Thread: TSA in denial?

Originally Posted by Kraker Jak

To answer this question, first let me clarify for you. On the state side (which is what I assume you are refereing to, because I highly doubt you know anything of federal law) In order to get a warrant, you need probable cause, but probable cause its self is enough to go through a bag/search a person, therefore, you would never need a warrent to do so. You might be thinking of reasonable suspicion, which is clearly not enough to go through a bag.

Federal law enforcment are under a totally different set of rules than...lets say cops on the street. Especially TSA, which have special powers granted to them by the Federal government. TSA can lawfully do more than police officers (when it comes to searches) Just like a college security gaurd has more right than I do to search somone on thier campus, or search thier dorm room.

Now, if you think things would be better having actual law enforcement at the airports checking, think again. It would most likey be a job of the US secret service uniform divison, or customs/immigration.

Now, what I would be in favor of, is a new Law Enforcement division created for airports. Basically, deputize the TSA, they laws were change a little on searches, but back talkers like that little fuck in the video would be arrested for a felony for Disorderly Conduct in an airport....

So you think there is enough probable cause to do 638 million searches a year? He was arrested and the charges were beat because the people are starting to have enough of the bullshit thats going on. I am curious as to why he is a little fuck to you though. He was in the right and was even curtious about it. It appeared to me that it was obvious the reason he was given such a hard time was because he didn't bow down to thier unlawfull requests.

Originally Posted by Kraker Jak

he is a fuck because of the intent of his shit. There is a place to argue points, and get shit changed, and its called a court room.

Where are the 638 million "searches" a year? I have never been searched at an airport...

His intent? His intent was well within the law. Your absolutely right there is a place to argue points luckily for him its already been done for him in the courts of this country.

Welcome to the new world because as it stands right now everyone gets it and the 628 million was the number TSA did last year. I do have to correct myself because i felt i should verify the number and its 628 million not 638.

Originally Posted by Kraker Jak

Do you understand the difference between searches and frisks?

Let me know when a frisk isn't a search. Regardless of your definition it holds no water when discussing TSA.

So krak, what is the difference between a "frisk" and a "search"? And which one can be doled out without probable cause? Can a cop grab anyone and "frisk" for no reason? Can a cop perform a "search" for no reason?

Originally Posted by Kraker Jak

A frisk would be like a pat down, a brief, outside the clothes feel for contraband and or weapons. Upon feel of such item, they could then do a search. A search would be an indepth look into ones personal property, or a more extensive search into pockets etc. TSA does not search for no reason. I'm sure they're laws dictate anything suspicious looking on the monitor (say when your bag go's through) could constitute a search. Unfortunatley, we do not have Xray vision, and the machines we use can give false positive reads on certain things. Nothing is fool proof.

The TSA does not go through every single bag that comes through, or "search" every single person/property that goes through. They pick and choose based on information they have, which we do not know (and I'm sure some of it has to do with profileing, face it, that is the reality of the world we live in.) Cops profile all the time, except we do not use the term profile, we use "based on our training and experience" It sounds better in a court room.

Like I said, do not compare street cops and TSA, because we both operate under a different set of rules. Although most things are similar, when it comes to searches and seizures, the TSA/Federal Government has less restrictions than we do.3


To answer your question hawg. Cops only need "reasonable suspicion" in order to perform a stop and frisk for weapons. And trust me when I tell you, reasonable suspicion can be damn near anything. It is defined as more than a hunch, But in conjunction with us haing to be able to articulate the reasoning based on some sort of facts. Which brings me back to "based on my training and experience." You have to take in account all the circumstances involved. Let's say I see a car, in a known drug area, with 4 teenage looking occupants in it, at 2 am, on a tuesday morning. After making contact with them, thier stories are not straight...this would be enough to do a brief frisk. Also, officer safety can be a reason for a frisk.

A search is a whole other ball game though hawg. Police officers need much more evidence in order to search. This is called "probable cause" is based off what a reasonable and prudent person would believe to be more likely true than not. So, there needs to be some sort of hard evidence here to constitute a search. Say, if I pull over a car, and smell what a "reasonable and prudent person" would believe to be marijuana, that is enough probable cause to search the car for any contraband.

You understand?

Im starting to wonder if i should have named the thread Kraker in denial. A frisk is a search but the least evasive one at this point.

TSA does go thru every bag. Thats what those big machines are with the little moving counter are. The bigger bags that you check in are run thru bigger machines in the back.

I think you believe that federal agencies have much more power then what is reality. Aside from TSA they all have to meet the same probable cause in order to do a search. However no one has debated what probable cause is. The question still remains what probable cause does TSA have for doing 628 million searches? Did they all look like they were going to blow up a plane? Did they all look like they were concealing weapons? Take your pick on the scenario and the answer is going to be the same every time. No they didn't.

So why are they skirting around the constitution under the guise of safety?