You have likely by now heard the story about a TSA employee who decided to play a joke on a passenger in Philadelphia. You can read the details of the passenger's unfortunate experience here.
TSA views this employee’s behavior to be highly inappropriate and unprofessional and as of today, the employee is no longer with TSA.
Incidents like this are a kick in the gut to our entire workforce who strive daily to do their best and keep the next attack from happening on their watch.
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
168 comments:
What is wrong with some people?
FIRST!
BTW, here is the ORIGINAL published story about this from a week earlier: michigandaily.com
Tom
This person should be held accountable in a court of law.
Incidents like these and many others are kicks in the gut to the many men and women of the traveling public who have to deal with clowns like this on a regular basis.
So Bob, can you explain why it was supposedly a test for contraband? White powders like that seem to fall outside the scope of the administrative search.
And of course, it also illustrates what people have been saying - if TSA folks and baggage handlers can take something OUT of a bag, they can put something IN the bag too.
Al
Yes, BB, please tell us when this man will be arraigned and what charges will be filed?
I'm kinda partial to 18 USC 1001 or better 18 USC 1951.
Well, that confirms it: the abusive thug in the St. Louis incident clearly wasn't fired, because it seems like the fabled "privacy laws" that Bob hid behind do allow the TSA to disclose that an employee isn't still on the job, but not whether he/she was fired or quit. Incredible.
Well, as a Michigan Grad, I'm pleased that it was a U of M student who was PunkeD' by the TSA.
Go Blue!
P.S. not the blue-shirt want to be cops in the TSA, M go Blue.
So, where are the Youtube videos of the incident this time, TSA? When some stupid blogger makes up stuff about the TSA, you post video here within hours, without any permission. Where's the hirez video of your employee tormenting an innocent passenger, planting the baggie and then waving it in her face and then laughing it off?
Sheesh.
Bob, what security threat to airplanes consists of a white powder? I thought the TSA wasn't in the law enforcement business.
I once went through a screening and after walking through the metal detector, the TSO manning the X-ray unzipped my bag to look for what he thought was a liquid. He did not do this in my presence. My guess this is standard operating procedure for the TSA and the contributed to this horrible incident.
Why wasn't individual arrested?
so now its OK to mention bombs on the plane as long as I end with "just joking..." ?
Riddle me this. If incidents like this are "a kick in the gut to our entire workforce", why didn't one of his co-workers stop him or turn him in?
I like the fact he was "disciplined" but not fired until the news story broke.
What kind of agency requires front page exposure before action is taken?
I guess Congressman Mica was right, the TSA needs adult supervision.
Ha my word verification is "mentor".
Please address the reports that this was said to be a part of some training exercise.
Was it?
Why were you training with fake drugs? Instead of things that would present a real threat.
Why on earth would a moderated blog allow lame stuff like "First" on the blog.
Mr. Moderator you further harm your blog and message.
So when is the name of this former TSO going to be released, and when will he face criminal charges?
My guess to both is "never". Time for everyone to call their federal elected representatives to demand accountability from this agency that considers themselves above the law.
Incidents like this are a kick in the gut to our entire workforce who strive daily to do their best and keep the next attack from happening on their watch.
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
.......................
TSA's best seems to be a very low hurdle to clear. Abuse of travelers should subject TSA employees to criminal charges.
The bigger issue is just what was this small quantity of white powder suppose to simulate? Is TSA training its employees in drug detection? Would this not fall outside of the limited Administrative Search that is limited to WEI?
I hope this case makes it to a court and some judge rescinds the authority of TSA to conduct Administrative Searches. It is clear that TSA cannot be trusted to limit the searches to purposes intended.
So if a passenger played a joke like this on a TSO then would the passenger now be facing legal charges? If so then why isn't the TSO facing charges as well?
Why was he testing for non WEI contraband? Why was he expanding the search into un Constitutional areas? What part of administrative search doesn't TSA understand?
You people haven't heard the last of Ms Solomon based on her dad's profession.
It's not a "kick in the gut." It's criminal and another example of you non-accountability and your complete disregard for the law of this land.
Al Ames said… “So Bob, can you explain why it was supposedly a test for contraband? White powders like that seem to fall outside the scope of the administrative search.”
What about this story would make you think this was an administrative search? Obviously this incident had NOTHING to do with searching for contraband; it had to do with a mean-spirited jerk looking for a few laughs. I hope he was terminated over this incident and that TSA didn’t allow him the dignity of quitting.
To fire this gentleman isn't enough.
We need Congressional hearings on why the TSA is permitted to continue its abusive policies; why screeners continue to abuse their power against normal citizens; why TSA agents cannot respect the flying public; why TSA agents insist upon screaming at passengers who put their shoes in bins instead of on the belt directly in one airport, while TSA agents scream at passengers for doing the opposite in another airport; why TSA agents seem insulted when you ask to speak to a supervisor to give him/her a comment on the less-than-happy screener who gave the passenger a very hard time.
"Do you want to fly today?" needs to be a thing of the past. Power-tripping screeners aren't qualified to work at your average restaurant, much less for such a critical role.
I can only hope this incident triggers several multi-million dollar lawsuits; maybe Congress will intervene to fix the colossal abuses that the flying public continues to endure.
Bob -- As you consider where to go from here, please tell us how all of these TSA employees, especially SPOTNik Jeanette, the other screeners, the plain-clothes sleuths and the gate gropers in this documentary: http://tinyurl.com/ybvr53g
are "keep[ing] the next attack from happening on their watch."
Well, this is what happens when you foster a "This is the TSA. We do what we want" attitude in your employees and your organization. Is it any surprise this sort of thing happens?
@Bob: "as of today, the employee is no longer with TSA."
Was he fired? Referred for prosecution? Are we back to pretending that we can't talk about disciplinary actions? You certainly seem to take that on a case by case basis depending on what is best in the eyes of your bosses in the PR office.
What would happen if a passenger did this to a TSA 'officer' or to a fellow passenger? I am guessing far more then this person..
So, TSA does search for drugs in spite of all the declarations that it does not happen.
this is yet another reason to avoid air travel to, or within, the U.S ...
I don't understand how privacy laws protect the identity of the TSA employee here. He should be subject to civil penalty for emotional distress, just as would apply to an officer of the law had this same offense occurred in the streets of any city or town in America. TSA and its employees should be held accountable to the same standards we demand of our police and other civil servants.
I wish I was more shocked than I am. I fly several times a year, although I am not a "frequent flyer" by any means. I plan far ahead to make sure I can get through security as easily as Clooney does in Up in the Air. I wear loafers, I have a carryon with a special quick-access slot for my laptop, I have all my coins and keys in my carryon, but it still creates an undue amount of stress.
The TSA folks seem almost pathologically inclined to want to separate me from my valuable items. I will NOT step through until my items go through the x-ray, nor will I send my items through until the way is clear for ME to step through. TSA agents sometimes get mad at me for wanting to keep an eye on my things. 52,000 laptops are lost or stolen in airports each year. I don't want mine to be one of them.
Now I have another reason to make sure my items don't leave my sight.
Another snafu, another post lacking an apology. TSA employee culture is pretty clearly toxic and unprofessional. You guys should go back to the white shirts, I think the faux-cop uniforms are giving your workforce delusions of grandeur.
Any comment on new evidence that your strip search machines do a lousy job finding bomb components?
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/german_tv_on_th.html
And we're supposed to trust you with naked pictures of ourselves?
This wasn't supposed to happen. What do you think is going to happen with other pranksters? There are what, 4000 TSA employees? No one else has a bad moral?
Notice also that this demented TSO is a trainer for other TSOs.
By the way, what is up with this disgraceful blog? It doesn't seem to be helping with public relations very much - what with all of it's ridiculous apologetics.
Dear Bob:
If he's claiming to be training other screeners to find contraband, and he's using a small white baggie of fine powder (intend to look like drugs, it sure sounds like the intent is to conduct searches for illegal drugs.
This sure seems to reach well beyond the limits of an administrative search into an unlawful (and unconstitutional) search for "illegal" items.
I could cut the agency a break if this were the first time it happened, but it's not. We've seen it with Fofana, we've seen the screeners engage in it with the Kip Hawley Is An Idiot baggie case, and we've clearly seen it here. I've personally been witness to the behavior at Washington Dulles where I saw a LEAD screener (according to his name badge) tell a passenger that he had "no rights to say anything to a screener and no first amendment rights". That same lead screener threatened to call the police to have them "interrogate the passenger for 2 hours to make sure that you miss your flight".
Bob, while you have some screeners that follow policy, you have a great number that overstep the limits of their authority. The agency really needs to deal with these folks on a regular basis, not just when they make headlines. From personal experience, I can tell you that you need not leave your own back yard - a visit to Dulles or BWI would show the abuses that happen every day. Newark is also particularly bad.
Given these cases, please tell us again how the agency isn't running a dragnet for possible criminals, and how it carefully limits itself in administrative searches.
I'm listening and watching.
A Freguent Traveler.
So a trainer (I assume a more experienced employee) can put contraband in a passenger's luggage? How many innocent people have been convicted on evidence planted by TSA?
What really scares me is that only one fellow passenger helped the poor woman. What have we become? With a little re-writing, this could be a movie scene of people being marched off to death camps.
Weep for the America that we knew.
She died.
I knew the TSA is a faild agency but this incident shows how bad the state really is.
Seriously, I thought that after the EWR incident all of your employees learned a lesson. But that doesn't seem to be the case.
By the way statement like this: "TSA views this employee’s behavior to be highly inappropriate and unprofessional and as of today, the employee is no longer with TSA." are a kick in the gut for any passenger. People get locked up for much smaller jokes when passengers joke about security and all you guys do is fire the person.
A TSA spokeswoman has said the former employee's identity cannot be revealed "to protect his privacy." I am at a loss as to why a traveler making a dumb joke will have his or her identity splashed across the national media but this man's identity is sacred. And if a traveler would be subject to arrest for joking, why isn't he? He terrorized this young woman. Why are we not entitled to justice when an agent of our government breaks the law?
Since when did the TSA start looking for "Contraband"? Lats time I checked narcotics could not bring down an aircraft. If they are training why would the TSA put this responsibility on the Screeners, as they are already having a hard enough time finding explosives. I don't care if it is a bag of weed the size of Chicago, it's not the TSA's job.
Things like this are completely unacceptable. Most of us enjoy a good joke, or laugh with coworkers or friends, this was not even remotely in that realm. This person should be charged under applicable laws (if the victim is willing to press charges). I really like that the agency published the info on this in a timely fashion, and that the local office took quick action to remedy this. Nice job TSA.
West
TSA Blog Team
The story then is that the TSA instructor was demonstrating how to plant evidence in a passenger's luggage? If this young woman was in a real sting she would be in prisoned without counsel, perhaps tortured now?
Can someone explain to me who the real terrorists are?
Al Ames said...
Incidents like these and many others are kicks in the gut to the many men and women of the traveling public who have to deal with clowns like this on a regular basis.
So Bob, can you explain why it was supposedly a test for contraband? White powders like that seem to fall outside the scope of the administrative search.
And of course, it also illustrates what people have been saying - if TSA folks and baggage handlers can take something OUT of a bag, they can put something IN the bag too.
Al
January 22, 2010 12:26 AM
------------------
First of all the article reads that when the women questioned the officers at the checkpoint they stated that the officer was part of the test team, not that he was performing a test. Secondly, white powder isn't just cocaine. There are many forms of high explosives that come in a white powder form, the christmas bomber used white powder in his explosive device.
This was completely unacceptable behavior by TSA. Just another reason why we need to get rid of the TSA and get real security, that actually makes us safer, and does not give the allusion of security.
What professionalism, Bob? The same professionalism that leads you to ignore a half-dozen posts asking for your supervisor's name and contact information to report your own gross misconduct and unprofessionalism? TSA is a pathetic joke.
That person should face the same criminal charges one of our dumped-on air travelers would face if he joked about carrying a bomb onboard. Security theater and $3 bottles of water FTW.
As a TSA Officer, I would like to publicly condemn this employee, and state how very glad I am that they are no longer working for this agency. People like this just hurt the image of all the TSA Officers who actually are professional and competent at their job, and I wish we could get rid of all of them. I do believe they are in the minority, but as we all know, the bad apples are the ones who make the news.
As a TSA employee, I am absolutely disgusted by this story. That an officer who use an unwilling and unknowing passenger as some sort of "test" is wrong on so many levels. That is not something we do (maybe he got the idea from an airport security story from Europe where a passenger unknowlingly carried some test matter through security there). What this officer did was not only a violation of public trust but also disrespectful to every hardworking, honest member of our workforce. Covert testing is a necessary and useful training aid - when done properly!
I apologize to this young woman on behalf of this idiot - no one should ever be subjected to this.
Al Ames said...
"So Bob, can you explain why it was supposedly a test for contraband? White powders like that seem to fall outside the scope of the administrative search."
I can tell you that powders are of interest to TSA for searching if need be. I can't tell you the specifics. Explosives can come in powder form as well.
I am really happy that this TSA employee is no longer employed. He has gotten what he deserves be in voluntary or not to be removed from federal service. I can assume what kind of position he held and to think that someone in his position would do such an act is demeaning. I use to think that if you hold a higher rank than just entry level you grow more professional but this just proves that mentality wrong.
Good thing the girl went through the proper channels to have this issue not repeat itself.
This blog is hilarious. So glad I found it.
I'm a TSO at Will Rogers in OKC and I find the actions of this employee completely inappropriate. I believe the TSA is quite flawed at the moment but i also believe we are improving. I appreciate all those who support us and empathize with those who feel we go too far with screening. Thank you.
p.s. Al Ames, powder explosives were the explosive of choice by Abdul Mudallad on Dec. 25. So yes white powders do fall in the scope of the administrative search.
Wait a minute. If the TSA is not allowed (or obliged) to tell us the true fate of this employee then how do we know that he was fired as they say he was? Couldn't they just tell us he was fired and then not fire him? Or rehire him? If they can do and say anything they want then they can do and say anything they want. No? I think it should just be assumed that he still works there until someone can PROVE that he does not.
I did not see where the post says anything about the agent being fired. Maybe they resigned?
I just want to say that this TSA employee's actions are demeaning as Anon has said. TSA is better off without this individual. I am happy swift action was taken. I sympathize for Rebecca and apologize that she had to endure this immature act.
This is a good case as to why it is important to raise concerns through the proper channels. Nothing can be done about issues unless you report it!
GSOLTSO said...
Things like this are completely unacceptable. Most of us enjoy a good joke, or laugh with coworkers or friends, this was not even remotely in that realm. This person should be charged under applicable laws (if the victim is willing to press charges). I really like that the agency published the info on this in a timely fashion, and that the local office took quick action to remedy this. Nice job TSA.
West
TSA Blog Team
January 22, 2010 10:39 AM
..............
TSA SHOULD PRESS CHARGES!
Jannis,
Please read the article before attacking. Right in the article:
"When she complained to airport security, Solomon said, she was told the TSA worker had been training the staff to detect contraband. She was shocked that no one took him off the floor, she said."
Al
JBottoms said...
I'm a TSO at Will Rogers in OKC and I find the actions of this employee completely inappropriate. I believe the TSA is quite flawed at the moment but i also believe we are improving. I appreciate all those who support us and empathize with those who feel we go too far with screening. Thank you.
p.s. Al Ames, powder explosives were the explosive of choice by Abdul Mudallad on Dec. 25. So yes white powders do fall in the scope of the administrative search.
January 22, 2010 12:21 PM
............
Not al Ames, but the powder was contained in a plastic envelope like one would find holding ear rings. In other words a very small bag.
This size would be much more likely to contain drugs, not explosives.
Face it, TSA is apparently training its employees in drug detection which does fall outside the scope of the Administrative Search that TSA is permitted to conduct.
If this training was limited to this one airport then that FSD should be brought up on charges, if this is going on at all airports then the acting head of TSA should be brought up on charges.
The issue here is much larger than the one TSO screwing up, it is a clear indication that TSA is acting outside the law.
"TSA SHOULD PRESS CHARGES!"
---------
The federal government can sue itself?
RB sez - "TSA SHOULD PRESS CHARGES!"
If TSA can do so without the victim testifying, I agree. If the case would hinge on the testimony of the victim, that is her choice. If she chooses to bring charges, more power to her and I hope she gets a conviction. If she chooses not to file charges, then that is entirely within her right. I am certain that we have not heard the last of this incident.
West
TSA Blog Team
RB also sez - "Not al Ames, but the powder was contained in a plastic envelope like one would find holding ear rings. In other words a very small bag.
This size would be much more likely to contain drugs, not explosives.
Face it, TSA is apparently training its employees in drug detection which does fall outside the scope of the Administrative Search that TSA is permitted to conduct.
If this training was limited to this one airport then that FSD should be brought up on charges, if this is going on at all airports then the acting head of TSA should be brought up on charges.
The issue here is much larger than the one TSO screwing up, it is a clear indication that TSA is acting outside the law."
A small amount of explosive can be damaging as well. The amount doesn't relaly matter, if it is more than a couple of teaspoons worth, then it bears checking.
This is not an indication that we are trained to look for contraband, quite the contrary - it is only reported if found while clearing a possible threat.
TSA has never trained myself to look specifically for contraband, I have never been sent on a bag check for such items, nor have I ever sent anyone for a bag check based on "contraband". The TSOs perform a bag check to clear possible threats only. If contraband is found while trying to clear that possible threat, then further action is warranted.
If passengers do not want "contraband items" to be found, the best bet is not to stick them in a bag that is subject to be searched upon entry. This is not an indication of training to look for contraband, it is the same rule that has been in place since bfore I came to work for TSA.
West
TSA Blog Team
I think people are complaining way too much. Would you rather your plane get blown up by a cocaine crazed freedom hater or would you rather have to deal with occasional, mostly harmless mistakes? Get over it. It's a different world now since 9/11.
I am wondering what this white powder was. TSA does not look for drugs, nor are we tested to look for drugs. When learning what explosives look like I know that there is a crystalized white explosive that I have seen. Maybe that is what it was? So don't start asking if we train to look for drugs, cause we do not!!!!
And by the way.... This incident has nothing to do with the TSA. It has to do with one ignorant employee that does not know when something is not funny!
Oh yes, the "9/11 justifies everything excuse." :rolleyes:
No thanks, Anonymous. Cocaine's not going to bring my plane down.
TSA can't even do its core mission of finding WEI well. It doesn't need to expand that and do both "jobs" even worse.
Earl
Incidents like this are inevitable when you reward your workforce for finding non weapons, explosives, or incendiaries.
It's a kick in the gut that it make headlines. Some of your entire workforce (those officers involved) thought it was acceptable.
So I guess that pointing out that the best your workforce can strive for is merely diverting the "next attack" into the checkpoint is somehow either SSI or not respectful.
RB said...
JBottoms said...
I'm a TSO at Will Rogers in OKC and I find the actions of this employee completely inappropriate. I believe the TSA is quite flawed at the moment but i also believe we are improving. I appreciate all those who support us and empathize with those who feel we go too far with screening. Thank you.
p.s. Al Ames, powder explosives were the explosive of choice by Abdul Mudallad on Dec. 25. So yes white powders do fall in the scope of the administrative search.
January 22, 2010 12:21 PM
............
Not al Ames, but the powder was contained in a plastic envelope like one would find holding ear rings. In other words a very small bag.
This size would be much more likely to contain drugs, not explosives.
Face it, TSA is apparently training its employees in drug detection which does fall outside the scope of the Administrative Search that TSA is permitted to conduct.
If this training was limited to this one airport then that FSD should be brought up on charges, if this is going on at all airports then the acting head of TSA should be brought up on charges.
The issue here is much larger than the one TSO screwing up, it is a clear indication that TSA is acting outside the law.
--------------
So what your saying is that any white powder in a bag in your luggage could be considered cocaine? It couldn't be considered foot powder, baby powder, powdered milk, or maybe even flour or sugar? I have seen stranger ways of packing things trust me. So if a bad guy wanted to bring say powdered explosives onto a plane how would he do it? He couldn't possibly place it in a bag like other people place their legal/illegal white powders in could he? I am sure there are at least 10 different forms of high explosives that come in a white powder form and only one kind of drug that comes in a white powder form so what do you think officers trained in finding bombs is going to believe a baggy of white powder substance hidden in a bag on an airplane is going to be?
Terrorist use drugs to make money to fund their operations. (I saw this on a superbowl commercial.) So why have a problem with TSA searching you for drugs? Freedom isn't free, people.
GSOLTSO wrote: "I really like that the agency published the info on this in a timely fashion, and that the local office took quick action to remedy this. Nice job TSA." (emphasis mine)
LOL... Timely fashion? It hid behind privacy laws, and all it published was: "the employee in question has been disciplined" and after this started picking up steam in the blogosphere it said: "well, the employee isn't with TSA anymore."
Where is the press release that the TSA made as soon as it was made aware of this incident, to notify the public that this happened and it's being investigated?
Where is the press release that the TSA made when its investigation was complete?
Why didn't any of the other TSA personnel on scene not immediately react? Were any of them disciplined?
Why didn't this person get immediately taken off the line? Did he do this to anyone else?
Why hasn't the video of this incident been released? You didn't have a problem releasing video in other cases, when you felt in vindicated you?
And why does it seem that time and time again, TSA fails to follow proper hiring practices to weed out the bad apples and then employ proper training to ensure that these incidents are caught before a member of the flying public has to be harassed in this fashion?
With so many pax carrying powder in their carryons or checked baggage, the excuse that this was a test for powdered explosives fails to carry any weight.
If this was part of a poorly thought-out training exercise (at NO time should unknowing pax ever be used for training purposes), it was a test to see if a screener could find a baggie of drugs.
I would like to say as a TSO this incident is just terrible. Why someone would think what that officer was thinking is just beyond me. I feel terrible for Rebecca Solomon and hate that one of our officers did that to her. I am very relieved he no longer works for TSA. I believe he should have been removed from the checkpoint immediately but, proper process had to be followed and the supervisors needed to find out what happened before they could take action. I hope this is a strong reminder to any other TSO's that entertain thoughts of harassing passengers that TSA will not stand for it.
RB sez - "TSA SHOULD PRESS CHARGES!"
If TSA can do so without the victim testifying, I agree. If the case would hinge on the testimony of the victim, that is her choice. If she chooses to bring charges, more power to her and I hope she gets a conviction. If she chooses not to file charges, then that is entirely within her right. I am certain that we have not heard the last of this incident.
West
TSA Blog Team
-------------------
There is no need for the federal government to sue itself. It can levy civil penalties against the Training ex-TSA O. Just like it does to passengers that make bomb jokes. Then its up the the ALJ to make a final determination if the fine is appealed.
What is more important, the agent with malicious intent violated felony provisions of several United States Laws and did it within the color of his authority. There is ample evidence of this, and certainly probable cause for him to be indicted by a Federal Grand Jury and bound over for prosecution.
There is no need for the young woman to press or prefer charges. He has violated a law, which actually increases the penalty in transportation security cases and thereby used this to intimidate and otherwise hinder and detain a citizen from going about their lawful business. In the process, he has demonstrated to every other TSA agent how easy it is to do the same.
How can we know for sure that another one of these "jokers" won't take a camera or camera phone into the room that has the nude-o-scope?
We can't trust you guys.
Back when this blog first started a regular poster suggested (might have been TK) a "Secret Shopper" like program to monitor TSA checkpoints.
Of course since the suggestion came from the public the idea was completely ignored.
If there was such a program in place perhaps some of the embarassing incidents of late would have been caught before getting splashed in the media all over the country.
As it is TSA is certainly having problems and seems incapable of managing its human resources.
Perhaps one of your more forward thinking employees will take the idea and run with it.
"And by the way.... This incident has nothing to do with the TSA. It has to do with one ignorant employee that does not know when something is not funny!"
It has everything to do with TSA and the culture that TSA fosters. The training, management, hiring standards and workplace ethics are all part of that culture. This was one very stupid act by one person, buy it reflects everything that TSA brings to the security arena.
avxo said...
GSOLTSO wrote: "I really like that the agency published the info on this in a timely fashion, and that the local office took quick action to remedy this. Nice job TSA." (emphasis mine)
LOL... Timely fashion? It hid behind privacy laws, and all it published was: "the employee in question has been disciplined" and after this started picking up steam in the blogosphere it said: "well, the employee isn't with TSA anymore."
Where is the press release that the TSA made as soon as it was made aware of this incident, to notify the public that this happened and it's being investigated?
Where is the press release that the TSA made when its investigation was complete?
Why didn't any of the other TSA personnel on scene not immediately react? Were any of them disciplined?
Why didn't this person get immediately taken off the line? Did he do this to anyone else?
Why hasn't the video of this incident been released? You didn't have a problem releasing video in other cases, when you felt in vindicated you?
And why does it seem that time and time again, TSA fails to follow proper hiring practices to weed out the bad apples and then employ proper training to ensure that these incidents are caught before a member of the flying public has to be harassed in this fashion?
January 22, 2010 3:21 PM
.............................
Where was the checkpoint manager and supervisor while these shenanigans were going on?
Seems to me that managers hold at least equal responsibility when people under their direct supervision are goofing off.
Seems like some demotions are in order for the people on that checkpoint.
GaryD, because TSA is NOT a law enforcement agency and they get to look in a bag that law enforcement not under normal circumstances because they are conducting a LIMITED (an important keyword) search to look for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries. They are not law enforcement, nor should they be operating a dragnet on behalf of LE.
If terrorists are using drugs for funding, that's a fight for customs (if coming into the country), the DEA, FBI, and intelligence services to track that down and cut that off if legally permissible. It is NOT TSA's job to look for anything tangential to terrorism as that is NOT their mission.
Their mission is to prevent WEI from getting on a plane. No more (not that that hasn't stopped them from trying to add to that though).
I really hope your "I saw that in a superbowl commercial" statement was a joke ...
Al
"If passengers do not want "contraband items" to be found, the best bet is not to stick them in a bag that is subject to be searched upon entry."
Are all white powders contraband?
Foot powder?
If so, TSO all over the country are doing a lousy job.
Anon is right. TSA can and will open a case on this individual. I am certain that at the very least, they will level civil penalties, if not criminal charges.
TSA has an obligation to see everything through regardless of who the subject is. Regulatory Investigators, probably from HQ will be, or are at Philly now. In many of these high profile cases, the local team is only there to assist the teams from HQ.
In any case, whomever is investigating, it is being investigated.
"GSOLTSO said...
Things like this are completely unacceptable."
Ok, we agree on that one.
"Most of us enjoy a good joke, or laugh with coworkers or friends, this was not even remotely in that realm."
Not true. You guys explicitly say, to NOT joke since that will lead to charges.
"I really like that the agency published the info on this in a timely fashion, and that the local office took quick action to remedy this. Nice job TSA."
If that's not sarcastic, then you are either willfully lying or you are not getting it: there was no action taking until extensive follow-up from the victim.
Only news coverage triggered your blog post and the worst of all: colleagues and the supervisor of the criminal didn't find his behavior offensive at all (no action taken until follow up). The TSA should be ashamed of itself.
RB said...
Back when this blog first started a regular poster suggested (might have been TK) a "Secret Shopper" like program to monitor TSA checkpoints.
Of course since the suggestion came from the public the idea was completely ignored.
If there was such a program in place perhaps some of the embarassing incidents of late would have been caught before getting splashed in the media all over the country.
As it is TSA is certainly having problems and seems incapable of managing its human resources.
Perhaps one of your more forward thinking employees will take the idea and run with it.
January 22, 2010 4:24 PM
---------------
Any idea how many "Secret Shoppers" that would take to be affective? TSA would have to create an entire new work force, but I believe TSA already has something like that hidden in the jobs of TSI's and red team members.
avxo sez - "LOL... Timely fashion? It hid behind privacy laws, and all it published was: "the employee in question has been disciplined" and after this started picking up steam in the blogosphere it said: "well, the employee isn't with TSA anymore."
Where is the press release that the TSA made as soon as it was made aware of this incident, to notify the public that this happened and it's being investigated?
Where is the press release that the TSA made when its investigation was complete?
Why didn't any of the other TSA personnel on scene not immediately react? Were any of them disciplined?
Why didn't this person get immediately taken off the line? Did he do this to anyone else?
Why hasn't the video of this incident been released? You didn't have a problem releasing video in other cases, when you felt in vindicated you?
And why does it seem that time and time again, TSA fails to follow proper hiring practices to weed out the bad apples and then employ proper training to ensure that these incidents are caught before a member of the flying public has to be harassed in this fashion?"
Considering the privacy regulations and the short period of time between the incident and the blog post, I consider this extremely timely for a federal agency. They posted the basics, gave a link to information about the incident, and then included that the person is no longer in the employ of the agency.
TSA can not comment on ongoing investigations, or the personnel involved in them.
I have no information on what the people around this knucklehead did or did not do when this went on. I have no information on what happened to them since. I will tell you that if anyone ever did something this stupid in a checkpoint where I was, I personally would have helped the passengr fill out a complaint and would have had a manager on scene to speak to them and the employee. Just my personal opinion on what should have happened.
I have nothing on what happened to this person or how long they were on the line or even if they were an employee on the line.
Did you stop to think that maybe a criminal case is being pursued and the video can't be released yet? Maybe the agency is not releaseing the video because the person that did this stupid act can't be released by TSA unless they obtain permission from the person. There are a lot of things that can effect the release of videos, photos, audio recordings, etc.
I like your idea of more training, better training and removing bad apples, this is all very easy in theory, but applying it to a workforce of 45K or more is difficult at best. I am a big fan of accepting responsibility for your actions, and consistency in the workforce.
Do you have some suggestions for the process that you can post here to show what you mean (best practices, etc)? (sarc off)
West
TSA Blog Team
Anon sez - "There is no need for the federal government to sue itself. It can levy civil penalties against the Training ex-TSA O. Just like it does to passengers that make bomb jokes. Then its up the the ALJ to make a final determination if the fine is appealed.
What is more important, the agent with malicious intent violated felony provisions of several United States Laws and did it within the color of his authority. There is ample evidence of this, and certainly probable cause for him to be indicted by a Federal Grand Jury and bound over for prosecution.
There is no need for the young woman to press or prefer charges. He has violated a law, which actually increases the penalty in transportation security cases and thereby used this to intimidate and otherwise hinder and detain a citizen from going about their lawful business. In the process, he has demonstrated to every other TSA agent how easy it is to do the same."
Wow, Anon went all lawyer on me ya'll! I will abide by your statements if they are indeed correct. I will have to defer to the Legal Eagles at HQ, as I am not well versed enough in fed codes to say yes or no on what you posted here. It sounds good, but legalese can make many things sound good, so, if the legal team pursue this, then I am all for it and say throw the book at em Dano.
West
TSA Blog Team
To the TSOs who witness one of their coworkers abusing passengers and do nothing (i.e. reporting them to a supervisor, talking to them, etc), you help foster the conditions that led to this incident. Either self police yourselves or Congress will mandate an oversight review of your agency.
What Congress created with a stroke of the pen can be undone with just another stroke of the pen.
At January 22, 2010 3:34 PM TSOWilliamReed said...
". . . I hope this is a strong reminder to any other TSO's that entertain thoughts of harassing passengers that TSA will not stand for it."
That's got to be the funniest thing I've ever read on this blog. I know you couldn't have typed that with a straight face.
T-the-B at flyertalk
Perhaps this was one TSO's attempt to change the unsympathetic reputation of the agency to that of a more grippingly jokey one?
All kiding aside, this sounds like one pathetic attempt of flattery by a dim-witted security officer. He probably thought the passenger was "cute" and attempted to court her by flexing his stupidity, a technique commonly used by dateless loosers. The timing (a week or two after the "Christmas Bomber"), execution, and location (a federal security checkpoint) was so backwards thinking, it's no surprise he should work for such an outstanding agency as the TSA (please note my copious amount of sarcasm). Attempting a cover-up explination of this situation as "a contraband training exercise" is the actual joke of it all, and is what made me truly laugh.
Keep up the great work TSA...
It is now clear that according to your interpretation of relevant privacy laws, you are alloweds to indicate that an employee is no longer working for you organization. So it shouldn't be too hard for you to confirm that the TSO in St. Louis who not only verbally abused a law-abiding passenger but was also clearly ignorant of the very existence of the Fourth and Fifth Ammendments to the Unite Stqates Constitution also no longer is employed by your agency. You did fire him, didn't you?
First off, I certainly would not have allowed one of my coworkers to get away with the kind of garbage that the guy in Philly was doing. When this story came up my coworkers and I were disgusted that anyone would have thought it was OK to play such an unprofessional joke.
Secondly, TSA does not search for drugs. Occasionally we come across drugs but we are not looking for them. The substance in the baggie could have been the creamer for his coffee and had nothing to do with training TSOs. It also could have been a training representative of a powdered explosive. Either way TSA does not train its officers to look for drugs.
Hey Al, The point is that this TSA guy was not using the bag of powder as a training tool when he pulled it out and was messing with the female passenger. He was attempting to play some kind of joke. Honestly it sounds more like he is a second grader who punches the girl on the playground because he thinks she is cute. This in no way makes this situation okay, as I said I am glad he no longer works for TSA.
I work in Philadelphia, and I am appalled that one of my co-workers would make such a "joke". I never thought that someone within my own group would do such a thing, but apparently, there is indeed one in every crowd. That this happened in the airport that I work in is bad enough, I'm certainly glad that it did not happen on my checkpoint though.
TSA procedures do not allow TSA to use random passengers as test subjects. We are not allowed to place test items into passengers bags. When we conduct our testing we must use TSA employees or in certain cases other federal employee and the test must be conducted in a specific manner in order to ensure that the general public is never able to access our testing supplies.
Unlike liquid explosives powdered explosives have different characteristics then the average powders that passengers carry. When we determine a powder is demonstrating any of these characteristics then we can conduct additional testing to determine if the item poses a threat or not. Even though we occasionally discover drugs TSA does not search for drugs, nor do we have any testing equipment that will test for drugs.
http://www.woai.com/news/local/story/Airports-metal-detector-zaps-mans-medical-implant/544kp7GCx0mlUeuSbMYlSQ.cspx
"For the thousands of people who have implanted medical devices, going through airport security machines can be dangerous. That is the reason why their doctors usually tell them to ask to be 'wanded' or 'patted down' instead.
But Donny Tyler told the News 4 WOAI Trouble Shooters said when he asked to be wanded or patted down instead, screeners at the San Antonio International Airport refused."
..............................
Bob, want to try explaining why TSA employees are playing doctor at the checkpoints now?
You know if we had a standardized set of rules travelers could refer to then these kind of things could be resolved before going national in the news.
Once again TSA looks like the most incompetent agency with the worst available leadership imaginable.
What's it going to take to bring order to TSA, killing some hapless traveler?
@LTSO wrote:
"This is a good case as to why it is important to raise concerns through the proper channels. Nothing can be done about issues unless you report it!"
The only reason this case got the results it did is because the victim went public and it was more bad press for the agency. Had it been reported through regular channels, it would have been ignored or swept under the carpet.
This is why we have a free press and freedom of speech (despite the TSOs and LTSOs that don't seem to think so).
Kudos to Rebecca for having the courage to step forward and publicize this. Most Americans - and most TSA employees - don't have that kind of courage.
Bob, would you care to comment on this comment to the original story on philly.com?
----
TSA employee
I'm a TSA employee and do this all the time. Most people are good natured about it and just walk away. You people really need to lighten up, stuff like this really helps bring up the work atmosphere, you don't know what its like down in those trenches.
So, since TSA specifically has signs up at many screening locations indicating that jokes are "taken seriously", than this clown should be treated as a citizen would have been. Making terrorist threats or similar? Why isn't he figuratively strung up like you people do all the the time to hapless citizens?
I am curious as to why the videotape of this incident hasn't been released when usually the TSA is quick to release videos which absolves itself. You can block out the TSA Screener's face since privacy is an issue
Incidents like this are a kick in the gut to our entire workforce who strive daily to do their best and keep the next attack from happening on their watch.
Nonsense! This sort of happening is a regular occurrance now. The only reason this is exceptional is that it is so egregious that the TSA couldn't find a way to say that it was somebody else's fault.
But of course this is the same agency whose chief said, after the Christmas Day bomb attempt, that "the system worked".
TSA are the new terrorists.
We-- Americans who use air travel-- have every reason to fear TSA more than any foreign terrorist.
Sandra wrote:
"With so many pax carrying powder in their carryons or checked baggage, the excuse that this was a test for powdered explosives fails to carry any weight.
If this was part of a poorly thought-out training exercise (at NO time should unknowing pax ever be used for training purposes), it was a test to see if a screener could find a baggie of drugs."
I'm afraid I don't follow the logic here. The fact that many people carry powders means that it couldn't have been a test for powder explosives? Isn't TATP (the number one homemade explosive) a powder? Wait, don't do testing for that; people carry alot of powders. Huh??
Anonymous said...
Wait a minute. If the TSA is not allowed (or obliged) to tell us the true fate of this employee then how do we know that he was fired as they say he was? Couldn't they just tell us he was fired and then not fire him? Or rehire him? If they can do and say anything they want then they can do and say anything they want. No? I think it should just be assumed that he still works there until someone can PROVE that he does not.
January 22, 2010 12:27 PM
HI, you must be new here. Heres a thought for you; Why would TSA want to keep this clown? Hes caused a media firestorm and has shined a negative light on TSA and its employees. There is absolutely no reason to retain him, hes gone. Surely theres something serious you can write about.
PS. guess that revised movie reference for 10 points.
The bigger issue is just what was this small quantity of white powder suppose to simulate? Is TSA training its employees in drug detection?
No RB, Once again you've missed the mark. TSA is training on detecting.... powdered explosives. so close, yet so faaarrrrr away. Better luck next time bro.
I wonder if this is the same clown who announced seven months ago at PHL that because of a machine malfunction, those of us wearing sneakers would have to go to a different terminal to be screened. Then he yelled out "Just kidding!"
When you say "no longer with the TSA" that leaves several options open. He could have been fired, or put on unpaid leave pending internal investigation, or put on paid leave pending internal investigation, or transferred to another department within the DHS, or transferred to the DEA since he's so good at hunting for drugs.
As mentioned by one blogger, if this is not some kind of training gone bad, then a serious psychiatric evaluation of this individual will save him and his family further trouble.
Anon sez - ""GSOLTSO said...
Things like this are completely unacceptable."
Ok, we agree on that one.
"Most of us enjoy a good joke, or laugh with coworkers or friends, this was not even remotely in that realm."
Not true. You guys explicitly say, to NOT joke since that will lead to charges.
"I really like that the agency published the info on this in a timely fashion, and that the local office took quick action to remedy this. Nice job TSA."
If that's not sarcastic, then you are either willfully lying or you are not getting it: there was no action taking until extensive follow-up from the victim.
Only news coverage triggered your blog post and the worst of all: colleagues and the supervisor of the criminal didn't find his behavior offensive at all (no action taken until follow up). The TSA should be ashamed of itself."
Will wonders never cease, we actually agreed on something!
What I was indicating with my personal joke comment was the fact that most of us will joke or tell humorous stories with family friends and coworkers. Not that it was done in the checkpoint or around passengers.
I personally think there is nothing wrong with talking to the passengers and smiling and being polite and helping them. Joking with passengers is not a good thing, especially when it is a stupid act like this.
The comment on timely was not sarcastic in the least, considering the relatively short period of time between the incident and the blog post, it was almost as fast as lightening. Remember the agency can't make any comment about ongoing investigations, or disciplinary actions other than the basics (yes there is an investigation, the person is no longer an employee, etc).
I honestly think one of his coworks there should have been on the spot and rebuked him openly, then taken it to the STSO (and we do not know that this didn't happen, all of the details are not out there for review and the info is decidedly one sided - meaning we don't have info on what actually happened after this incident). That being said, the agency has moved fairly quickly and removed said employee. I am happy with the actions of the agency at this point.
West
TSA Blog Team
Anonymous said...
The bigger issue is just what was this small quantity of white powder suppose to simulate? Is TSA training its employees in drug detection?
No RB, Once again you've missed the mark. TSA is training on detecting.... powdered explosives. so close, yet so faaarrrrr away. Better luck next time bro.
January 24, 2010 6:14 PM
...................
And why should I believe you Anon?
TSOWilliamReed said...
RB said...
Back when this blog first started a regular poster suggested (might have been TK) a "Secret Shopper" like program to monitor TSA checkpoints.
---------------
Any idea how many "Secret Shoppers" that would take to be affective? TSA would have to create an entire new work force, but I believe TSA already has something like that hidden in the jobs of TSI's and red team members.
January 22, 2010 6:41 PM
.....................
Certainly no more than the wasted use of manpower TSA is currently engage in with the additional Gate Sceenings, Gate Stare Downs, and Checking Liquids of people inside the sterile area. Then the useless BDO employees could be put to effective use also.
Tell me, just how many terrorist has TSA caught? You can't count the 8 year old on the Watch List.
Anonymous said...
What professionalism, Bob? The same professionalism that leads you to ignore a half-dozen posts asking for your supervisor's name and contact information to report your own gross misconduct and unprofessionalism? TSA is a pathetic joke.
January 22, 2010 11:15 AM
......................
You could refer your concerns to the TSA OIG but I doubt you will get a response.
They also think TSA is above the law!
[3rd submission attempt; removing link to FOIA-obtained & widely-published OD-400-54-2 on FlyerTalk]
This serves as a reminder that TSA staff are using the special permission to perform warrantless searches of people and their belongings for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries that Congress granted them to do not only that, but also conduct a fishing expedition. They say they're only looking for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, but their operating procedures (TSA Operations Directive OD-400-54-2) require bag examiners to report finding contraband, which is defined by them as including "illegal drugs", "drug paraphernalia", and "large amounts of cash".
There's a discussion of this happening now on FlyerTalk Forums, where we're awaiting a response from "TSO Ron" to the following question:
Following are two procedures. The first is what seems to be used by TSA now at airport checkpoints where passengers and their belongings are searched. The second is hypothetical. I'd like to know what, if any, difference in the effect of performing each these two procedures [Ron believes] there to be. Consider, for instance, how the actions of the person(s) performing the search would vary depending on which of the two procedures he/she/they performed, a) when something that looks like a weapon is found, b) when something that looks like illegal drugs are found, c) when something that looks like a travel pillow is found, and d) when something that looks like evidence of burglary and transportation of stolen goods is found:
1. TSA staff examine the content of someone's bag using an X-ray machine and/or their hands and naked eyes. They claim to be "looking for" weapons, explosives, and incendiaries. If they see something that looks like a weapon, explosive, or incendiary (things for which they are looking) or something that looks like an illegal drug (something which they consider incidental to the search) they must contact a supervisor.
2. TSA staff examine the content of someone's bag using an X-ray machine and/or their hands and naked eyes. They claim to be "looking for" weapons, explosives, incendiaries, and illegal drugs. If they see something that looks like a weapon, explosive, incendiary, or illegal drug (things for which they are looking) they must contact a supervisor.
Other than what TSA staff claim to be searching for, is there a difference between each of those two procedures? It seems to me that in effect, they are the same.
Ron hasn't answered yet. Can anyone else describe the difference between 1) saying you're searching for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, while keeping an eye out for drugs, drugs paraphernalia, and large sums of cash, and ignoring everything else, and 2) saying you're searching for for weapons, explosives, incendiaries, drugs, drug paraphernalia, and large sums of cash, while ignoring everything else?
Remember, it doesn't seem to be the case that TSA staff are to report any likely indication of wrongdoing they discover while searching us and our belongings, only that they are to report certain things, and that those things include not only weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, but also drugs, drug paraphernalia, and large sums of cash.
TSA: Congress did not authorize you to search us for anything you care to search for, only for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries. Taking that opportunity to search for anything you find interesting might result in you catching more people who have violated the law, but so would stopping everyone on the street to search them for any indication of wrongdoing, and our courts have established that such dragnets are unconstitutional. You make us less free. Why do you hate our freedom?
--
Phil
Arrested at ABQ TSA checkpoint November 15, 2009. Google it.
Annon said...
I am wondering what this white powder was. TSA does not look for drugs, nor are we tested to look for drugs. When learning what explosives look like I know that there is a crystalized white explosive that I have seen. Maybe that is what it was? So don't start asking if we train to look for drugs, cause we do not!!!!
And by the way.... This incident has nothing to do with the TSA. It has to do with one ignorant employee that does not know when something is not funny!
January 22, 2010 2:33 PM
Here's the measure I'd use when evaluating the TSA and their search for very small baggies of white powder. Do they call the Bomb Squad or the local PD?
The TSA casts a wide net in my opinion.
P.S. Thanks to the TSO at OMA who confiscated a souvenir mini-hockey stick Sunday Jan 14 @ apx. 9:30 am. Your authoritarian "I am the rules" statement clearly demonstrates the arrogance of your agency.
And then you wonder why we don't want you taking naked pictures of our children. Disgusting.
Again, please confirm that the TSO involved in the St. Louis incident is no longer employed by the TSA.
If the TSA really believed that packages of white powders found at checkpoints were, indeed, explosives, then there would be a resident bomb squad team stationed at each checkpoint.
TSA is searching for drugs.
GSOLTSO, first of all thanks for your response.
You say that 'turnaround' in this case was surprisingly swift for a federal government agency. While that may be the case, the fact is that this turnaround didn't happen until after the story started receiving a lot of bad publicity. So it reeks of "damage control" PR.
GSOLTSO, you say: "I like your idea of more training, better training and removing bad apples, this is all very easy in theory, but applying it to a workforce of 45K or more is difficult at best. I am a big fan of accepting responsibility for your actions, and consistency in the workforce."
A regulation that says: "if you notice an employee doing something inappropriate, report it immediately both to the checkpoint manager and to headquarters directly" would be a good start.
Recording of video from the checkpoints and streaming it to remote locations, where it cannot be tampered with would be another good idea.
Publishing a solid set of rules as to what TSOs can and cannot do would be a good idea as well. You don't have to be afraid of an informed public if you don't do anything in violation of those regulations.
Have TSA/DHS personnel go through checkpoints as travelers, and ensure the compliance of screeners with current TSA regulations.
Have other Federal personnel fill out a form after they travel to report on their experience at the checkpoint.
Most fearsome option of all, hand out comment cards to passengers at random, asking a few "1 to 10, 10 being best" questions and including a short free-form field. Include a postage-paid envelope addressed directly to HQ.
And, finally, accept responsibility for once. Don't push things off to bad apples, airlines, solar flares and broken flux capacitors.
The TSA should have stepped in right away and said: "This guy in PA messed up. And as a consequence, we, as an agency, have failed by letting the flying public down. We apologize, and we will strive to do better in the future."
Instead we get nonsense like: "no children are on the lists" and "airline agents can deselect children."
We get nonsense that boils down to: "no children are on the lists, because only names are on the list and names are not children."
And, GSOLTSO, you continue: "Do you have some suggestions for the process that you can post here to show what you mean (best practices, etc)? (sarc off)"
I just gave you some. But isn't it a sad state of affairs when the very-well-paid staff on the "public relations" and "security" payrolls of TSA/DHS can't come up with some of those ideas?
Anonymous said...
Yes, BB, please tell us when this man will be arraigned and what charges will be filed?
I'm kinda partial to 18 USC 1001 or better 18 USC 1951.
January 22, 2010 12:55 AM
Unrelated to the rest of the justified statements, I'd have to say that the quoted poster is quite misninformed. Neither of the charges would apply in this situation. Keep trying.
And why should I believe you Anon?
January 25, 2010 11:24 AM
RB, Do you honestly look yourself in the mirror every night and tell yourself that anything you do on this blog is constructive? You're just trying to trash on the TSA further (which doesnt need your help atm) without giving solutions to the problems. So a few TSO's screw up in about the worst way possible. Its happens, and there are consequences for their actions. Im sure you mess up from time to time as well...
I'm not telling you to believe me, but use your brain for heavens sake. The gov't wants people to keep flying; safely. I dont agree with the much of what TSA is doing, but its the best we got atm. Enough with the tin hat attitude please. Live long and fly
Riddle me this. If incidents like this are "a kick in the gut to our entire workforce", why didn't one of his co-workers stop him or turn him in?
I like the fact he was "disciplined" but not fired until the news story broke.
What kind of agency requires front page exposure before action is taken?
I guess Congressman Mica was right, the TSA needs adult supervision.
***********************************
Trollkiller....why do you assume the employee was only fired after the news broke when you have no idea if that's true? Disciplinary action takes time unfortunately...there's a process that has to take place before someone can be removed from his/her job. Don't be so cynical...in this case, you're completely off base.
For those of you with questions about the powders and why we have concerns about them, start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_material
For all those saying TSA is not looking for white powder explosives here is a very educational video from cnn with the same explosives expert that also tested the liquid explosive tang bomb.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2009/12/28/robertson.uk.bomber.petn.cnn?iref=videosearch
__________________________________
Various TSO's said...
"The TSA does not search for drugs"
__________________________________
Really?
Hot off the press.
http://www.indystar.com/article/20100126/NEWS02/1260383/TSA-finds-marijuana-in-luggage
A man was arrested at an Indianapolis International Airport checkpoint carrying 20 grams of marijuana and $5,100 in cash, police said.
The arrest happened at 4:05 p.m. Monday when a Transportation Security Administration employee inspected the bag of ____ ______, 52, Camby, according to an Airport Police report.
The employee found what police said was 20 grams of marijuana in a glass jar in a shaving kit. Also in the kit was $4,000. Police found another $1,100 in Turner's pants pocket.
Police charged Turner preliminarily with possession of marijuana, a misdemeanor, and took him to the Marion County Jail.
Anonymous said...
Yes, BB, please tell us when this man will be arraigned and what charges will be filed?
I'm kinda partial to 18 USC 1001 or better 18 USC 1951.
January 22, 2010 12:55 AM
**********************************
I am a TSO; this employee should be fired, and held accountable in a court of law.
But why ask Bob or TSA to do this? Doesnt the local DA, or Justice Department handle charging people with crimes? Shouldn't we ask those agencies to do something about this?
TSA is searching for drugs."
Not really, but if they happen to come across them, you get what you deserve because drugs are illegal.
Powdered explosives have different characteristics then the average powders that passengers carry. When we determine a powder is demonstrating any of these characteristics then we can conduct additional testing to determine if the item poses an actual threat or not. If the item does not teat positive then we allow the powder to fly. If the item does test positive then we call in the police or nearest bomb squad. Fortunately, we do not find explosives on a daily basis so there is no reason to have a bomb squad actually sitting at every checkpoint. Even though we occasionally discover drugs TSA does not search for drugs, nor do we have any testing equipment that will test for drugs, we only test for explosives.
Anonymous said...
TSA is searching for drugs."
Not really, but if they happen to come across them, you get what you deserve because drugs are illegal.
Aspirin is illegal? Medicated creams are illegal? Tylenol is illegal?
Gee, I didn't know that.
Ayn R. Key wrote:
"Get this Bob, we've broken your code. We know what you mean when you say "there are no children on the list". I've written it several times on this comment section - your statement is true because the list only contains names, not people."
Tim at TSA (a.k.a. HappyToHelp) responded:
"Not true. There are people on the selectee and no fly list. The list has many data points. If you want a glance into some of those data points just check out the Redress paperwork."
Ayn R. Key responded:
"Tim, for your response to be a true defense of Bob's equivocation, then somewhere in some office is a physical list of names, and physically sitting on that list are some actual physical people. That's how there are people on the list.
We know when you're trying to snow us."
Ayn, I think you misunderstood. Tim isn't saying that there are people on the list, he's just saying that it's more than a list of names. He's saying that each entry on the list contains not just a name, but other things. I'm guessing that includes date of birth and other pieces of information that create more concise descriptions of identities than names alone do.
Tim at TSA responded:
"LOL... You really think that physical people need to be sitting on a piece of paper in order for people to be on a list? I would hate to see how you make a shopping list. It sounds like it would be very cumbersome. Nowhere in Bob’s post did I see him imply that people were physically sitting on a list in some office. Bob used clear and proper English and explained it well for people who are not familiar on how CAPPS and Secure Flight work.
I’m not going to play your games any more. Good day to you sir."
Tim, I think you misunderstood Ayn. I believe it's accurate to say that in order for someone to "be on a list" he would need to be physically situated on top of that list. When we say that someone is on a list, we usually mean not that he is on the list, but that his name is part of the list. Problem is, names do not uniquely identify people.
So what did Bob mean when he said there are no children on the Homeland Security blacklists? He didn't really say, so we can only guess. But taking words at face value, it's just as accurate to say there are no children on the lists as it is to say that there are no people on the lists. And none of that matters, because what this all boils down to is the fact that many, many, innocent and honest people -- children and adults alike -- are hassled by agents of our government as a result of our policy of blacklisting people.
For as long as this nation has existed, we have had a system for dealing with people who are suspected of having committed crimes, being in the process of committing crimes, or preparing to commit crimes: law enforcement officers investigate and get those people in front of a judge, who determines what, if anything, they've done wrong, and takes action to prevent them from doing further wrong. Homeland Security's systems of blacklisting are dangerous to our freedom, and to the freedom of everyone else. Everyone associated with these horribly unjust policies should be ashamed of his participation.
--
Phil
Showing ID only affects honest people. Requirement of government permission to travel within our own country -- which is what TSA's "identify yourself to us then wait for our permission to proceed" policy amounts to -- is dangerous to our freedom. What if the people with the power to secretly put your name on a "no-fly" list didn't like the reason for which you want to fly?
I dont agree with the much of what TSA is doing, but its the best we got atm. Enough with the tin hat attitude please. Live long and fly
January 25, 2010 9:58 PM
..............
TSA's best just doesn't cut it!
Could you let me know why you didn't post my comment about yet another TSA agent sleeping, in full uniform, on the job?
What are you hiding? And why do more and more of your employees keep showing a lack of integrity and discipline?
Anonymous said...
__________________________________
Various TSO's said...
"The TSA does not search for drugs"
__________________________________
Really?
Hot off the press.
http://www.indystar.com/article/20100126/NEWS02/1260383/TSA-finds-marijuana-in-luggage
A man was arrested at an Indianapolis International Airport checkpoint carrying 20 grams of marijuana and $5,100 in cash, police said.
The arrest happened at 4:05 p.m. Monday when a Transportation Security Administration employee inspected the bag of ____ ______, 52, Camby, according to an Airport Police report.
The employee found what police said was 20 grams of marijuana in a glass jar in a shaving kit. Also in the kit was $4,000. Police found another $1,100 in Turner's pants pocket.
Police charged Turner preliminarily with possession of marijuana, a misdemeanor, and took him to the Marion County Jail.
January 26, 2010 2:19 PM
---------------
Not seeing your point here. The TSO was searching a toiletry kit full of liquids gels and aerosols which is what he is supposed to do and found a jar full of green leafy substance. Since the TSO must inform the leo of any possible drug paraphanelia or drugs he did so and the leo confirmed the green leafy substance and marijuana and arrested the man. Can't be 100% sure that is what exactly happened but from the article you posted that seems to be the case. So once again, we do not look for drugs we look for explosives and prohibs but must inform the police if we come across possible drugs.
TSOWilliamReed said...
For all those saying TSA is not looking for white powder explosives here is a very educational video from cnn with the same explosives expert that also tested the liquid explosive tang bomb.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2009/12/28/robertson.uk.bomber.petn.cnn?iref=videosearch
January 26, 2010 2:04 PM
----------
Seriously, watch this video please all of you.
TSOWilliamReed wrote:
"The TSO was searching a toiletry kit full of liquids gels and aerosols which is what he is supposed to do and found a jar full of green leafy substance. Since the TSO must inform the leo of any possible drug paraphanelia or drugs he did so and the leo confirmed the green leafy substance and marijuana and arrested the man. Can't be 100% sure that is what exactly happened but from the article you posted that seems to be the case. So once again, we do not look for drugs we look for explosives and prohibs but must inform the police if we come across possible drugs."
And once again, if you're going to take the same action when you see something that looks to you like a weapon as you're going to take when you see something that looks to you like illegal drugs, then how are you "searching for" illegal drugs any less than you are "searching for" weapons?
You seem to think there's a difference between A) saying you're not searching for drugs, then calling the police to start an investigation when you find something that looks like drugs, and B) saying that you are searching for drugs, then calling the police to start an investigation when you find something that looks like drugs. I think they are, in effect, the same. It seems to me that if you truly weren't searching for drugs, when you saw something that looked like drugs, you'd move on just like you would move on if you saw something that looked like a travel pillow.
During your search of passengers and their belongings, you do react differently to items that look like drugs than you do to items that look like travel pillows, don't you? And during those searches, you do react the same to items that look like drugs as you do to items that look like weapons, don't you? Assuming that those are the case, how can you say that you are searching for weapons, but not searching for drugs and not searching for travel pillows? During your search, weapons, explosives, drugs, drug paraphernalia, and large quantities of cash are all in one class, and everything else you see is in another, right?
I'm not asking you to admit that you're searching for drugs, drug paraphernalia, and large quantities of cash in addition to weapons, explosives, and incendiaries. I'm just trying to get confirmation or denial from you that what you're doing, though not designated by you as a search for drugs, is in effect, exactly the same as a search for drugs. Could you please either state that you agree with this or explain how what you do differs from a search for drugs?
--
Phil
Showing ID only affects honest
people.
What if the people with the power to secretly put your name on a "no-fly" list didn't like the reason for which you want to fly?
Ayn R. Key wrote:
"Get this Bob, we've broken your code. We know what you mean when you say "there are no children on the list". I've written it several times on this comment section - your statement is true because the list only contains names, not people."
And more recently an autistic 8 year old and his parent were detained for an hour because the son had the same name as a 20 something year old on the list.
Why is there no fast process to clear young children? Poor or disrespectful treatment of disabled or impaired people does nothing to make us safer.
RB said...
I dont agree with the much of what TSA is doing, but its the best we got atm. Enough with the tin hat attitude please. Live long and fly
January 25, 2010 9:58 PM
..............
TSA's best just doesn't cut it!
January 27, 2010 3:54 PM
Because you say so? You flip sides more than an over-cooked pancake. What makes you a security pro? Theres no truth to anything you say RB. Your ultimate goal here on this blog is to dismantle the TSA and airport screening and to pat yourself on the back if that were to ever happen. I trust your word less than i would trust that of the TSA.
Now will someone tell him what resolution or size of monitor that Officers will we screening people in the WBI's so he can quit taking up blog space...
"Aspirin is illegal? Medicated creams are illegal? Tylenol is illegal?
Gee, I didn't know that."
No, you won't be arrested for possessing medical creams or tylenol. You may be arrested for possessing crack or heroin, because they're illegal. We should thank TSA for helping keep drugs off the streets.
Phil said
For as long as this nation has existed, we have had a system for dealing with people who are suspected of having committed crimes, being in the process of committing crimes, or preparing to commit crimes: law enforcement officers investigate and get those people in front of a judge, who determines what, if anything, they've done wrong, and takes action to prevent them from doing further wrong. Homeland Security's systems of blacklisting are dangerous to our freedom, and to the freedom of everyone else. Everyone associated with these horribly unjust policies should be ashamed of his participation.
___________________________________
You're absolutely right Phil. From what you're saying, we should follow an established system and take all of those people who have name matches to court and let them prove in front of a judge and jury that they are not the actual person we are looking for. Is that the system that you think is fair?
I'm glad you're not making the rules. The name matches on these list are there partly because no one knows what these people look like. Thats why the additional screening. And yes the Airlines do have a way to de-select an 8 year old. They just have to take the time to do it. Before TSA gets involved with a positive match to the watch list, the Airlines have certain procedures to follow. After they follow their procedures they call an airport LEO. If the person is still confirmed then they call TSA. Anything up to that point, TSA doesn't control.
But if you want to, we'll do it your way. But I think your way would be more intrusive to our freedom.
No, you won't be arrested for possessing medical creams or tylenol. You may be arrested for possessing crack or heroin, because they're illegal. We should thank TSA for helping keep drugs off the streets.
So just how many tons of drugs has TSA interdicted at airports?
The name matches on these list are there partly because no one knows what these people look like.
Wrong. They know who these people are and guess what, none of them are terrorists.
TSM/West wrote: "You're absolutely right Phil. From what you're saying, we should follow an established system and take all of those people who have name matches to court and let them prove in front of a judge and jury that they are not the actual person we are looking for. Is that the system that you think is fair?"
Honestly, I'm very glad that you, TSM West, are not making the rules.
At no point did Phil ever suggest that, as I'm sure that Phil understands the very basic idea that the plaintiff must prove a persons GUILT, not that a defendant should have to prove their innocence.
You have something against someone I share a name with? You have two things you need to do: (1) Be able to clearly articulate what the problem is, and (2) prove that I am that person.
At no time should I need to prove anything, including my innocence.
What is with the TSAs warped world-view where everyone is a criminal unless they can prove they are not? (...and even then, they aren't sure.)
So which of my explanations of "no longer with us" is accurate?
I think its a matter of concern and appropriate steps should be taken in this case...
TSM/West quoted me:
"For as long as this nation has existed, we have had a system for dealing with people who are suspected of having committed crimes, being in the process of committing crimes, or preparing to commit crimes: law enforcement officers investigate and get those people in front of a judge, who determines what, if anything, they've done wrong, and takes action to prevent them from doing further wrong. Homeland Security's systems of blacklisting are dangerous to our freedom, and to the freedom of everyone else. Everyone associated with these horribly unjust policies should be ashamed of his participation."
then responded:
"From what you're saying, we should follow an established system and take all of those people who have name matches to court and let them prove in front of a judge and jury that they are not the actual person we are looking for. Is that the system that you think is fair?"
Are you kidding? Man, where are you from? In this country, we don't assume people are guilty -- based on accusation alone -- until they prove themselves innocent. We're not supposed to, anyway. Did you ever take any kind of civics class? Weren't people telling you all the time when you were a kid how great it is that in this country, people are considered innocent until proven guilty? Didn't you hear about people fighting wars to maintain this sort of freedom?
Here's how this is supposed to work: If there's someone who you think has done something wrong -- say committed an act of terrorism, as all these so-called terrorists on the list must have committed in order to be considered terrorists -- you have a police officer check out the situation, and if he suspects there has been wrongdoing, he has a judge check out the situation, and if he determines that there has been wrongdoing, he decides how to prevent more and what punishment fits your crime. So that these people aren't encouraged to take advantage of your and other people's relatively basic understanding of the law, you're entitled to have legal council during this process. What ever gave you the idea that it was just to have some executive-branch government employee just say, "Put this guy's name on the list. He's bad." and then treat that person like a criminal? Do you have any sense of how bad letting governments blacklist people tends to turn out? Do you understand the general reasoning between a separation of powers among our three branches of government?
--
Phil
Showing ID only affects honest people.
What if the people with the power to secretly put your name on a "no-fly" list didn't like the reason for which you want to fly?
Alford is a shill for the governments of the UK and the US.
"For all those saying TSA is not looking for white powder explosives here is a very educational video from cnn with the same explosives expert that also tested the liquid explosive tang bomb."
Phil said...
TSOWilliamReed wrote:
And once again, if you're going to take the same action when you see something that looks to you like a weapon as you're going to take when you see something that looks to you like illegal drugs, then how are you "searching for" illegal drugs any less than you are "searching for" weapons?
You seem to think there's a difference between A) saying you're not searching for drugs, then calling the police to start an investigation when you find something that looks like drugs, and B) saying that you are searching for drugs, then calling the police to start an investigation when you find something that looks like drugs. I think they are, in effect, the same. It seems to me that if you truly weren't searching for drugs, when you saw something that looked like drugs, you'd move on just like you would move on if you saw something that looked like a travel pillow.
During your search of passengers and their belongings, you do react differently to items that look like drugs than you do to items that look like travel pillows, don't you? And during those searches, you do react the same to items that look like drugs as you do to items that look like weapons, don't you? Assuming that those are the case, how can you say that you are searching for weapons, but not searching for drugs and not searching for travel pillows? During your search, weapons, explosives, drugs, drug paraphernalia, and large quantities of cash are all in one class, and everything else you see is in another, right?
I'm not asking you to admit that you're searching for drugs, drug paraphernalia, and large quantities of cash in addition to weapons, explosives, and incendiaries. I'm just trying to get confirmation or denial from you that what you're doing, though not designated by you as a search for drugs, is in effect, exactly the same as a search for drugs. Could you please either state that you agree with this or explain how what you do differs from a search for drugs?
--
Phil
Showing ID only affects honest
people.
What if the people with the power to secretly put your name on a "no-fly" list didn't like the reason for which you want to fly?
January 27, 2010 8:07 PM
-----------------
See this is a tricky thing and I see where you are coming from. However let me explain it from my point of view. First off I would like to say that calling the police is our only response to everything. Secondly, When I have a bag and I am searching it I am looking for weapons and explosives. When I pick up this cellphone I am looking for indications of an IED. When I examine the seams I am looking for things stiched into the fabric of the bag. If I find something my first instict will always be weapon or explosive because those are more immediately dangerous to myself and everyone around me. When I come across a bag of white powder in said seam I as a TSO assume possible explosives but before I can call the BAO I have to call the police. If the police officer gets there and says its ok its just cocaine then oops I found drugs. In the case of marijuana, I just pulled a bag of green leafy substance out of a hidden pocket of this suitcase, obviously its not oregano. So as a federal employee and officer on duty when I find drugs if I don't tell a police officer then I am now aiding a criminal. My job is to search peoples belongings for weapons and explosives but sadly people also have drugs on their person. If I come across them and do not tell a police officer then I am aiding a criminal. This is why TSA has this policy because TSA will not be aiding criminals by not informing police officers when we have drugs in a bag.
I believe I am searching for weapons and explosives not drugs.
Since no one has commented on it here is the video again of why white powders are explosives and not drugs.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2009/12/28/robertson.uk.bomber.petn.cnn?iref=videosearch
Any update on this story? What happened to the guy? And what does the TSA do to prevent this incident from ever happen again?
TSOWilliamReed:
Thanks for engaging in the discussion and for your further explanation of what you do in the course of performing your searches of us.
Please, I asked you before, but you didn't answer:
1. During your search of passengers and their belongings, you do react differently to items that look like drugs than you do to items that look like travel pillows, don't you?
2. And during those searches, you do react the same to items that look like drugs as you do to items that look like weapons, don't you?
3. During your search, weapons, explosives, drugs, drug paraphernalia, and large quantities of cash are all in one class, and everything else you see is in another, right?
See, I really think that it doesn't matter what you're "searching for", since what happens is you look through everything, and you "alert on" certain things, and those things include not only weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, but also drugs, drug paraphernalia, and large quantities of cash. You don't "alert on" anything else -- not travel pillows, and not other possible indicators of wrongdoing. Is that an accurate summary? If not, please correct me.
--
Phil
Showing ID only affects honest people.
What if the people with the power to secretly put your name on a "no-fly" list didn't like the reason for which you want to fly?
TSOWilliamReed:
You wrote:
"First off I would like to say that calling the police is our only response to everything."
TSO Ron (and maybe West? I forgot now.) told us on FlyerTalk that in each of those cases, the responsibility of the person performing the search is to call a supervisor.
You also wrote:
"In the case of marijuana, I just pulled a bag of green leafy substance out of a hidden pocket of this suitcase, obviously its not oregano. So as a federal employee and officer on duty when I find drugs if I don't tell a police officer then I am now aiding a criminal."
It's not obvious that it's not oregano. And it's not obvious that it's marijuana. You're not trained to recognize marijuana. It's just some stuff that you think might be marijuana, but that you do not think is a weapon, explosive, or incendiary. Why on earth would you feel the need to begin an investigation into whether it's marijuana or not? Just give the person the benefit of the doubt, and assume that it's nothing that deserves investigation.
Here's a more concrete example: Are you familiar with the Fofana case? One of your colleagues at TSA went beyond her search for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, and found several seemingly-fraudulent passports. Our court ruled that the evidence had not been obtained properly, so was inadmissible. So even if you find an envelope and from feeling it you think you know darned well there's something in there that you think is likely to indicate wrongdoing, you're supposed to give the passenger the benefit of the doubt and move on (unless you think it's a weapon, explosive, or incendiary). With some leafy green stuff (and it's not actually the cannabis leaves that are used, you know, it's the flowers, which happen to be green most of the time) in a clear bag or a jar, it's a little more obvious to you what's inside, but you still don't know until after you've performed further investigation. So why not avoid wasting everyone's time with an investigation into something that's not dangerous to other passengers (not dangerous to anyone, really), and assume that it's not a problem? Otherwise, you are making the decision, "I don't know what this is, but I think I know what it is, and while I don't think it's dangerous to other passengers, I think this person is not supposed to have it, so to be on the safe side, I'm going to contact a supervisor/cop, and have him/her investigate."
If neglecting to inform a police officer at that point constitutes aiding a criminal, then so, to, would neglecting to inform the police of a number of other things you could find that might indicate wrongdoing, and you're not going to call them about every one of those things, are you?
If while searching someone's belongings, you found a photograph of someone who looks like the passenger apparently breaking into a camera store, along with a bag of cameras, would you call the police?
"I believe I am searching for weapons and explosives not drugs."
I believe you when you say that -- honestly. But you have yet to explain how what you do -- regardless of your belief about your intent -- differs from what you would do if you did believe that you were also searching for drugs.
--
Phil
Showing ID only affects honest people.
What if the people with the power to secretly put your name on a "no-fly" list didn't like the reason for which you want to fly?
Avxo sez - "GSOLTSO, first of all thanks for your response. (and a bunch more, but snip)"
Noooo problemo on the response, I try to do as many as I can!
Regardless of the timing on this incident, I love that they released something definitive as quickly as they did (now before the gang gets too picky here, this was a pretty definitive statement for the agency). I love it when they get out on an issue and make a statement one way or another to squash as much of the junk as possible, and put out solid info. They acknowledged this was a stupid act, chastised the employee and gave a resolution to the situation (that is startling in itself, read the hundreds of posts asking dispo on previous situations!). I wish we could do this for every single incident that occurs, but that is not realistic because of legal and personnel regulations. I hate that, but the legal eagles have to muzzle some things because of the liabilities the agency could be exposed to.
Now to some of the suggestions - first, thanks for offering them even if some of them are not able to be implemented, at least they are on the page where some of the HQ folks can see them!
1. A regulation requiring any violation to HQ would result in having to establish another set of folks in HQ just to handle them. Also about half of the accusations would be mistakes that could (and should) be handled at the local level. The others would include some baseless accusations from time to time, miscommunications, things that were nto actually wrong, but would tie up a couple of days worth of company time figuring that out, and then a percentage that would be real situations that require addressing. I just don't see that reporting it directly to HQ UNLESS there is a situation where the TSO (or other employee) has brought it to the local management and received no proper response.
There is a requirement to report violations to local management, and it should be adhered to.
2. Recording of video and streaming to remote locations - I love this idea, the only problem I can see with it is generating the loads of cashola needed to do this for each checkpoint and baggage room. Other than that, I am in agreement with you on this one too (starting to creep me out that we agree on things...)
3. Solid set of rules for TSOs. I have been saying that for quite some time myself. I am a really big fan of having something in black and white that defines what I can or can't do, it makes it much easier on the passenger, and the TSO. (ok, now I am starting to get reeeaaaaallllllly creeped out that is 2 out of 3).
Continued page 2
West
TSA Blog Team
Response to Avxo continued:
4.Have TSA/DHS screened like the passengers.
I have no problem with screening like passengers, the only drawback is emergency situations can be more difficult and confusing if we are trying to bring in more TSOs and they each have to screen to come in. I am kind of on the fence about this, because I can see both sides of it (internal security threat vs trusted workforce able to deploy more quickly in a time of emergency)...
5. There are supposed to be comment cards available at each screening location for ALL passengers. I appreciate all comment cards, it lets us know what we are doing right, and what we can improve on.
6. I am a big fan of accepting responsibility. If you mess up, say so, learn from it, take corrective measures and move on to the next challenge. For me, that is simple, I do it any time I drop the ball (I have even done it on here!!!). For TSA, it is not always that simple, there are legal issues, personnel laws, and in some cases, possible national security problems that prevent the release of information on an immediate scale. Again, I will reiterate how amazed I was to see a public statement this fast in this situation, and hope to see the same thing happen more often.
7. There are no children on the lists, the names on the lists are there for articulable reasons (at least for those with clearance to know what those reasons are). The fact that children are sometimes under the same name as someone on the list is what the redress program is for. I hate that these situations occur, but it is inevitable with millions of people in this world, and several thousands with ill intent towards our country and our people. How is that nonsense, it is a straight statement about a situation that is unfortunate, but that happens from time to time.
Lastly, anyone worth their salt is going to listen to ALL information they can get from any source. It is the only way to help you learn new points of view, consider things you never thought of, and even educate the person about things they never thought of. I ask for your input, because you have a different point of view and this is an open forum to voice opinions and ideas. Will those ideas and opinions always be implemented, no, but it gives us a chance to communicate better. That is my goal here, learning and communicating (even if I can only tell you "that is SSI and I can't tell you about it", at least you now know why I can't tell you about it...)
West
TSA Blog Team
Phil
The last thing I need is a civics lesson from you. Have you ever read half of what you write .You are the one who said we have established procedures for dealing with people suspected of a crime or commited a crime and then outlined those procedures by saying a judge should decide whos guilty or not. No one in TSA ever said that every name match meant that the person was guilty of anything. I just pointed out what the procedures that you stated would do. It's not an alternative. Additional screening makes a lot more sense.
Phil said… “Could you please either state that you agree with this or explain how what you do differs from a search for drugs?”
I do not scan the x-ray images for leafy green substances. I do not have any testing equipment that will tell me if anything that I find is illegal drugs. Hence, I do not search for drugs. As a federal employee I have sworn an oath to defend this nation and an ethical responsibility to adhere to the laws of this nation. As such, if during the search for explosives I happen across what appears to be child porn, a possible kidnapping victim, illegal drugs, or other violations of law I have an obligation to report these observations to the police.
An ethical and moral obligation to report suspected criminal acts is not the same as a search for a suspected criminal act. If during the course of my duties I observe what appears to be strong-arm robbery I don’t look the other way just because I am looking for IEDs. I have a responsibility to report this event to the police.
Anon sez - "Alford is a shill for the governments of the UK and the US."
So you are saying that the govenrments of the UK and the US should NOT get their information from a person that has been working with explosives compounds for over 40 years. Are you alos indicating that Dr. Alford should not be paid for his work when contracted by either government entity?
To make a statement that Dr. Sydney Alford is a "shill" shows a distinct lack of research on your part.
First, Dr. Alford has a private business that does contract work for demolitions and designs new explosive compounds for specific situations, based on the contracting companies needs. That shows that his company has years of innovation, experimentation and implementation in real world settings.
Second, if the UK were to NOT use the skills of someone that has the same type of history, they are not fully utilizing their resources. To pay Dr Alford for services rendered is the norm in all busniess systems that I have heard of (except maybe in the case of communes.... which is a self sustaining system so he would still receive compensation of some sort for his contributions).
Just because Dr. Alfords professional opinions, based on his extensive work and experience in the filed, are different than yours, does not make him a "shill"
West
TSA Blog Team
So just how many tons of drugs has TSA interdicted at airports?
___________________________________
Who Cares!
Why was your officer not referred to REAL law enforcement? A civilian with look-alike drugs would
face decades in jail or capital trafficking charges.
@Anonymous: How many innocent people have been convicted on evidence planted by TSA?
Amen.
And how does TSA keep pretending you're not law enforcement if you spend more time looking for drugs and serving warrants on bloggers than pretending to keep explosives off flights?
I can't believe all of the TSOs that think it's okay for one of your own to screw with someone, or try to frame them, because powder can be an explosive.
You are missing the point. She did nothing wrong and your buddies either tried to send her to prison or give her a heart attack for fun. How is that acceptable from our highly paid betters?
@Anonymous: But why ask Bob or TSA to do this? Doesnt the local DA, or Justice Department handle charging people with crimes? Shouldn't we ask those agencies to do something about this?
What do you think would happen to a local DA who charged a federal officer? TSOs are protected by the feds, and should be charged by the feds.
First off... just because it was a white powder doesnt mean its nothing... many explosives are in the form of a white powder, as are a broad spectrum of hazardous chemicals which the FAA does not allow to be transported onboard an aircraft.
That being said, the decision to push this joke the point that he did was a poor one on the part of the man involved. It makes everyone who wears the DHS uniforms look bad and even further erodes the public's trust and confidence in them to keep them safe.
If TSA was smart, they would wisen up and start following hiring practices more like that of CBP and less like that of McDonalds. Have hiring based on multiple exam scores, a thourough background examination on par with what any other federal officer would need to go through, and a physical test as well. Instead of hiring assembly line retirees the TSA should focus on boosting its ranks with recent college grads. There are plenty of recent graduates sitting on criminal justice and international studies degrees who cant find a job and who would jump at the chance to take on a job like this. People like that would be sharper, more attentitive, better able to work with technology involved, and would be alot quicker to tell when someone is trying to pull one over on them.
The best thing TSA could do to get rid of all the bad publicity its gotten is to undergo a total organizational overhaul. Start by getting rid of some baD apples. Hire some younger, smarter faces (theres alot of verterans coming back from iraq and afghanistan who could use work and have plenty experience with IED's and metal detectors)... change the training program. 120hrs just isnt anywhere near where it should be. 3 months straight is more like it. TSO's should know not only the SOP's of their job, but why they carry out those SOP's, and most importantly, the loopholes in the SOP's that can be exploited. Every single TSA officer knows that Somalia is on the list of selectee countries. But very few could actually tell you why. Its background information like that which would give an edge to the people in the field.
The current mindset at TSA is too much focused on customer service and following an old, outdated availible SOP to the letter. The focus needs to move towards hiring better officers, and then empowering them to use their best judgement to not only apply the SOP, but to make improptu moves and use their critical thinking skills to close up the loopholes that are currently being exploited... All the while, putting a professional, intelligent and responsible face on the agency.
Any comment on the January 30 CNN article with a photo of the "score board" that TSA uses in Orlando to keep track of how many gay men, lesbians, and African Americans you detain? Can you explain how homosexuality is a security risk? Even if it was, does that justify the epithets you use in the score boards?
Phil said...
TSOWilliamReed:
You wrote:
"First off I would like to say that calling the police is our only response to everything."
TSO Ron (and maybe West? I forgot now.) told us on FlyerTalk that in each of those cases, the responsibility of the person performing the search is to call a supervisor.
You also wrote:
"In the case of marijuana, I just pulled a bag of green leafy substance out of a hidden pocket of this suitcase, obviously its not oregano. So as a federal employee and officer on duty when I find drugs if I don't tell a police officer then I am now aiding a criminal."
It's not obvious that it's not oregano. And it's not obvious that it's marijuana. You're not trained to recognize marijuana. It's just some stuff that you think might be marijuana, but that you do not think is a weapon, explosive, or incendiary. Why on earth would you feel the need to begin an investigation into whether it's marijuana or not? Just give the person the benefit of the doubt, and assume that it's nothing that deserves investigation.
Here's a more concrete example: Are you familiar with the Fofana case? One of your colleagues at TSA went beyond her search for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries, and found several seemingly-fraudulent passports. Our court ruled that the evidence had not been obtained properly, so was inadmissible. So even if you find an envelope and from feeling it you think you know darned well there's something in there that you think is likely to indicate wrongdoing, you're supposed to give the passenger the benefit of the doubt and move on (unless you think it's a weapon, explosive, or incendiary). With some leafy green stuff (and it's not actually the cannabis leaves that are used, you know, it's the flowers, which happen to be green most of the time) in a clear bag or a jar, it's a little more obvious to you what's inside, but you still don't know until after you've performed further investigation. So why not avoid wasting everyone's time with an investigation into something that's not dangerous to other passengers (not dangerous to anyone, really), and assume that it's not a problem? Otherwise, you are making the decision, "I don't know what this is, but I think I know what it is, and while I don't think it's dangerous to other passengers, I think this person is not supposed to have it, so to be on the safe side, I'm going to contact a supervisor/cop, and have him/her investigate."
January 28, 2010 4:41 PM
---------------------
You are right we call the STSO first then they call the police officer. I Should have been more specific.
"If while searching someone's belongings, you found a photograph of someone who looks like the passenger apparently breaking into a camera store, along with a bag of cameras, would you call the police?"
I would call the supervisor and let them decide what to do, I don't believe the police officer would be able to do anything to the passenger in that case unless there was a warrant out for the passengers arrest but I am not sure.
As for the marijuana and oregano thing, let me explain a little more. If I reached into a pocket of a backpack and pulled out a baggy of green stuff and the passenger said it was herbs for cooking and was not acting nervous or suspicious then I would assume he is telling the truth and let it go. If I reach into a bag and feel something in the lining and find a place where someone has stitched something into the seam of the bag that turned out being a bag of green substance, this changes things. Why would you artfully conceal your cooking herbs in the lining of your bag? This would require calling the STSO who would call the police officer.
GSOLTSO:
I don't think that the suggestion that violations be reported to HQ is unworkable. Even if the "report" is the statement of the manager on duty, it should still be on a piece of paper and sent to headquarters. Note that I didn't suggest, nor did I expect, to have TSA's "internal affairs" staff fly out from HQ to every checkpoint for every complaint.
But sending a report once a week saying "This week at the TSA checkpoints at there were 7 incidents reported; all were looked into by who reported to me, . The details for each report as follow. " just plain makes sense.
The guys at HQ can then use those reports to look for patterns of events that indicate that a particular rule or regulation isn't understood, or that a particular checkpoint has a higher number of complaints than others, or that a particular TSO is the subject of a statistically significant number of reports.
As for the video streaming, it doesn't have to be a hugely expensive solution. I've implemented custom video-streaming systems in the past and the cost is nowhere near as high as you would imagine.
Even if the cost was higher than what it is, when you do the whole cost/benefit calculus, and take into account the advantages of the system it just ends up making sense.
And while a solid set of rules would certainly be nice, it has the unfortunate side-effect of inflexibility.
Case in point: a Mother was traveling with her young child from LAX. She had a bottle of some kind of drinkable yogurt thing with her. The TSO who screened her told her that it was too much liquid. Apparently, the bottle was 4 fl. oz.
She suggested that she could open it and have her child drink a little bit now. No dice. "The rules are the rules" was the answer.
That is inflexibility at work, pure and simple. And sadly, it won't go away because the TSA employs CYA security, and so nobody at a TSA checkpoint is willing (even if they might be authorized) to risk showing a modicum of common sense.
avxo said...
Case in point: a Mother was traveling with her young child from LAX. She had a bottle of some kind of drinkable yogurt thing with her. The TSO who screened her told her that it was too much liquid. Apparently, the bottle was 4 fl. oz.
She suggested that she could open it and have her child drink a little bit now. No dice. "The rules are the rules" was the answer.
That is inflexibility at work, pure and simple. And sadly, it won't go away because the TSA employs CYA security, and so nobody at a TSA checkpoint is willing (even if they might be authorized) to risk showing a modicum of common sense.
February 2, 2010 7:14 PM
.........................
Depending on how young this child was may have exempted the food item from the 3.40z limit. Of course TSA does not define the ages or the exact rules.
And as we all know 4 ounces is suddenly extremely dangerous but not 3.4oz.
You just can't fix TSA stupid!
RB said...
avxo said...
Case in point: a Mother was traveling with her young child from LAX. She had a bottle of some kind of drinkable yogurt thing with her. The TSO who screened her told her that it was too much liquid. Apparently, the bottle was 4 fl. oz.
She suggested that she could open it and have her child drink a little bit now. No dice. "The rules are the rules" was the answer.
That is inflexibility at work, pure and simple. And sadly, it won't go away because the TSA employs CYA security, and so nobody at a TSA checkpoint is willing (even if they might be authorized) to risk showing a modicum of common sense.
February 2, 2010 7:14 PM
.........................
Depending on how young this child was may have exempted the food item from the 3.40z limit. Of course TSA does not define the ages or the exact rules.
And as we all know 4 ounces is suddenly extremely dangerous but not 3.4oz.
You just can't fix TSA stupid!
-----------------
Its not stupidity its simplicity, there is a difference. The restriction is 3.4 containers that fit in a 1 quart size bag, not 4.0 oz containers in a 1 quart size bag. This doesn't change the amount of material you have but the restriction is not on the material but the container size that the material is in. We are not allowed to judge the size of the amount of material because of the discrepency in amounts that would cause. So if it says 3.4 its ok, if it says 4.0 then its not ok doesn't matter how much is inside unless its completely empty. See, simplicity with no liabilty.
Someone PLEASE refer TSO Reed and all the other TSOs at the TSA Chokepoints of what the TSA has published on this page and others that for baby formula/food/milk/etc. the 3.4 ounce limit is waived and the containers are NOT required to be in the Ziploc™ bag with the other liquids.
Please, there must be SOMEONE at TSA who has the responsibility for training the TSOs and for CORRECTING them when they potificate in error.
Anyone?...
Anyone?...
Bueller?
________________
avxo sez - "I don't think that the suggestion that violations be reported to HQ is unworkable. Even if the "report" is the statement of the manager on duty, it should still be on a piece of paper and sent to headquarters. Note that I didn't suggest, nor did I expect, to have TSA's "internal affairs" staff fly out from HQ to every checkpoint for every complaint.
But sending a report once a week saying "This week at the TSA checkpoints at there were 7 incidents reported; all were looked into by who reported to me, . The details for each report as follow. " just plain makes sense.
The guys at HQ can then use those reports to look for patterns of events that indicate that a particular rule or regulation isn't understood, or that a particular checkpoint has a higher number of complaints than others, or that a particular TSO is the subject of a statistically significant number of reports.
As for the video streaming, it doesn't have to be a hugely expensive solution. I've implemented custom video-streaming systems in the past and the cost is nowhere near as high as you would imagine.
Even if the cost was higher than what it is, when you do the whole cost/benefit calculus, and take into account the advantages of the system it just ends up making sense.
And while a solid set of rules would certainly be nice, it has the unfortunate side-effect of inflexibility."
I know better than to think you were implying the staff flying out and such. The only worry I had was if you were wanting EVERY employee to send off every little thing they see that they think might be wrong, or illegal. I am all for keeping your local managers up to speed on things you see or hear that may be out of the norm, but the deluge of emails/forms about STSO Frank hugging TSO Sue because she got bad news from home would overload the circuit. I think that reporting things that should be reported (theft, harassment, anything illegal) is a must do and there are some channels to do that for all TSA employees. Maybe we could publish that info better to the workforce (although we have this info up in our office and have classes explaining it to us every year), and reinforce the whistle blower protections afforded to the workforce.
There are managerial reports and such sent up daily, I am not certain on the contents or stats that they generate (I am not a manager after all). I know that the incident reports filed are examined by HQ and stats are complied from those for general consumption. As to the idea you have here, it has merit and I hope someone at HQ read all of this!
This is what I want to happen more often on this blog - you and I are probably going to be at odds on procedures more often than not, but we are able to go back and forth and come up with decent ideas from both sides.
The streaming video ideas, awesome, but I still don't think it is cost effective right now. I will definitely send that one up the email pipe and see what happens, maybe we can get some sort of a cost effectiveness research group started out on it (then again, maybe not, but it is worth a try).
West
TSA Blog Team
Anon said… “I can't believe all of the TSOs that think it's okay for one of your own to screw with someone, or try to frame them, because powder can be an explosive.”
You’re missing the point. Several TSOs have come on here and stated that the behavior of this individual was inexcusable and he should be terminated. The references made to powdered explosives were posted because some bloggers believed the very cruel “joke” was proof that TSA searches for drugs. TSA does not search for drugs, we do search for powdered explosives. The fact that we search for powdered explosives does not change the fact that we all agree that this individual was out of line.
TSOWilliamReed said...
RB said...
.........................
Depending on how young this child was may have exempted the food item from the 3.40z limit. Of course TSA does not define the ages or the exact rules.
And as we all know 4 ounces is suddenly extremely dangerous but not 3.4oz.
You just can't fix TSA stupid!
-----------------
Its not stupidity its simplicity, there is a difference. The restriction is 3.4 containers that fit in a 1 quart size bag, not 4.0 oz containers in a 1 quart size bag. This doesn't change the amount of material you have but the restriction is not on the material but the container size that the material is in. We are not allowed to judge the size of the amount of material because of the discrepency in amounts that would cause. So if it says 3.4 its ok, if it says 4.0 then its not ok doesn't matter how much is inside unless its completely empty. See, simplicity with no liabilty.
February 4, 2010 3:12 PM
................................
................................
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/children/index.shtm
Baby Formula, Breast Milk, Juice, and Other Liquids
Medications, baby formula and food, breast milk, and juice are allowed in reasonable quantities exceeding 3.4 ounces (100ml) and are not required to be in the zip-top bag. Declare these items for inspection at the checkpoint. Click here to learn more about 3-1-1
............................
William, did you really miss the point I made about the age of this child possibly having a factor on if larger than 3.4oz items can be taken through security?
Just for clarity I have posted the information and link to the actual page that deals with "food" for your use to refresh your memory.
If you understood my point then I have to wonder just how in heck you ever got through TSA training and seeing that you apparently did how you keep your job.
This is not a shot at you but the more you post the more you show the world how little you know.
Tomas sez - "Someone PLEASE refer TSO Reed and all the other TSOs at the TSA Chokepoints of what the TSA has published on this page and others that for baby formula/food/milk/etc. the 3.4 ounce limit is waived and the containers are NOT required to be in the Ziploc™ bag with the other liquids.
Please, there must be SOMEONE at TSA who has the responsibility for training the TSOs and for CORRECTING them when they potificate in error.
Anyone?...
Anyone?...
Bueller?"
That was a sweet Ferris reference Tomas, Bravo!
That being said, I think that William may have missed the reference, not that he is illiterate on the regs.
West
TSA Blog Team
You said he no longer works there. Because he was fired over the incident? Or because he left of his own accord? Why wont you identify him? This man is sick and dangerous! Like most of you glorified mall security guards, with almost no education or training you guys go off on your little power trips which would be laughable and pathetic if it werent backed by the misdirected might of federal law and Homeland Security all over terrorist paranoia. You guys arent qualified to arrest teens for shoplifiting!
That being said, I think that William may have missed the reference, not that he is illiterate on the regs.
West
TSA Blog Team
February 11, 2010 6:49 PM
................
William has displayed a distinct lack of knowledge in regards to information TSA provides the public.
Now if TSA is giving one set of criteria to the public and another set of criteria to the TSA workforce then it is understandable why problems keep happening.
If TSA wants to serve the public like they say they do then why not just publish a complete set of rules the public must follow?
i hope she sues and brings the TSA to its knees
What else happened in Philadelphia? A developmentally delayed 4 year old boy was made to walk through a metal detector, alone, without the leg braces he needed to walk - http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/84368492.html
This is just sad. I feel bad whenever stuff like this happens. I don't think it's the TSA's fault cause some idiot acts like this. Someone please do something nice and restore my faith in humanity now.
Absolutely disgraceful behaviour on behalf of the TSA employee.
If this had happened in the UK, I'm sure he'd have been dismissed.
Post a Comment