow the TSA to say "appropriate disciplinary action was taken" but prohibit TSA from saying "the employee involved was terminated.
2) The justification for refusing a federal judge access to the TSA SOP, a document that is presumably provided to thousands of entry-level employees."
As to #1:
Why would you not be waiting? Who are you that you demand an answer to that particular question here, on a TSA blog, and expect it to be answered? Most likely, you will still be waiting for a long time. And if you want to claim the lack of an answer as a victory over TSA, more power to you.
However, here is a link to the Privacy Act. You can read it all for yourself.
http://www.usdoj.gov/opcl/privacyact1974.htm
I hope it helps.
--------------
Who am I to be demanding an answer to the question. Well, first of all, I didn't "demand" anything. Second, as a United States citizen it is entirely appropriate for me to make such requests to government agencies. Third, this blog featured an "answer" from the TSA's lawyers that did not provide any citation of the laws that they claim prohibit them from releasing the information. It's hardly unreasonable to expect that a lawyer would provide such information and it is far from unreasonable for a citizen to ask that they provide further clarification."
You did demand an answer. You didn't use that word, but if someone ask me a question, and they feel I didn't answer it, so they say "I'm waiting", that is demanding an answer, and its what you did.
This is a blog run by "bloggers", not TSA lawyers. These bloggers asked a TSA lawyer to write a brief blog, and a lawyer did so. Who you have a right to have discourse with on this blog are other bloggers and the blog staff. If you want an answer with a TSA lawyer, don't demand it here - I very much doubt it will be answered. Schedule an appointment with a TSA lawyer and ask you question to that person.
Your question to the TSA lawyers is sort of like saying "on this blog I want the person who runs TSA to answer these questions, and no one else, just that person." That is in fact what you did.
So like I said before, don't expect an answer.
If I made the same request of any private company, say Ford, or IBM, by email or by any other electronic means to their public relations department, I doubt I would be answer by the specific people I was demanding a question from. Isn't providing answers to people like you part of the job of public relations? Isn't that Blogger Bob's and staffs job, not their lawyers?
"You did demand an answer. You didn't use that word, but if someone ask me a question, and they feel I didn't answer it, so they say "I'm waiting", that is demanding an answer, and its what you did.
This is a blog run by "bloggers", not TSA lawyers. These bloggers asked a TSA lawyer to write a brief blog, and a lawyer did so. Who you have a right to have discourse with on this blog are other bloggers and the blog staff. If you want an answer with a TSA lawyer, don't demand it here - I very much doubt it will be answered. Schedule an appointment with a TSA lawyer and ask you question to that person.
Your question to the TSA lawyers is sort of like saying "on this blog I want the person who runs TSA to answer these questions, and no one else, just that person." That is in fact what you did.
So like I said before, don't expect an answer.
If I made the same request of any private company, say Ford, or IBM, by email or by any other electronic means to their public relations department, I doubt I would be answer by the specific people I was demanding a question from. Isn't providing answers to people like you part of the job of public relations? Isn't that Blogger Bob's and staffs job, not their lawyers?"
---------------------------
Hmmm... I suppose I should have berated Bob et al. and repeatedly yelled "What planet are you from?"
What an unfortunate incident. The TSA Officer's approach at soliciting information relevant to the matter of attempting to establish a reasonable explanation of a traveler carrying a large sum of currency was completely ineffective. Further, the TSA Officer's language was unacceptable even in a formal interrogation setting (law enforcement or intelligence driven). However, the traveler did not mitigate the incident through compliance and reporting measures (although not an actual LEO, TSA Officers do have authority to inspect persons and property at designated locations). So the mindset should be similiar in complying and reporting your grievance after the fact (much like you would when experiencing an unlawful arrest or detention by an actual LEO). Otherwise, you put yourself into a situation were you aggravate the situation by adding suspicious evasiveness to the matter. Once you have established yourself as being evasive, what is any LEO or even trained Security Professional to assume = you are hiding something right? Here is where this incident could have been suppressed - TSA Officer exercises abusive language and unprofessionalism - Traveler continues recording, complies, offers reasonable explanation, is on his way to his flight - reports incident to proper authorities (TSA) - TSA Officer is disciplined/terminated - TSA assesses problematic area/addresses issue - No media fall out that taints the great service that the majority of TSA provides on an hourly basis around the country....Again too bad for all parties involved - TSA Officer bad techniques = bad experience for non-threat person.....yet Non-threat person = recording a conversation unknowningly to another party and being evasive to LEOs and Gov personnel = pretty shady on your part sir! What a mess.
I'm glad they are going to court. As we've seen in the past week or so, those who have a badge of authority are seeming to abuse that badge more and more.
Maybe a ruling aginst them will settle TSA's 'untouchable' attitude.
If anyone wants to hear the actual recording to help make up their own mind about the appropriateness of the questioning, you can hear it at
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/39922res20090618.html
It is not safe for children!
Yo, Bob,
I've been reading your posts and am wondering, now that this issue has been settled for over a year, when you are going to admit that the TSA settled this and agreed that the TSO had no authority to detain the person in question. TSA agreed that TSO's can only investigate items that pose a threat to aircraft security. TSA was forced to change their policy because of this incident and pending law suit.
When will that be posted?
Post a Comment