quote:I'm not sure why you think you have a right o keep secret criminal activity, if it's lawfully discovered. The fact is you don't.
Isn't it obvious that Rabbit is arguing for an interpretation of existing law OR new law to make it so criminal activity unrelated to flight security cannot be "lawfully discovered" in a TSA search?
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why are narcotics illegal to posses, exactly?
quote:In contrast, the average person can pretty easily identify a body when it goes through an x-ray machine.
What about blurry lines and stuff?
quote: I suppose its possible someone might be carrying a skeleton for a medical class or something but the difference between that and a dead body would be immediately obvious on opening the bag -- something they would do if they thought they'd found a bomb or a gun.
If they thought they'd found a bomb or gun, they'd open the bag-because those things are dangerous. If they thought they'd found a corpse, they'd open the bag, because those things are dangerous (though how we can possibly expect an untrained TSA screener to know a corpse from a lifelike mannequin, I don't know).
Smuggling drugs is dangerous. Drug smugglers are dangerous. Particularly in close confined areas where there isn't anywhere to run if something goes wrong.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Smuggling drugs is dangerous. Drug smugglers are dangerous. Particularly in close confined areas where there isn't anywhere to run if something goes wrong.
Heh. How, in particular? If they have a knife or a gun, that ought to get caught separately, you know.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wonder how most folks would classify 'drug smugglers' on a range of safety concerns, Rabbit.
There is a big difference between classifying drug smugglers as dangerous and thinking that someone carrying cocaine in a baggy taped under his arm presented a likely threat to an airplane? I think most people would agree.
quote:I have considered you and your bags of flour. At least once in this thread already in fact. As I asked you before, where do you store your baggies of flour? Do you tape them to your body and hide them beneath your clothes?
Didn't think so.
Are you suggesting that a baggie of white powder taped under ones clothes is the only thing you would consider warranted police involvement. This is the one exception you would make. What if the TSA agent found the same baggie in a hidden compartment in the carry-on. What if he had it in his pockets instead of under his arm. So if TSA agents opened a checked bag and found 10 kilos of white powder in plastic baggies, you would not think that should arouse suspicion.
If that is your stance, then fine. Make this one exception. All that will accomplish is to alert drug smugglers to put the drugs in their bags rather than under their shirts.
I still don't have any clue what you are actually arguing for and why. Everytime someone points to some specific possibility, you say we are putting words in your mouth. So make yourself clear. Are you arguing for this one exception or something else.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Isn't it obvious that Rabbit is arguing for an interpretation of existing law OR new law to make it so criminal activity unrelated to flight security cannot be "lawfully discovered" in a TSA search?
If she's arguing for new law, it's news to me. It appears to me what she's been saying is that we have some special right to privacy in airport searches well above the right to privacy we have in other kinds of searches.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Why are narcotics illegal to posses, exactly?
quote:In contrast, the average person can pretty easily identify a body when it goes through an x-ray machine.
What about blurry lines and stuff?
quote: I suppose its possible someone might be carrying a skeleton for a medical class or something but the difference between that and a dead body would be immediately obvious on opening the bag -- something they would do if they thought they'd found a bomb or a gun.
If they thought they'd found a bomb or gun, they'd open the bag-because those things are dangerous. If they thought they'd found a corpse, they'd open the bag, because those things are dangerous (though how we can possibly expect an untrained TSA screener to know a corpse from a lifelike mannequin, I don't know).
Smuggling drugs is dangerous. Drug smugglers are dangerous. Particularly in close confined areas where there isn't anywhere to run if something goes wrong.
More reason for TSA agents to not detain or question them.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Isn't it obvious that Rabbit is arguing for an interpretation of existing law OR new law to make it so criminal activity unrelated to flight security cannot be "lawfully discovered" in a TSA search?
I'm not a legal scholar so I have no idea what the existing laws state. My layman's interpretation of the constitution suggests that if airport searches are allowed to be used for any purpose beyond airport security, they violate the 4th amendment to the constitution. Evidently, this is point of the ACLU law suit.
I would also argue that if existing law does not protect the confidentiality of things found in airport searches, it should.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:More reason for TSA agents to notdetain or question them.
So...if someone is dangerous, and more dangerous on an airplane, that's a reason for them to be allowed onto the airplane?
quote:Are you suggesting that a baggie of white powder taped under ones clothes is the only thing you would consider warranted police involvement. This is the one exception you would make. What if the TSA agent found the same baggie in a hidden compartment in the carry-on. What if he had it in his pockets instead of under his arm. So if TSA agents opened a checked bag and found 10 kilos of white powder in plastic baggies, you would not think that should arouse suspicion.
If it's hidden, grab it and detain the person until police arrive. If it's not, let `em go...though what I would personally do is call the airport on the other end and say, "Look, we need a drug sniffing dog on the line of people out of this airplane."
quote:I still don't have any clue what you are actually arguing for and why. Everytime someone points to some specific possibility, you say we are putting words in your mouth. So make yourself clear. Are you arguing for this one exception or something else.
Everytime someone points to a specific possibility and says to me, "See, this is wrong," and I never advocated that possibility...yeah!
How about this for specifics (not that I haven't been specific repeatedly, just misrepresented): since TSA screeners aren't actually law enforcement and aren't trained in such things, we raise the standards quite a bit higher than 'probable cause' necessary for police officers. We say 'if you've found something that is beyond a reasonable doubt' suspicious, then you can a) inform the police to question the person, using the items found in support of that or b) detain until police arrive or c) inform police on the other end of the flight to do the same.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Smuggling drugs is dangerous. Drug smugglers are dangerous. Particularly in close confined areas where there isn't anywhere to run if something goes wrong.
Heh. How, in particular? If they have a knife or a gun, that ought to get caught separately, you know.
You've already said you aren't arguing that everyone boarding the plane be thoroughly screened for drugs. If you think unarmed drug smugglers are a serious threat on airplanes, then we should screen every passenger for drugs. Otherwise, you've pretty much already agreed that carrying drugs on an isn't sufficiently dangerous to worry about.
You still haven't explained to me your goal and why you think it would be good for TSA to have this authority.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You've already said you aren't arguing that everyone boarding the plane be thoroughly screened for drugs. If you think unarmed drug smugglers are a serious threat on airplanes, then we should screen every passenger for drugs. Otherwise, you've pretty much already agreed that carrying drugs on an isn't sufficiently dangerous to worry about.
I would have no complaints if we had drug sniffing dogs at every airport to randomly sniff for drugs in the passenger lines. Would you?
quote:You still haven't explained to me your goal and why you think it would be good for TSA to have this authority.
I should have thought it was obvious.
Goal: Stop crime where it is find; make sure crime is lawfully found.
Reason: It's good to stop crime where it's found.
The TSA should have 'this authority' (I can't tell anymore what you think I mean by that) because they're searching people anyway, and if they lawfully discover a crime they should be permitted to act on it, either themselves or by contacting police.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:How about this for specifics (not that I haven't been specific repeatedly, just misrepresented): since TSA screeners aren't actually law enforcement and aren't trained in such things, we raise the standards quite a bit higher than 'probable cause' necessary for police officers. We say 'if you've found something that is beyond a reasonable doubt' suspicious, then you can a) inform the police to question the person, using the items found in support of that or b) detain until police arrive or c) inform police on the other end of the flight to do the same.
But "beyond a reasonable doubt" is totally subjective. Can't you see that? What possible advantage could there be to this which would outweigh the potential for abuse?
You are aware that police aren't allowed to know what flight I am taking without a warrant. This is confidential information. If a police officer (or anyone else) walks up to an airline counter and asks "can you tell me if The Rabbit is on this flight", the answer is "no, unless you have a warrant". So what you are recommending is that if a TSA agent observes sufficiently suspicious behavior, they should be able to give police information that would ordinarily not be obtainable without a warrant.
Imagine that as an ordinary citizen entering the airport I see some ones suitcase accidentally fall open and think I see a dead baby inside the suitcase. The normal circumstance of events would be that I inform the police and they use my oath that I saw the dead baby to get a search warrant issued by the court. What you are suggesting is that information found by a TSA agent actually be subject to less scrutiny than information accidentally seen be an ordinary citizen.
I am demanding the opposite. Since TSA searches are only justified by the need for air traffic safety, the should be restricted to items that pertain to air traffic security. Everything else seen in a search that is not relevant to air traffic regulations and security should be held strictly confidential.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Goal: Stop crime where it is find; make sure crime is lawfully found.
Reason: It's good to stop crime where it's found
Since we are arguing over whether or not evidence of drug smuggling found in an airport search should be considered lawfully found you are begging the question.
What advantage would there be to considering drugs found in a routine airport search to be considered "legally found"?
I guess the answer is you might catch a few more people smuggling drugs and porn.
The question at hand is does this out weigh the increased invasion of privacy and inconvenience for hundreds of millions of innocent airplane travelers. You fail to recognize that what you are proposing does in fact do that.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But "beyond a reasonable doubt" is totally subjective. Can't you see that? What possible advantage could there be to this which would outweigh the potential for abuse?
So is the list used to screen passengers and possessions.
quote: You are aware that police aren't allowed to know what flight I am taking without a warrant. This is confidential information. If a police officer (or anyone else) walks up to an airline counter and asks "can you tell me if The Rabbit is on this flight", the answer is "no, unless you have a warrant". So what you are recommending is that if a TSA agent observes sufficiently suspicious behavior, they should be able to give police information that would ordinarily not be obtainable without a warrant.
Actually, I'm not sure if that particular information needs to have a warrant-but I don't know for sure. Anyway, it's not important to my argument. The cops can have a drug-sniffing dog on the other end without knowing who they're looking for. Would you be satisfied with that?
quote: Imagine that as an ordinary citizen entering the airport I see some ones suitcase accidentally fall open and think I see a dead baby inside the suitcase. The normal circumstance of events would be that I inform the police and they use my oath that I saw the dead baby to get a search warrant issued by the court. What you are suggesting is that information found by a TSA agent actually be subject to less scrutiny than information accidentally seen be an ordinary citizen.
Not really, because I would expect TSA screeners to be truthful to the police with sharp penalties if they weren't. But I won't argue, because that at least I wasn't clear about.
quote:I am demanding the opposite. Since TSA searches are only justified by the need for air traffic safety, the should be restricted to items that pertain to air traffic security. Everything else seen in a search that is not relevant to air traffic regulations and security should be held strictly confidential.
Except your demand goes too far. Since TSA searches are only justified by the need for air travel safety, their searches and procedures should be geared only towards items and behaviors and people that threaten air travel safety. If, however, in the course of following those procedures, they discover evidence of another crime, they should be permitted to inform law enforcement.
Yes, I know the potential for abuse is there. The potential for abuse is always there. Your response to that danger is 'do nothing'.
quote:Since we are arguing over whether or not evidence of drug smuggling found in an airport search should be considered lawfully found you are begging the question.
When I say 'lawfully found' I mean that it was discovered in a lawful way, not that it would be considered admissable later. That is, the goal is to stop crime where it's found, and to make sure that you go about finding crime lawfully.
quote:The question at hand is does this out weigh the increased invasion of privacy and inconvenience for hundreds of millions of innocent airplane travelers. You fail to recognize that what you are proposing does in fact do that.
Considering that I'm not including any drugs not actually hidden, and not including pornography in general but a very specific (and easily recognizable, with very few exceptions) kind of pornography...no, what I'm proposing doesn't, in fact, do that. No matter how repetitively you insist to the contrary.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The TSA should have 'this authority' (I can't tell anymore what you think I mean by that) because they're searching people anyway, and if they lawfully discover a crime they should be permitted to act on it, either themselves or by contacting police.
Like I said, "lawful" is what we as a society choose it to be. Stop begging the question.
This standard is more lenient than the standard generally applied to warranted searches. A search warrant must contain the names, places and items they are looking for. We restrict what is done even in warranted searches because we recognize the potential for abuse. If police are issued a warrant to look for stolen computers, they shouldn't be able to look under the sofa cushions or in your medicine cabinet. I'm sure they'd catch and stop more drug smuggling that way but we as a society have decided that our right to privacy is more important. Just because they have a warrant to search our homes does not make everything they find legal. That depends entirely on how the warrant was written.
TSA searches more people annually than have been searched in all the warranted searches in the history of this country. For this reason, TSA searches should be very tightly restricted. The items they should be allowed to search for should be limited exclusively to those items that are forbidden to carry on an airplane. Think of it as if TSA has a warrant that actually prohibits them from looking at anything that isn't on their list. They should be allowed some discretion for unusual items that they think might be dangerous, but anything else they find should be kept strictly confidential. They should behave as though they never saw it.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do you want TSA agents to be able to report evidence of criminal activity like drug smuggling to the police? What do you see will be the major advantage of this?
...it will stop drug smuggling where we find it, drug smuggling being a crime that's involved in all sorts of other crimes, notably violent crime? Isn't that obvious?
So what is an acceptable ratio to you of innocent people harassed versus numbers of vials of cocaine seized? 100 innocent people harassed? 1000? 10,000? Lots of people go through airports, and if only a very small percentage of TSA agents are blatently racist, they can impact a hell of a lot of people.
And you are talking about a great deal more than drug smuggling. You were talking about allowing TSA agents to confiscate things if they thought they read in a magazine that a cunning enough person could combine those two objects into something dangerous. That's a lot more leeway for independant action than stopping guys who set off drug-sniffing dogs.
quote:I too want to protect privacy rights of travelers. Where we differ is that you believe that that is an absolutely overriding goal, which completely and effortlessly trumps all other concerns except airline safety. And even that you only grudgingly tolerate what you perceive to be a violation of privacy rights.
Saying that its appropriate for TSA agents to google people's stories while on the job is not an attitute I usually associate with a serious respect for privacy.
quote:As for me, I think the harm done by permitting lawfully-discovered crimes such as drug smuggling or child pornography go unnoticed by law enforcement is greater than the harm done by supposedly violating the right to privacy someone carrying such things has.
TSA agents are not magic. They are not only going to target guilty people. They are going to overwhelmingly target innocent people. Even if you managed to purge every racist out of the job, that would still happen. If you think that catching one vial of cocaine is worth hassling 10,000 people, just say so plainly. Because in real life, that's the kind of ratio you are going to get.
quote:The line is blurry. Yes, I grant that. I've never disputed it.
But you've constantly ignored it. Your drugs in the armpit is apparently the only scenario you are willing to imagine. And when people say "It won't always be that clear cut", you keep replying with "but he's got drugs in his armpit!!!"
quote:You're not seriously going to suggest to me that a reasonable person would view a smuggled package under someone's armpit and say, "Y'know, that could be legal, right?"
Yes, they should. Because TSA agents are not omniscient, they don't know everything. They are supposed to know what's dangerous on a plane. That's where they should be acting.
quote:The line is blurry. That doesn't mean, however, that when you've stepped fifty yards past the line you don't actually know it.
Again, what you are talking about is the tip of the iceberg. Everyone else is worry about the other 99% of the iceberg, but you don't seem to think that's worth talking about. It's all "He's got drugs in his armpit!!!"
quote:
quote:It may not have been your preference, but it was the compromise you suggested. And swbarnes did in fact make an excellent point about that proposal.
Not especially, because he said it was what I wanted. It wasn't.
You put forth an argument. How on earth is anyone supposed to see that, and conclude that you actually reject the argument you made?
The point of compromise is that both sides come to an agreement that neither thinks is ideal, but both in think is acceptable. If you didn't do that, than it wasn't a compromise.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:The mission of TSA agents is to keep airline travel safe, not to fight crime.
So if someone, I dunno, bursts into flames while in the line, the TSA screeners shouldn't do anything, right? Not in their mission. We must have no contingencies planned for them that have anything even slightly to do with matters even an iota outside their mission.
quote:Like I said, "lawful" is what we as a society choose it to be. Stop begging the question.
I'm not begging the question. There's a distinct difference.
quote:Just because they have a warrant to search our homes does not make everything they find legal. That depends entirely on how the warrant was written.
Except if they have a search warrant for an entire home for small, easily concealed objects (like many of the things on TSA lists) they can look under the cushions.
quote:Think of it as if TSA has a warrant that actually prohibits them from looking at anything that isn't on their list.
That'd be a helluva warrant. It come with a blindfold?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me make this more clear. Courts will sometimes allow evidence found in good faith in a warranted search that was not specifically listed in the warrant. But the potential for abuse of warranted searches because of these exceptions is relatively low because of the difficulty in getting a warrant in the first place. Even if the police were allowed to search for drugs on every warranted search, they couldn't search millions of people for drugs. And the fact is that under many circumstances, even when a court has issued a warrant, evidence of drug crimes will be excluded because it was not listed in the warrant. We exclude that evidence because we consider the risk too high that warrants will be abused to invade our privacy unjustly.
Compare this with airline searches. Hundred of millions of people and their bags gets searched annually. The government does not need to have probable cause, or oaths or review by judges to open my luggage. If the potential for abuse in a warranted search is high enough that we are willing to exclude evidence of serious crimes as an incentive to ensure the police careful adhere to the conditions of warrants, shouldn't we do at least that much for airline searches. The potential for abuse of airport searches is enormous by comparison to warranted searches. Its off the scale. if we think our privacy is important enough to exclude evidence when a warrant wasn't carefully followed, solely to create a disincentive for abuse -- why would we do otherwise with airline searches?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The mission of TSA agents is to keep airline travel safe, not to fight crime.
So if someone, I dunno, bursts into flames while in the line, the TSA screeners shouldn't do anything, right? Not in their mission. We must have no contingencies planned for them that have anything even slightly to do with matters even an iota outside their mission.
As a human being and not in their role as a TSA agent they could put out fires. As could anyone else there not in an official capacity.
Seriously, you are talking about extreme hypothetical situation - dead babies in luggage, people bursting into flames. What the people who disagree with you are concerned with is the hundred of thousands of situations that are not as extreme as corpses or combustion. You seem to be trying to use these extreme situations to justify giving TSA agents authority that would almost all of the time be either unnecessary or abused.
ETA: And really, you complain about me putting words in your mouth? For the record, even though there job is keeping air travel safe, TSA agents can also breathe, sneeze, and smile.
quote:
quote:Like I said, "lawful" is what we as a society choose it to be. Stop begging the question.
I'm not begging the question. There's a distinct difference.
quote:Just because they have a warrant to search our homes does not make everything they find legal. That depends entirely on how the warrant was written.
Except if they have a search warrant for an entire home for small, easily concealed objects (like many of the things on TSA lists) they can look under the cushions.
quote:Think of it as if TSA has a warrant that actually prohibits them from looking at anything that isn't on their list.
That'd be a helluva warrant. It come with a blindfold?
quote:So if someone, I dunno, bursts into flames while in the line, the TSA screeners shouldn't do anything, right? Not in their mission.
How exactly is the relevant? We aren't talking about anything for which the TSA agents special authority makes him different from any other citizen. I think I explained this one several pages back. What the TSA agent finds in a search is fundamentally different from something an ordinary citizen discovers by accident. The thing that differentiates this is that the TSA agent has the authority to require me to submit to a search before entering a plane. The person standing next to me in line does not.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not begging the question. There's a distinct difference.
Then find some other word besides lawful since we are arguing about whether or not it should be lawful.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: But "beyond a reasonable doubt" is totally subjective. Can't you see that? What possible advantage could there be to this which would outweigh the potential for abuse?
So is the list used to screen passengers and possessions
.
You honestly can't see any difference between a list of items, questions and behaviors that have been carefully reviewed by experts and approved by officials and possibly the court and what one TSA agent thinks is beyond "reasonable doubt".
I get the impression you are continuing to argue this for the sake of argument alone. With every post your arguments become more and more specious.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:That'd be a helluva warrant. It come with a blindfold?
Any warrant that allows you to search hundreds of millions of people, should be one helluva warrant.
If I thought it were possible for TSA agents to adequately search passengers and bags using some sort of magic blindfold that prevented them from seeing anything that wouldn't endanger a plane, that's what I'd propose. But since that technology doesn't exist, I suggesting the next best thing -- that TSA agents be required to turn a blind eye to anything they see that doesn't pertain to airport security.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a pity Dagonee doesn't participate here any more. I would really have appreciated his comments on the actual status of 4th amendment law. I probably wouldn't agree with him on what the law should be on airport searches but I'm sure he could provide some fascinating examples or relevant 4th amendment rulings.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Courts characterize the routine administrative search conducted at a security checkpoint as a warrantless search, subject to the reasonableness requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Such a warrantless search, also known as an administrative search, is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, " confined in good faith to that purpose," and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly. [See United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973)].
posted
Thanks for looking that up and posting it kate. Its still unclear to me exactly what that means in practice but at least its a start.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let me make this more clear. Courts will sometimes allow evidence found in good faith in a warranted search that was not specifically listed in the warrant. But the potential for abuse of warranted searches because of these exceptions is relatively low because of the difficulty in getting a warrant in the first place.
How difficult it is to get a warrant depends on your point of view. For an honest cop, difficult yes. If you're swbarnes for example, though, and assuming corruption or incompetence, on the other hand, not difficult at all. As for you, The Rabbit though, given your viewing and defining this discussion largely in terms of bad-faith or violation, it's a bit surprising to hear you characterize warranted searches as difficult to obtain.
Anyway, I do agree with the bare bones that it is substantially more difficult to get a warranted search than it is to have authorization to do an airport search.
quote: Even if the police were allowed to search for drugs on every warranted search, they couldn't search millions of people for drugs. And the fact is that under many circumstances, even when a court has issued a warrant, evidence of drug crimes will be excluded because it was not listed in the warrant. We exclude that evidence because we consider the risk too high that warrants will be abused to invade our privacy unjustly.
You're not using hard numbers, but I think your tone is seriously overstating the amount of evidence that will be excluded when found in a warranted search but not listed specifically in that search. The fact is, it will almost never be excluded to my knowledge unless there is a pretty clear violation involved. Such as moving objects to check serial numbers for stolen property on an emergency gunfire search, for example. Almost never just to serve the interests of protecting privacy rights, because the truth is, a right to privacy is not threatened when evidence of a crime is found in good faith on a warranted search.
Even if the crime is money laundering and the evidence found is, for example, child pornography. Or a murder-for-hire business.
quote: The government does not need to have probable cause, or oaths or review by judges to open my luggage. If the potential for abuse in a warranted search is high enough that we are willing to exclude evidence of serious crimes as an incentive to ensure the police careful adhere to the conditions of warrants, shouldn't we do at least that much for airline searches.
We should-where I think we disagree here is in how much we do to discourage in the first case, and where that puts us as far as discouraging in the second case.
quote: Its off the scale. if we think our privacy is important enough to exclude evidence when a warrant wasn't carefully followed, solely to create a disincentive for abuse -- why would we do otherwise with airline searches?
*sigh* 'When carefully followed'. I do think we should exclude evidence on an airport search when the rules and procedures of that search aren't carefully followed-and those rules and procedures are quite restrictive already, once you set aside the warrantless part of the matter.
What you actually want to do is set aside evidence even when guidelines are carefully followed. You want to set aside evidence of crimes found no matter how carefully the guidelines are followed.
quote:How exactly is the relevant? We aren't talking about anything for which the TSA agents special authority makes him different from any other citizen. I think I explained this one several pages back. What the TSA agent finds in a search is fundamentally different from something an ordinary citizen discovers by accident. The thing that differentiates this is that the TSA agent has the authority to require me to submit to a search before entering a plane. The person standing next to me in line does not.
My stance is that for moral and ethical purposes, there is functionally very little if any difference between a TSA screener discovering evidence of an unrelated crime in a completely lawful search, than there is a passenger overhearing discussion or seeing evidence of an unrelated crime themselves, and reporting it.
quote:
You honestly can't see any difference between a list of items, questions and behaviors that have been carefully reviewed by experts and approved by officials and possibly the court and what one TSA agent thinks is beyond "reasonable doubt".
Of course there's a difference. That's not the point. The point is that one of your objections is, "But it's subjective!"
That's not a good complaint. Maybe if you were saying, "But it's too subjective."
----
kmbboots,
quote:As a human being and not in their role as a TSA agent they could put out fires. As could anyone else there not in an official capacity.
Aren't they human beings when they're TSA screeners, too?
quote: Seriously, you are talking about extreme hypothetical situation - dead babies in luggage, people bursting into flames. What the people who disagree with you are concerned with is the hundred of thousands of situations that are not as extreme as corpses or combustion. You seem to be trying to use these extreme situations to justify giving TSA agents authority that would almost all of the time be either unnecessary or abused.
I'm not the only one talking about extreme hypothetical situations, or shall we review the flour-smuggling hypothetical again? 'What the people who disagree with you'...why not just say 'Rabbit and I'?
As for what I'm trying to do, you seem to be trying to use extreme situations - gross abuse - to justify seriously restricting authority, too. We're both of us using extremes here. Please don't suggest it's just me, because it simply isn't.
quote:ETA: And really, you complain about me putting words in your mouth? For the record, even though there job is keeping air travel safe, TSA agents can also breathe, sneeze, and smile.
Yeah, I was frustrated there. But hell yes, I complain about you putting words in my mouth. I even specifically listed, like, three times in the past two days where you did just that. For the record.
As for the TSA website...it's frustrating for the purposes of this discussion that so much of this law is currently being sorted out. Such as the case that prompted this thread, for example. Much easier to disagree about, I dunno, cases that are already in the Supreme Court, heh.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeeshi, I can't speak for anyone else here. But I have never intentionally put words in your mouth or misrepresented what you are saying. I sincerely doubt that anyone else here is doing that. I am honestly trying to understand your point. If you feel that people are misrepresenting what you are trying to say, it is far more likely because you haven't clearly presented your ideas.
I think the key problem is that most of us arguing against you are convinced that what you are suggesting is ripe for abuse. We know you aren't suggesting abuse, but I frankly can't see any way that what you are recommending would not encourage abuse. We keep pointing out ways in which what you seem to suggest could be abused. We know you aren't suggesting the abuse, we just don't see how what you are suggesting could be implemented in a way that would not allow and encourage abuse.
The entire rational for excluding evidence found when the conditions of a warrant are not carefully followed, was never to protect criminals, even though it does have that effect. The rational has been that this was necessary as a deterrent to those who would abuse a warrant to violate a persons privacy.
I think this sort of strong deterrent is necessary in airport searches because the potential for abuse and the number of people who might be affected by even minor abuse is so extremely high. Because the potential for abuse is so high in airport searches, we need to zealously avoid any thing that might allow or encourage abuse. Allowing TSA agents to report suspicious activity unrelated to airline safety to the police would do just that.
The courts have found that airport searches are legal so long as they are "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, " confined in good faith to that purpose," and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.
I honestly can't see that there would be more than one in tens of millions of cases where a TSA agent could identify clear evidence of a crime unrelated to airport security without being more intrusive or more intensive than necessary to detect weapons or explosives. Aside from the dead baby in the bags, I haven't seen you or anyone else propose a single exception that would meet that standard. I can see that a TSA officer acting in good faith might frequently see things that have nothing to do with airport security and which people have the right to keep private. Part of acting in good faith, at least in my opinion, means that the TSA agent is required to "turn a blind eye" to all such things.
Let me get to a more realistic example of how the system could be abused. Imagine that the police suspect you of laundering money. You routinely travel through a small airport where the same TSA agent has searched your bag a dozen times. The police shouldn't be allowed to ask TSA if I commonly carry large sums of cash on the plane. If the police question the TSA agent and ask whether I commonly carry large sums of cash on the plane, the TSA agent should say "that information is confidential". If it goes to court, the TSA agent should not be allowed to testify in court against me. If the police want to know what its my carry on bags, they have to get a warrant. A TSA search that might see what they are looking for could very easily be a route around a warrant that should be strictly prohibited.
The most straight forward way to discourage this kind of thing is first, to clearly train TSA personnel that anything they find in a search other than weapons and explosives is to be kept strictly confidential. They aren't to tell their boss, their wives, their fellow workers, the police or anyone else what they have found in a search unless it is weapons or explosives or some other item explicitly banned on aircraft. And second, to make sure that if they violate that confidentiality, it will not be considered admissible in court for either prosecuting a crime or obtaining a warrant.
I honestly can't see that a less stringent standard for confidentiality would do anything but encourage abuse of TSA searches.
[ July 09, 2009, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah, I was frustrated there. But hell yes, I complain about you putting words in my mouth. I even specifically listed, like, three times in the past two days where you did just that. For the record.
And for the record, you've accused her unfairly every time.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeeshi, I can't speak for anyone else here. But I have never intentionally put words in your mouth or misrepresented what you are saying. I sincerely doubt that anyone else here is doing that. I am honestly trying to understand your point. If you feel that people are misrepresenting what you are trying to say, it is far more likely because you haven't clearly presented your ideas.
Rabbit, when I say one thing and then am responded to with that thing plus two or three other things that I didn't say, that's not just a case of my own miscommunication. `nuff said. I don't suggest there is malicious intent, though.
quote: I think the key problem is that most of us arguing against you are convinced that what you are suggesting is ripe for abuse. We know you aren't suggesting abuse, but I frankly can't see any way that what you are recommending would not encourage abuse. We keep pointing out ways in which what you seem to suggest could be abused. We know you aren't suggesting the abuse, we just don't see how what you are suggesting could be implemented in a way that would not allow and encourage abuse.
All law enforcement and security encourages abuse. The thing I'm trying to point out is that that, in and of itself, is not sufficient grounds to reject an idea. In fact, all government activity period encourages abuse. You'll never get away from it.
quote: The entire rational for excluding evidence found when the conditions of a warrant are not carefully followed, was never to protect criminals, even though it does have that effect. The rational has been that this was necessary as a deterrent to those who would abuse a warrant to violate a persons privacy.
I'm entirely aware of why evidence isn't allowed when proper procedures aren't followed, thanks. You go further than that, though. You want evidence found when proper procedures are followed to also be excluded, at least from these sorts of searches, simply to discourage abuse.
Two questions: one, if the evidence we're discussing is only found using proper procedures, how exactly does disallowing that evidence discourage abuse? Abuse didn't occur to find the evidence. Second question: what's your opinion on allowing evidence discovered in a lawfully executed search warrant unrelated to a crime spelled out in the search warrant to be used in a prosecution?
quote: I think this sort of strong deterrent is necessary in airport searches because the potential for abuse and the number of people who might be affected by even minor abuse is so extremely high. Because the potential for abuse is so high in airport searches, we need to zealously avoid any thing that might allow or encourage abuse. Allowing TSA agents to report suspicious activity unrelated to airline safety to the police would do just that.
If I agreed that allowing TSA screeners to report suspicious evidence (not just 'activity', I mean someone actually carrying a physical object) would encourage abuse, I can flat-out guarantee I'd be more in line with your PoV on this. But I don't, because in the idea I'm suggesting, the only way someone can report something is if they discover it while following proper procedures.
If it turns out they weren't following proper procedures, well, they're immediately disciplined and depending on the nature of the transgression, possibly fired immediately or even prosecuted.
quote: I honestly can't see that there would be more than one in tens of millions of cases where a TSA agent could identify clear evidence of a crime unrelated to airport security without being more intrusive or more intensive than necessary to detect weapons or explosives. Aside from the dead baby in the bags, I haven't seen you or anyone else propose a single exception that would meet that standard. I can see that a TSA officer acting in good faith might frequently see things that have nothing to do with airport security and which people have the right to keep private. Part of acting in good faith, at least in my opinion, means that the TSA agent is required to "turn a blind eye" to all such things.
Given your standards of 'clear evidence', I'm not surprised. The armpit bag of 'flour' being a prime example. And as for the dead baby, well, you never answered a question I asked earlier: how is the TSA screener supposed to know it's a dead baby? They're not doctors, coroners, or even lifeguards. They're not trained to recognize a corpse when they see one. You seem to think it's impossible for TSA screeners to keep private non-criminal information while reporting criminal information.
I don't see why that's impossible, either.
quote: Let me get to a more realistic example of how the system could be abused. Imagine that the police suspect you of laundering money. You routinely travel through a small airport where the same TSA agent has searched your bag a dozen times. The police shouldn't be allowed to ask TSA if I commonly carry large sums of cash on the plane. If the police question the TSA agent and ask whether I commonly carry large sums of cash on the plane, the TSA agent should say "that information is confidential". If it goes to court, the TSA agent should not be allowed to testify in court against me. If the police want to know what its my carry on bags, they have to get a warrant. A TSA search that might see what they are looking for could very easily be a route around a warrant that should be strictly prohibited.
I don't see any problem with that, your solution to the example that is. All I ever said concerning money was that I didn't find it objectionable to ask a question concerning the money so long as they also advised the questioned about their right not to answer at once as well. Quite frankly I don't know why you appear to think I would have a problem with it.
quote:I honestly can't see that a less stringent standard for confidentiality would do anything but encourage abuse of TSA searches.
Then you must also think that admitting evidence discovered in a warranted search unrelated to the warrant itself also encourages law enforcement abuse, right?
quote:And for the record, you've accused her unfairly every time.
This is flat-out untrue, Rabbit.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anyway, I never said anything about banning it. The only thing I ever said was that it might inspire curiosity, and that curiosity should sometimes be lawfully acted on.
posted July 01, 2009 04:50 PM, bottom of page 2.
quote:That's not what I said. I'll repeat and re-explain myself. First off, since we as a society have decided to allow airport searches, we can't - as you and Rabbit appear to insist - treat them as unlawful searches that we all just live with. They're not unlawful searches. We've made laws that make them lawful.
quote:I think that discouraging TSA agents from exceeding their authority in the first place makes more sense than harshly penalizing them afterwards.
This is extremely frustrating. You're putting words into my mouth, kmbboots. You're putting words in my mouth even though the proof that I didn't say what you're suggesting lies right in the quoted text you're responding to. I did not say we should handle the problem of potential abuse by penalizing afterwards. I said we should do two things. They're right there in the portion you're quoting. Very strong oversight and harsh penalties.
posted July 06, 2009 11:54 AM bottom of page 3
quote:I wonder how many 'folks' really were confused as to my meaning. Because, after all, I didn't say items in bags should be tested for chemicals. I suggested that a bag of white powder of the consistency of cocaine discovered taped under one's armpit could be tasted or smelled.
posted July 06, 2009 04:15 PM top of page 4
quote:Again with this sort of thing. Reading documents is something I specifically said they shouldn't be permitted to do!
posted July 06, 2009 09:57 PM top of page 4
----
We're on page five now, Rabbit. If I were this frustrated over one or two, that'd be one thing. But it's happened over and over and over. And not just about broad strokes stuff, which I haven't talked much about, but about very specific things I have talked about and said shouldn't be done. Or responding to incomplete statements and then objecting to them.
So no, it wasn't untrue at all.
ETA: I'm only including my own parts because to cut and paste and quote all the exchanges would be time-consuming and confusing. Anyone wishing to gauge the fairness or unfairness of it all can check the posts at those times, which is why I included `em.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, You don't seem to understand the reasoning behind peoples posts. People haven't been trying to put words in your mouth. They have either misunderstood your intent or they are trying to point out that what you recommend will have effects which you do not intend. Its a very common rhetorical technique and is logically sound. I don't care how many times you say that you don't want TSA agents be able to confiscated my gluten free flour, the way you have described the standards you would set, would very likely make this possible.
Do you understand that argument or are you going to keep claiming people are putting words in your mouth?
Do you understand that sometimes things have unintended consequences?
Do you understand that people have not been claiming you said these things, they have been pointing out that what you propose will have consequences you do not intend?
The entire point is not that one can't find cases that nearly everyone would agree are "highly suspicious". The point is that unless you can clearly codify the line which separates what is acceptable and what is not, you can not stop people from doing what is unacceptable. That's why people keep pointing out cases that would step over the acceptable line but seem to fit under the ambiguous standard you have proposed.
That is why when we are dealing with peoples rights, we tend to draw the line at a point that is clear and unambiguous even if that means we miss some criminals we might otherwise have caught. The line I have suggested, that TSA agents must ignore anything that is not specifically prohibited on an airplane, can be clearly and unambigously written into law. There is no judgement required on the part of an individual TSA agent. We can write up a list of things TSA agents are allowed to look for and report -- if its not on that list they can't tell anyone they have seen it.
The line you have suggested, that TSA agents be allowed to report every thing that think is criminal beyond reasonable doubt is too ambiguous to prevent the kinds of abuses people would like to stop. We can't even agree on this thread that carrying a white powder taped under your clothing means you are smuggling drugs "beyond a reasonable doubt".
I'm not even sure what you mean by beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the term that is usually used to convict people of a crime. Do you think that having a bag of white powder hidden under your clothing would meet a standard for evidence necessary to convict someone in a jury trial. I'm quite certain that if I were on a jury and the only evidence presented to prove someone was smuggling drugs was that they had an unidentified white powder taped under their clothing, I would vote to acquit. In my mind there would be reasonable doubt that this was in fact an illicit substance.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that it is important to make clear that abuse or exceeding one's authority does not always or even usually mean the LEO or TSA agent is either incompetent or corrupt. I think that often good cops and good agents just get carried away. The "right thing" seems obvious - and in many individual cases it would be the "right thing" for that particular instance. The problem is that, cumulatively, those reasonable decisions lead to an erosion of our liberty.
I don't think it is important for me to respond to Rakeesh's accusations. As he said, people can see for themselves.
-------- I suppose I could have said, "The Rabbit and I - and probably scifibum, and swbarnes, and maybe ricree...". I thought my way was simpler and more accurate and didn't require my going through the thread to see who had taken what side.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: All I ever said concerning money was that I didn't find it objectionable to ask a question concerning the money so long as they also advised the questioned about their right not to answer at once as well. Quite frankly I don't know why you appear to think I would have a problem with it.
I don't understand why you think that a big scary guy in a uniform who can keep you off a plane asking private and personal questions is such a non-issue.
In real life, the way this policy would be carried out is bigoted TSA agents would constantly be "curious" (your word, remember) about what minorities are doing. Persian and Arab and black and gay people would be hassled and badgered under color of law by agents, for no good reason. You honestly think that not a single women who refused to answer personal questions would be patted down by a lecherous agent?
The whole point of the SC case was that the guy carrying the cash refused to answer questions that the TSA officers had no right to ask, as was his right, so they pulled him out of line and interrogated him for half an hour. So your solution is to explicitly give the TSA agents the right to ask those questions, and you think that this will result in better outcomes?
Look around. Policemen can taser people in diabetic comas, and that's considered appropriate police work. Would you be willing to risk being tasered to say no to a TSA agent? Do you think it's fair to force everyone else to take that risk?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:All law enforcement and security encourages abuse. The thing I'm trying to point out is that that, in and of itself, is not sufficient grounds to reject an idea. In fact, all government activity period encourages abuse. You'll never get away from it.
Which is why we keep pointing out that, in the case of airline searches, the potential for abuse far out weighs the potential benefits unless searches are strictly limited to weapons and explosives that might endanger an airplane.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:.Because TSA agents are not omniscient, they don't know everything.
I knew someone once that had 15 jobs in 15 years. A nice person, but unstable. Not very bright, not very competent. One of her jobs was a baggage screener for TSA.
Think of TSA folks as little better trained than fry cooks at McDonalds, and you will not be far off.
They confiscate a 1-inch toy gun for a GI Joe action figure.
Giving them discretion is the LAST thing I want.
I only fly when I *really* have to, precisely because of the invasion-of-privacy searches that go on.
I am incredibly against drugs and drug trafficking, but TSA should not be worrying about that.
People carrying weapons and dangerous items on a plane.
That's their job.
Their only job.
They are only looking in bags because planes are giant bombs. I knew this prior to 9/11; I wasn't surprised at all that a plane was used to destroy a building; I saw it in Escape From New York many years previous.
That's why there are searches; to keep planes from crashing and killing not just everyone on the plane, but others as well.
That's why the same searches should not be allowed at sports arenas and shopping malls; there are many more people there to be hurt by a bomb, but no one can fly the arena anywhere and use it *as* a bomb.
Flight safety. That is why they search bags. It doesn't matter if you're carrying cash, if you have white powder, if it wasn't for flight safety, they wouldn't be looking at all.
My HS Government teacher told us if a police officer made an illegal search and found, say, illegal burglar tools, they could confiscate them, but not arrest you, because they didn't have a warrant.
If you find clearly illegal child porn, or other illegal items, fine, confiscate it. But that's it.
And things like bags of powder, there is simply no way to know if it's illegal or not; it could be oregano instead of pot, who is to say?
Let it go. I *hate* drugs, but let it go.
If you care so much about finding drugs, you should argue for random warrantless searches at shopping malls too. No? Why not? We could find a lot of drugs that way.
But finding all the drugs, as much as I'd like to eradicate them, is not so important as actually having the FREEDOM that the Constitution guarantees.
Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Just saw this article and I thought it was relevant.
I can't say I'm surprised. The little notes TSA leaves in your suitcase which say (in essence) "We searched your bag, if we stole or broke anything -- tough" practically encourage TSA agents to take stuff.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Just saw this article and I thought it was relevant.
I can't say I'm surprised. The little notes TSA leaves in your suitcase which say (in essence) "We searched your bag, if we stole or broke anything -- tough" practically encourage TSA agents to take stuff.
What this here Rabbit said.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
An angry aide to Rep. Ron Paul, an iPhone and $4,700 in cash have forced the Transportation Security Administration to quietly issue two new rules telling its airport screeners they can only conduct searches related to airplane safety.
In response, the American Civil Liberties Union is dropping its lawsuit on behalf of Steve Bierfeldt, the man who was detained in March and who recorded the confrontation on his iPhone as TSA and local police officers spent half an hour demanding answers as to why he was carrying the money through Lambert-St. Louis International Airport.
The new rules, issuedin September and October, tell officers “screening may not be conducted to detect evidence of crimes unrelated to transportation security” and that large amounts of cash don’t qualify as suspicious for purposes of safety.
“We had been hearing of so many reports of TSA screeners engaging in wide-ranging fishing expeditions for illegal activities,” said Ben Wizner, a staff lawyer for the ACLU, pointing to reports of officers scanning pill-bottle labels to see whether the passenger was the person who obtained the prescription as one example.
He said screeners get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, strictly to keep weapons and explosives off planes, not to help police enforce other laws.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
