# Huge Favor to ask...



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

Who here travels often?

You see, I have a paper due Monday that has to do with airport security and the controversy around it. So, if you are willing to talk to me about your experiences with airport security, then please feel free to pm me or post your answer here.


Some of the questions I'll need answered:
Name?
Position?
Reason why you fly?
What's your view on airport security? Do you think they are useful? Why or why not?
What are possible solutions that you see to improve airport security? 

Thanks!:icon_smile_big:


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

I don't travel often but recently took my 9 y/o son to the airport for a solo flight (which he's done before), and experienced a lapse in security. Let me know if you'd like to hear about that.


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

JJR512 said:


> I don't travel often but recently took my 9 y/o son to the airport for a solo flight (which he's done before), and experienced a lapse in security. Let me know if you'd like to hear about that.


Yes, I would like to hear about it.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

JJR512 said:


> I don't travel often but recently took my 9 y/o son to the airport for a solo flight...


That's very impressive. Does he use a booster seat, or can he reach the controls without one?


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

My wife recently had an "issue" with security (completely her fault). Despite all the bad press, TSA & the MTA were highly professional. What could have been "a really %$$&^$%&$ bad day" for her ended up being nothing more than a slight delay getting her to her gate, and her luggage arriving one plane later.

In general, the "Administrative" nature of Airport Security is a necessary evil, which even I can agree with. It's when it goes beyond "Administrative" (pat-downs, enhanced body-scanners, DNA scanners, being beyond) that I run into issues. My wife's issue fell under traditional Security matters.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> That's very impressive. Does he use a booster seat, or can he reach the controls without one?


For the jumbo's he probably needs one, but for a puddle jumper a phone book would work.


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> My wife recently had an "issue" with security (completely her fault). Despite all the bad press, TSA & the MTA were highly professional. What could have been "a really %$$&^$%&$ bad day" for her ended up being nothing more than a slight delay getting her to her gate, and her luggage arriving one plane later.
> 
> In general, the "Administrative" nature of Airport Security is a necessary evil, which even I can agree with. *It's when it goes beyond "Administrative" (pat-downs, enhanced body-scanners, DNA scanners, being beyond) that I run into issues.* My wife's issue fell under traditional Security matters.


Has anybody ran into this issue yet? (My paper is basically a pro/con on the new methods used)


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

ZachGranstrom said:


> Yes, I would like to hear about it.


For kids flying solo...at least this is true with Southwest, not sure about other airlines...they put the kid's boarding pass and baggage claim ticket in this translucent blue pouch hung from a cord around the kid's neck like a necklace. I escorted my son through the security checkpoint, emptying our pockets into the gray bus tubs and walking through the metal detector. I didn't realize this but my son had taken off the boarding pass pouch and put it in one of the tubs, and he somehow missed picking it up on the other side. We get to the gate and realize he doesn't have it, so we walked back to the security checkpoint and spoke to one of the guards, who directed us to a supervisor's desk nearby. I walked up and told the supervisor that my son left his boarding pass at the checkpoint, and he picked it up from his desk and handed it to me. He didn't ask me who I was, who my son was, what our names were, ask to see ID, or anything like that.

Pretty minor, I think, but they should probably at least have asked me for my name, or what my son's name was. He just showed it to me and asked if that was it.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Not long before 9/11, I was flying from St. Louis to Reno. A pleasure trip. Thus, my carry-ons consisted of 200 or so CD's and a portable stereo. I was stopped on the other side of the x-ray machine. "Sir, I need to look into your bags," the security woman said. "Of course," I replied. She pulled out a folder full of CDs. "What are these?" she demanded. Keep in mind, I also have a portable stereo with me. I did my best to explain a compact disc to her, but she seemed unconvinced. Finally, when I told her that any number of people in the area could assure here that CD's were not WMD, she let me through. Within a month or so of this--and also before 9/11--I was delayed at the same airport at security. It seemed that they were not familiar with what a toothbrush looks like in an x-ray machine.

These days there is, in my mind, a lot of silly security that I think is a reaction to prior incompetence. The Israelis, so far as I know (and I have never flown an Israeli airline, so I invite any correction), do not resort to the sort of foolishness that happens, or was allowed to happen, in the United States, and an Israeli airplane, it would seem, would be a prime target.

9/11 was not, in my estimation, a sophisticated plot, contrary to media reports. When they let folks take multiple box cutters onto airplanes, well, duh. I do not necessarily object to a ban on liquids, but I do not understand why ANY liquids are allowed--couldn't 20 folks combine their 3.5 oz's to create a device?

I am all in favor of doing whatever it takes to make airplanes safe, but I fear that there is a lot of window dressing going on that doesn't make a difference. In a perfect world, I would put the airlines back in charge of security, with the serious caveat that if something goes wrong, they get sued out of existence. No more protection a la what went on after 9/11--in my mind, the airlines were criminally negligent in their security procedures, but they were allowed to skate by Congress, which set up a settlement fund that resulted in paltry financial consequences for the airlines. There is one family with the stones to stand up for what is right, and a trial date has been set for June: https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/nyregion/11family.html

Not arguing that the government should not have helped out the families, but I do think that the airlines should have paid a lot more than they did. And I also think that they should be in charge of security today. I think that the private sector, the free market, would do a much better job than the government in keeping terrorists off of airplanes if the airlines knew that there were consequences to putting would-you-like-fries-with-that quality folks at security posts.

This, of course, is my perfect world. Lawyers are free to disagree.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

If you think post 9/11 airport security is a concern, I sense most would be aghast at the range and number of electronic signals transmissions are being monitored and the conversation/ statements made, that are closely evaluated...and perhaps we might consider the kind of story our credit card use histories have to say about us! :icon_scratch:


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

JJR512 said:


> For kids flying solo...at least this is true with Southwest, not sure about other airlines...they put the kid's boarding pass and baggage claim ticket in this translucent blue pouch hung from a cord around the kid's neck like a necklace. I escorted my son through the security checkpoint, emptying our pockets into the gray bus tubs and walking through the metal detector. I didn't realize this but my son had taken off the boarding pass pouch and put it in one of the tubs, and he somehow missed picking it up on the other side. We get to the gate and realize he doesn't have it, so we walked back to the security checkpoint and spoke to one of the guards, who directed us to a supervisor's desk nearby. I walked up and told the supervisor that my son left his boarding pass at the checkpoint, and he picked it up from his desk and handed it to me. He didn't ask me who I was, who my son was, what our names were, ask to see ID, or anything like that.
> 
> Pretty minor, I think, but they should probably at least have asked me for my name, or what my son's name was. He just showed it to me and asked if that was it.


It's one of those "If you know what you are looking for, and are already on that side, you are probably the right guy" scenarios.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

ZachGranstrom said:


> Has anybody ran into this issue yet? (My paper is basically a pro/con on the new methods used)


My major concern is that Supreme Court ruling that allows airport searches, _seemingly in opposition to the 4th Amendment_, hinges on the word *Administrative*. In general, *my take on this*, that the search must be _*passive*_ in nature. A regular Law Enforcement official, in the outside world can't get away with more without probable cause, so why should a _Regulatory_ Agency.

What the TSA has been instituting (not everywhere, but enough for me to draw concern), is definitely not Passive, nor Administrative. A pat-down _without cause_ is a violation of a personal space, and so intrusive that it borders on sexual assault. Enhanced body scanners (which can't actually see guns....) are just as invasive. How many dates does it normally take before you can get a woman's clothes off? The TSA isn't even buying me a stiff drink before hand (that might actually help if they did...). As for DNA scanners, this gets into levels I am just uncomfortable with, as any medical information the government collects, "the government owns."

I am not generally paranoid of big brother, because honestly big brother if too big to be anything but incompetent. But what seems like a good idea to one person, and is designed by another, and enforced by another just highlights that. The TSA is so new of an organization that they don't have a group ethos yet, let alone one that is designed to actually take care of the American People.

It's like a person who has a house robbery. They buy a big mean dog. The dog has no loyalty (yet), and is just as dangerous to them as to an intruder. It's not like our other Agencies, which have matured over the years.


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

32rollandrock said:


> Not long before 9/11, I was flying from St. Louis to Reno. A pleasure trip. Thus, my carry-ons consisted of 200 or so CD's and a portable stereo. I was stopped on the other side of the x-ray machine. "Sir, I need to look into your bags," the security woman said. "Of course," I replied. She pulled out a folder full of CDs. "What are these?" she demanded. Keep in mind, I also have a portable stereo with me. I did my best to explain a compact disc to her, but she seemed unconvinced. Finally, when I told her that any number of people in the area could assure here that CD's were not WMD, she let me through. Within a month or so of this--and also before 9/11--I was delayed at the same airport at security. It seemed that they were not familiar with what a toothbrush looks like in an x-ray machine.
> 
> These days there is, in my mind, a lot of silly security that I think is a reaction to prior incompetence. The Israelis, so far as I know (and I have never flown an Israeli airline, so I invite any correction), do not resort to the sort of foolishness that happens, or was allowed to happen, in the United States, and an Israeli airplane, it would seem, would be a prime target.
> 
> ...


So you think the airlines should be in charge of security today? You must be kidding!! Continental does not even provide newspapers on trans-Atlantic flights, unless one buys a first class ticket. And how about that airline that put one less olive in each salad served and saved over $120,000 in one year? I barely trust the airlines to get me from place to place safely, let alone screen for terrorists!!


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> My major concern is that Supreme Court ruling that allows airport searches, _seemingly in opposition to the 4th Amendment_, hinges on the word *Administrative*. In general, *my take on this*, that the search must be _*passive*_ in nature. A regular Law Enforcement official, in the outside world can't get away with more without probable cause, so why should a _Regulatory_ Agency.
> 
> What the TSA has been instituting (not everywhere, but enough for me to draw concern), is definitely not Passive, nor Administrative. A pat-down _without cause_ is a violation of a personal space, and so intrusive that it borders on sexual assault. Enhanced body scanners (which can't actually see guns....) are just as invasive. How many dates does it normally take before you can get a woman's clothes off? The TSA isn't even buying me a stiff drink before hand (that might actually help if they did...). As for DNA scanners, this gets into levels I am just uncomfortable with, as any medical information the government collects, "the government owns."
> 
> ...


The big, mean dog you talk about is a good analogy to the new see through x-ray machines that Hugh Hefner would approve of. They are supposted to protect us, but there is no data on what the long-term effects of these machines are on one's health.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

blue suede shoes said:


> The big, mean dog you talk about is a good analogy to the new see through x-ray machines that Hugh Hefner would approve of. They are supposted to protect us, but there is no data on what the long-term effects of these machines are on one's health.


That and the machines can't actually spot Guns. One of the major prohibited items for air travel. Explosives are honestly a secondary issue. A bomb kills at most the crew & passengers. A highjacked plane however....

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/TSA-Agent-Slips-Through-DFW-Body-Scanner-With-a-Gun-116497568.html


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

That airlines are as cheap as they are shows why they should be in charge of security. If they knew they could be sued, successfully, for running slipshod security, they wouldn't allow slipshod security. Right now, no one, really, is accountable. So a terrorist gets on a plane and there's another 9/11. Sorry, can't sue the government for screwing up due to sovereign immunity. But you could sue Continental or American or Southwest, et al, and if you had a righteous case, you'd win and collect huge money. That's the way the system is supposed to work. It's a powerful deterrent to going-through-the-motions security. The private sector will protect itself by taking steps that work, the private sector will not waste money by doing stuff that does not work.

For those who think a pat-down search violates your rights, easy solution: Don't fly. Nothing in the Constitution says you have the right to fly in an airplane.

Government foolishness case-in-point: My wife and I recently flew to Las Vegas. The person in front of us going through security, the same security we went through, was the freakin' pilot. Unbelievable.

Lastly, one thing that frosts me about security is this procedure where first-class passengers get to go through a special line where there is little or no waiting. That's BS. I pay taxes, there is no reason why security paid for with my tax dollars should give preference to someone who flies first class--everyone should be treated the same. If the airlines paid for it, different story.



blue suede shoes said:


> So you think the airlines should be in charge of security today? You must be kidding!! Continental does not even provide newspapers on trans-Atlantic flights, unless one buys a first class ticket. And how about that airline that put one less olive in each salad served and saved over $120,000 in one year? I barely trust the airlines to get me from place to place safely, let alone screen for terrorists!!


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

Thanks again for all the replies and PMs!

-Zach


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> My major concern is that Supreme Court ruling that allows airport searches, _seemingly in opposition to the 4th Amendment_, hinges on the word *Administrative*. In general, *my take on this*, that the search must be _*passive*_ in nature. A regular Law Enforcement official, in the outside world can't get away with more without probable cause, so why should a _Regulatory_ Agency.


So you don't appreciate the difference between walking down the street and being stopped by a cop, and going to an airport or courthouse.

Really??


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

32rollandrock said:


> Sorry, can't sue the government for screwing up due to sovereign immunity.


You can sue the government in the US (especially for screwing up).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States

_"The United States has waived sovereign immunity to a limited extent, mainly through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the immunity if a tortious act of a federal employee causes damage, and the Tucker Act, which waives the immunity over claims arising out of contracts to which the federal government is a party. The Federal Tort Claims Act and the Tucker Act are not as broad waivers of sovereign immunity as they might appear, as there are a number of statutory exceptions and judicially fashioned limiting doctrines applicable to both. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331 confers federal question jurisdiction on district courts, but this statute has been held not to be a blanket waiver of sovereign immunity on the part of the federal government."_

Using a second 9/11 as an example, the federal government could be sued if showed to be negligent, either through a government employee, or through a government contractors' fault.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> So you don't appreciate the difference between walking down the street and being stopped by a cop, and going to an airport or courthouse.
> 
> Really??


There's a supreme court ruling regarding *Administrative* searches in airports. They ruled that Administrative searches were constitutional so long as they were necessary for for the safety of the passengers and crew.

I don't like either, but I understand why there is a difference. I'm willing to put up with Administrative searches (if I choose to fly). I'm not willing to put up with illegal Search & Seizure.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> You can sue the government in the US (especially for screwing up).
> 
> Using a second 9/11 as an example, the federal government could be sued if showed to be negligent, either through a government employee, or through a government contractors' fault.


That may be so but I find it idiotic that the Government allows itself to be sued.

I caught A LOT of heat for saying so at the time, but the Federal settlement for victims was equally foolish.

Time and time again, local law enforcement has been found exempt in matters of protecting the public from improperly released criminals or from generally preventing or interdicting crimes. (Running over someone with their car, improper detention etc, is another issue)

Do murder victims during a liquor store robbery famalies receive compensation??

Nor should they.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> That may be so but I find it idiotic that the Government allows itself to be sued.
> 
> I caught A LOT of heat for saying so at the time, but the Federal settlement for victims was equally foolish.
> 
> ...


How else would you hold it accountable for *negligence* or *discrimination*?

I agree that the government should not be held liable for any complaint a person brings. But... if a person, or people can show negligence or discrimination (true fault) _from the government_, then the government should be held liable for it.

The government is not responsible for individuals' acts. But it is responsible for performing its assigned duties, and ensuring our Rights. That's why many Supreme court cases are called United States vs Person's Name.

Using your example of a murder victim receiving compensation. OJ Simpson is a great answer to that question. Found innocent in criminal court. Found guilty in civil court, and *paid the victims family compensation*.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> Using your example of a murder victim receiving compensation. OJ Simpson is a great answer to that question. Found innocent in criminal court. Found guilty in civil court, and *paid the victims family compensation*.


That's right. Compensation from OJ, not the City of LA for failing to protect them from him!!


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> That's right. Compensation from OJ, not the City of LA for failing to protect them from him!!


Victims of 9/11 Compensation Fund... The Terrorists sure as hell didn't pay it.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Don't you think that was a poor precedent as I do??


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Don't you think that was a poor precedent as I do??


I agree it is poor precedent. But your original question was:

"Do murder victims during a liquor store robbery (a.k.a. violent crime) famalies receive compensation?? (from the government)"

The answer is yes.

Based on discussions in previous threads, do I believe victims (and by extension families of victims) of crimes are entitled to _government compensation_ (of any sort, including medical). Not really. However, if the government is one who caused/perpetuated the act, they should be held liable, and should pay for it.

If OJ can be held liable, why can't the US government? Sovereign Immunity assumes a perfect sovereign. We (both you and I) can point at countless examples where the government is imperfect, and has to be held accountable for its actions or the actions of those working for it. Sometimes the only way to do that is through lawsuits, whether through individual or class action.

Now, that said.. I do believe in individual immunity within the government. You cannot sue an individual within the government for (perceived) issue. There should be a level of protection for working for the government, however the government itself must be accountable to the people *always*.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

I thought we were agreeing again.

Sometimes I just have to check to make sure!!


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I thought we were agreeing again.
> 
> Sometimes I just have to check to make sure!!


For the most part we agree. It's just a case of how.

Is it silly that the government allows itself to be sued? (Sovereign Immunity) Sure.

But they were forced to forfeit that immunity because all their power is derived from the People who grant them the power, who are potentially doing the suing.

In essence, they (the Government) have no immunity from themselves (the People), because they (the Government) are accountable (liable) to themselves (the People).

Sovereign Immunity is way too tricky to allow carte blanche. For this reason, it isn't. There is no absolute power. Always a check & balance.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

Would you post the final paper you wrote?

I'm very curious to see this.

Also, curiously, is the TSA's job is 'Administrative' to 'ensure the security of air travel,' then why would one be detained by the TSA for carrying illegal drugs on a domestic flight? It seems to be outside the scope of their intent.


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> Would you post the final paper you wrote?


Uh......I'm going to say no.(Too shy)


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> Also, curiously, is the TSA's job is 'Administrative' to 'ensure the security of air travel,' then why would one be detained by the TSA for carrying illegal drugs on a domestic flight? It seems to be outside the scope of their intent.


TSA's job isn't _Administrative_. They are a _Regulatory_ Agency. The Supreme Court ruling that allows anyone (Airport Security, not specifically TSA, since it didn't exist at the time of the ruling) to conduct searches for air travel specifies that they must be *Administrative* in nature.

If during an Administrative search, contraband (whether a prohibited item, or an illegal substance) is found, a Law Enforcement Agency must be contacted. The LE organization makes the determination whether the individual will be charged within the specific jurisdiction. In addition, the TSA may levy Civil Financial Penalties (non-Criminal).

For example:

If you are traveling through Dulles International Airport (IAD), and during screening are found in possession of a white powdery substance (Cocaine), you will be detained by TSA, turned over to Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) for investigation. They will determine what the substance is, charge and arrest you.

It was during an "Administrative" search that the drugs were found, resulting in your detainment, and eventual arrest. The TSA was not specifically looking for drugs, but instead looking for items prohibited from air travel (knives, guns, explosives, etc), but during the course of their search they found something which necessitated a report to local LE, and detainment.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> But they were forced to forfeit that immunity because all their power is derived from the People who grant them the power, who are potentially doing the suing.
> 
> In essence, they (the Government) have no immunity from themselves (the People), because they (the Government) are accountable (liable) to themselves (the People).


By the opposite token, since the Government is us, why sue yourself??

Run over yourself with your own car??

Can't sue yourself.

(Not yet anyway!!)


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> By the opposite token, since the Government is us, why sue yourself??
> 
> Run over yourself with your own car??
> 
> ...


I sued myself once.

I lost. :frown:


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> By the opposite token, since the Government is us, why sue yourself??
> 
> Run over yourself with your own car??
> 
> ...


No, but you can claim insurance on yourself. You can hold yourself liable for damages. You can pay for your own mistakes. Suing yourself is an unnecessary middle step. Suing your insurance company, to cover your mistake, may be a necessary step however.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> No, but you can claim insurance on yourself. You can hold yourself liable for damages.


Not really "liable" per se. In my example, damages to the car are paid by the car carrier. Damages to yourself are paid by the health insurance carrier and maybe Med-Pay or PIP through the car.

There is no reimbursement for pain and suffering inflicted upon yourself through the liability end of your homeowners or car insurance. You'd have to have someone else run over you, or run over yourself in someone elses driveway to claim that against them!!

Fortunately, stupidity is not excluded in property losses.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> TSA's job isn't _Administrative_. They are a _Regulatory_ Agency. The Supreme Court ruling that allows anyone (Airport Security, not specifically TSA, since it didn't exist at the time of the ruling) to conduct searches for air travel specifies that they must be *Administrative* in nature.
> 
> If during an Administrative search, contraband (whether a prohibited item, or an illegal substance) is found, a Law Enforcement Agency must be contacted. The LE organization makes the determination whether the individual will be charged within the specific jurisdiction. In addition, the TSA may levy Civil Financial Penalties (non-Criminal).
> 
> ...


Not being an attorney, and my closest brush with the profession being a 15 month stint with LexisNexis (oh, and a law class junior year of HS, where my closest friend's grandfather was THE county judge), search/seizure law always intrigued me (I can cite _Denver v. United States _quite thoroughly).

I'm still lost on the premise that someone who is NOT with an LE agency can look for one thing, find something unrelated, and then allow detention and prosecution based on that.


----------



## Canadian (Jan 17, 2008)

I'm interested in the final results. However, when I pay nearly 100 bucks for a 3 hour bus ride to Calgary from Lethbridge, I am searched in Calgary but not in Lethbridge. When I take that return bus trip, a large, burly guy who should be a bouncer is able to search through my stuff at will, demand that I activate my laptop, demand that I throw away a plastic bottle of pop, because after all "I might have put booze in it" or demand that I submit to a wanding and a metal detector. This didn't happen 3 years ago, and quite bluntly, if I wanted to smuggle an Uzi or a cleaver onboard, I'd find a way to do it. Its all because a nutjob decided to cut somebody's head off on a Greyhound bus.

I travel a lot. Often I take the bus into Calgary, taxi to the airport and fly Westjet from there. I own stock in Westjet and it's a good investment. I once had a flight attendant apologize to me about the excessive security measures. For me, as somebody who spent a large portion of my uni years traveling across the country to attend conferences, I have a substantial amount of experience. Now, if it's for business, and if I can do so, I drive myself.

Flying with airport security in Canada is a lot like driving. If you show up, stoned out of your tree or drunk, security will deal with you. If you try to bring a machine gun in your luggage, you can be stopped and with reasonable suspicion searched. Doesn't mean it's right (I personally figure if you own a machine gun or a paintball/airsoft gun that is a replica, you ought to be able to bring it on a plane in checked baggage, as you don't have access to it during flights). But if you stay in line, follow the rules, don't get haughty, generally you go through unencumbered. Again, being searched is a pain, but its something we have to put up with.

As for security breaches, I once accidently left my Samsonite briefcase in the Xray machine and forgot to claim it on the other side. I wasn't tasered, but a big, fat, ready-to-fight security guard grabbed me about 200 yards and made me come back and get it. If it was a bomb, sure I would have blown myself or it up by then, but he wanted to give me the benefit of the doubt.

Another security breach was when some guys I was traveling with for school smuggled in a Mickey of Cherry Whiskey inside a Tim Hortons cup and a couple flasks. They were drinking what I assumed was coffee, only as the flight went on, they became sillier and sillier. Finally a FA caught on and made them dump it out. It could have been an ugly incident and could have prompted an emergency landing, but they just got a rollicking from the FA and got told to sit down and drink plenty of water to sober up.

Thomas


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> I'm still lost on the premise that someone who is NOT with an LE agency can look for one thing, find something unrelated, and then allow detention and prosecution based on that.


You give them permission you conduct an "Administrative Search" if you wish to travel by air. Once you have entered into the security procedure, you cannot bow out under the premise that there would be no penalty for a failed attempt (This is all explained under the Supreme Court Ruling). On discover of something illegal, (not just contraband), the Regulatory "Agency" (whether government or not, since they are enforcing a government regulations) have an obligation to report & detain (if necessary).

It is part of their agreement with the Federal government which allows them the power to conduct the searches in the first place, and grants them the power.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> On discover of something illegal, (not just contraband), the Regulatory "Agency" (whether government or not, since they are enforcing a government regulations) have an obligation to report & detain (if necessary).


...so long as you don't ask a word about legal residency status!!


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> ...so long as you don't ask a word about legal residency status!!


Now that's a tricky one.

While inside the US, you are protected by the Constitution whether or not you are a US citizen. Your residence status for the most part is irrelevant, _until you've committed a crime_. At that point, you can be deemed persona non grata, and asked to leave (or escorted from the premises aka deported).

American citizens are not required to carry identification, let alone identification which proves them American citizens. The only identification that really fits that bill is a Passport, which is far from common, and is used specifically for travel abroad.

That said, legal resident immigrants are issued identification (aka green card).

Generally speaking, the question of residency should never be brought up unless:

a) You are subject to an investigation (detained at security for contraband) of Law Enforcement (it's not TSA's Business, but it may be Local Polices)
b) Crossing a US Border
c) Filling out a document which federally mandates the answer


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Am I missing something, what's the huge favour of the title then? Genuine question, maybe I'm just not reading things properly.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Am I missing something, what's the huge favour of the title then? Genuine question, maybe I'm just not reading things properly.


Personal help with a research assignment. Apparently time-sensitive.


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Am I missing something, what's the huge favour of the title then? Genuine question, maybe I'm just not reading things properly.





Apatheticviews said:


> *Personal help with a research assignment.* Apparently time-sensitive.


That's why I created this thread. ^


----------

