# This is exacltly why I'll keep to the rails thank you



## dlagrua (Aug 21, 2010)

Some poeple wonder why I'm done flying. This article says it all for a government out of control.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20100818_Daniel_Rubin__An_infuriating_search_at_Philadelphia_International_Airport.html


----------



## OTownDog (Aug 21, 2010)

This article has me speechless. I'll be traveling by air twice next month (and thankfully twice by rail as well) and am sickened that This type of treatment is a possibility. Oddly, I can't seem to remember the last time a blonde haired middle aged woman was responsible for any real or imagined threat to the safety of the airlines. This is just appalling.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 21, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> Some poeple wonder why I'm done flying. This article says it all for a government out of control.
> 
> http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20100818_Daniel_Rubin__An_infuriating_search_at_Philadelphia_International_Airport.html


  1984 is truely here and BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING! :angry: This is appaling and a reminder of why Security Theater should be kept out of train stations! Everyone, no matter what your political beliefs should understand how abusive and illegal this is! Where are the public interest lawyers?? :help: :help: :help:


----------



## PRR 60 (Aug 21, 2010)

It amuses me how we always point out the inaccuracies and unfairness of mass media reporting of rail, particularly when that reporting is negative, and then accept the very same reporting of non-rail issues as 100% fair and accurate. Suffice it to say that this story has two sides, and the Inqy is reporting only the side fed to them by the woman's attorney - ten days after the fact, by the way.

I have no idea if this is the case here, but a suburban princess wronged is not a pretty sight.


----------



## LA Resident (Aug 21, 2010)

PRR 60 said:


> It amuses me how we always point out the inaccuracies and unfairness of mass media reporting of rail, particularly when that reporting is negative, and then accept the very same reporting of non-rail issues as 100% fair and accurate. Suffice it to say that this story has two sides, and the Inqy is reporting only the side fed to them by the woman's attorney - ten days after the fact, by the way.
> 
> I have no idea if this is the case here, but a suburban princess wronged is not a pretty sight.


I'm glad you're amused. I venture that most people on this forum are not. There are enough examples from history of police authorities given authority and/or power who abuse their privilege to be highly skeptical of their defense.

In the specific instance of TSA, there is the additional fact that people who complain publicly often end up somehow being pulled into secondary inspection over and over and over, and denied reasons why.

One little police potentate acting illegally is one too many. I hope the experience never happens to you. But if it does, tell us all about it on this forum and we'll be amused.


----------



## Edgefan (Aug 21, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> Some poeple wonder why I'm done flying. This article says it all for a government out of control.
> 
> http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20100818_Daniel_Rubin__An_infuriating_search_at_Philadelphia_International_Airport.html


One of many reasons I will no longer get inside a pressurized aluminum tube and go shooting through the atmosphere. <_< I forwarded the link to my wife as reinforcement of my stance.


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 21, 2010)

I do not understand this statement in the story:



> one of the Philadelphia officers told her he was there because her checks were numbered sequentially









I do not often write checks, but I've always found that the checks in my checkbook are numbered #127, 128, 129, 130, 131, etc... - not #127, 146, 138, 150, 134, etc...



So why would they not be numbered sequentially?


----------



## PRR 60 (Aug 21, 2010)

the_traveler said:


> I do not understand this statement in the story:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


These were not checks written by this person to others. These were checks written by a third party to this person. Multiple checks, same payer, (almost) sequential, about $8000 total, payee her and her husband, and she's flying out of town with them. Hmm.

I dare say that you do not often write four or five checks all to the same person at the same time with (almost) sequential numbering.


----------



## RRrich (Aug 21, 2010)

PRR 60 said:


> I dare say that you do not often write four or five checks all to the same person at the same time with (almost) sequential numbering.


I do not understand why she would have several sequential checks made out to her (and her husband) BUT my lack of understanding does NOT give me or a officer cause to question her unless the law gives us that right.

People are NOT subject to an officer's whims but to the stipulations of the law!


----------



## caravanman (Aug 21, 2010)

Hi,

I think this is an interesting story, mostly for the fact that the TSA was a behaviour expert, on the lookout for "unusual behaviour".

I have a retail and hire business here in the UK, for many years, and I think it is fair to say that I do get a "sixth sense" about some customers. Dunno what it is, but something out of the ordinary gets my attention each time.. Sometimes I am wrong, and a normal transaction follows, sometimes not.

This incident seems to just have escalated out of proportion.. maybe a stressed passenger and a stressed TSA creating a perfect storm?

I can't see that it is "a government out of control", seems more like an over zealous security official. After all, would anyone feel happy to board a plane these days without thorough security checks? not me!

Eddie


----------



## rrdude (Aug 21, 2010)

PRR 60 said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> > I do not understand this statement in the story:
> ...


None of the GD TSA's business if you do tho, is it?

I pray for the asshat TSA who treats me like that. Miss my flight? I could care less. If I am treated like that, they will not forget the day. Two can play that game. Just because you _wear_ a uniform, does not give you carte blanche.

I hate it when people go running to attorneys to try and file a lawsuit against someone for false reasons, but this women SHOULD be talking to an attorney.


----------



## PRR 60 (Aug 21, 2010)

LA Resident said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > It amuses me how we always point out the inaccuracies and unfairness of mass media reporting of rail, particularly when that reporting is negative, and then accept the very same reporting of non-rail issues as 100% fair and accurate. Suffice it to say that this story has two sides, and the Inqy is reporting only the side fed to them by the woman's attorney - ten days after the fact, by the way.
> ...


And you'd have a right to be amused.

And for the record, I'm amused with the response here. The responders here are the same people who are rightly indignant when the media blames Amtrak for grade crossing fatalities and quotes witnesses who swear the crossing lights were not working. We know that's crap and say so. But, in this case, we take an equally implausible story and elevate it to fact simply because the Philadelphia Inquirer says it is. In this case, my experience and the facts suggest the story is far more complicated then the Inquirer alleges. The TSA and Philadelphia Police are 100% wrong and this woman is 100% right? I don't think so.

I frequent PHL TSO all the time. I have never had an issue. That is never as in never. The only time I ever got the SSSS treatment was at SEA, and ironically that was Amtrak's fault. Even that was not a big deal. It took ten minutes. I'm polite and treat the TSA officers with respect. It is amazing how well that works.

I don't know what happened at PHL with this woman. I wasn't there and did not see it. It may be exactly as described. But, if that's true, it is a rare and illogical aberration - kind of like crossing signals not working. About 15,000 passengers pass through PHL TSO every day. If this kind of behavior were SOP, wouldn't we be hearing of dozens such incidents like this a day: hundreds a month: thousands a year? Plus, the Philadelphia Police got involved. The police would not have been called in unless the PHL TSO Station Chief or supervisor had called them in. The station chief or supervisor, not some rogue agent, thought there was an issue and was willing to back that with police involvement.

My guess is that this woman pulled the DYKWIA card, told the agents in no uncertain terms that she was superior to them, that they have no right to question her, she would sue if they did, she refused to cooperate, and things went downhill from there. I think that is every bit as likely as the story she told to the Inquirer.


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 21, 2010)

RRrich said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > I dare say that you do not often write four or five checks all to the same person at the same time with (almost) sequential numbering.
> ...


I agree. I have never seen where one company issues multiple checks sequentially to the same person - especially made out to 2 people! And if she was in fact "clearing out the account prior to a divorce", do you really thing she would ask to receive checks made out with *BOTH* names?


----------



## rrdude (Aug 21, 2010)

Agree, but _even if_ she did pull out the DYKWIA card, unless they thought she was a threat to safe transport of that

plane, wouldn't it have been better to just suck it up, and recall at the end of the day when off duty "What a royal B I T C * * this lady was earlier today?" Or something like that..........


----------



## alanh (Aug 21, 2010)

That's really what it boils down to: how did her having sequentially-numbered checks endanger the flight? Did they think they would explode, or that she would use them to attack the flight attendants?


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 21, 2010)

PRR 60 said:


> The only time I ever got the SSSS treatment was at SEA, and ironically that was Amtrak's fault.






Do you mean SEA as in Sea-Tac airport or King Street Station?





If Sea-Tac, how could it be Amtrak's fault? And if it's King Street Station, there is no TSA there! So color me confused!


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Aug 21, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> Some poeple wonder why I'm done flying. This article says it all for a government out of control.


I don't wonder why you're done flying. Believe me, I get it. What I do wonder though is why you're not interested in trying to actually fix the problem instead of just running away from it on a train.



OTownDog said:


> I can't seem to remember the last time a blonde haired middle aged woman was responsible for any real or imagined threat to the safety of the airlines. This is just appalling.


I don't know what's more bizarre. The the assumption of guilt based on check numbers or the assumption of innocence based on age and hair color.



jimhudson said:


> Where are the public interest lawyers??


The article already mentions the work of the ACLU in trying to combat this continued invasion of privacy. Have you donated to them recently? What we're also missing these days are the public interest voters.



PRR 60 said:


> It amuses me how we...accept...reporting of non-rail issues as 100% fair and accurate. Suffice it to say that this story has two sides, and the Inqy is reporting only the side fed to them by the woman's attorney - ten days after the fact, by the way.


If you read the actual article you'd see they included comments from both the accuser and the TSA administration. Not to mention that the attitude problems and unwarranted secondary searching is something I run into _all the time_ with the TSA. The bulk of this story rings true to me. Then again I've never met this woman and don't know her as well as you apparently do. <_<


----------



## jmbgeg (Aug 21, 2010)

PRR 60 said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> > I do not understand this statement in the story:
> ...


It is totally understandable if they were business checks and each was tied to a separate transaction (e.g. stock sale, real estate transaction, etc.)


----------



## PRR 60 (Aug 21, 2010)

alanh said:


> That's really what it boils down to: how did her having sequentially-numbered checks endanger the flight? Did they think they would explode, or that she would use them to attack the flight attendants?


It's not quite that simple. If, in the course of security inspections, the TSA finds evidence of a crime not connected with security, they are authorized to detain that person and involve the local police. If, for example, they search a carry on and find a pound of cocaine, that person will not be cleared. The cocaine would not endanger the flight, but that would not matter. The police would be called to the screening area, and they would handle it from there. That, by the way, is one reason that Amtrak is so popular for moving drugs and why DEA agents sometimes show up on Amtrak. Taking cocaine or other illegal drugs on flights is not a wise thing to do.

Now, is having sequential checks written to two payees with one payee heading out of town with them sufficiently suspicious to have the TSA involve the police? I have no idea. Add in possible behavior issues. Add in lack of cooperation. Maybe then? I still don't know. But, is it absolutely not probable cause for police involvement? I can't say that either.

I am always skeptical of any "good vs. bad" articles like this, particularly when the article presents one side extensively and the other side minimally. I have had first-hand involvement with situations like this and with this particular newspaper. You can give the newspaper tons of information, lots of facts, and if it doesn't fit the point they are trying to make, your side is reduced to a sentence or two, and the readers think you did not offer any information and conclude that you had nothing to offer. You're lucky if they even spell your name correctly.

Knowing what I know about TSA and TSA procedures, I am skeptical about this tale of woe.


----------



## MattW (Aug 21, 2010)

There's a real easy test to determine if the tsa should step in: does this pose a danger to the aircraft? If no, then BUT THE HECK OUT!


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Aug 21, 2010)

PRR 60 said:


> alanh said:
> 
> 
> > That's really what it boils down to: how did her having sequentially-numbered checks endanger the flight? Did they think they would explode, or that she would use them to attack the flight attendants?
> ...


Totally agree. Also keep in mind this was written by a columnist, yet is presented as news.


----------



## amamba (Aug 21, 2010)

PRR 60 said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> > I do not understand this statement in the story:
> ...


The only person I ever write checks to is my dog walker, and I pay her on a weekly basis. She sometimes keeps the checks for a while, not in the thousands category but definitely in the hundreds and they would absolutely be sequential.


----------



## spacecadet (Aug 21, 2010)

PRR 60 said:


> It's not quite that simple. If, in the course of security inspections, the TSA finds evidence of a crime not connected with security, they are authorized to detain that person and involve the local police. If, for example, they search a carry on and find a pound of cocaine, that person will not be cleared.


That's not the same thing at all. Cocaine is in itself illegal to possess. Sequential checks are not. Of course any law enforcement agency has to stop someone who is clearly in the process of committing a crime in plain sight of that law enforcement agency.

Sequential checks may be "suspicious" to certain people, but they are not criminal in themselves. The TSA is not authorized to check for _anything_ other than a danger to the flight. Even if the TSA had suspicions, they had no right to continue this line of investigation. All they have a right to do is check if she's a danger to the flight. By their own admission, nothing about their suspicions had anything to do with danger; they suspected she was embezzling money from her husband. This is why they detained her. That is flat-out illegal.


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 21, 2010)

amamba said:


> The only person I ever write checks to is my dog walker, and I pay her on a weekly basis. She sometimes keeps the checks for a while, not in the thousands category but definitely in the hundreds and they would absolutely be sequential.


Can I be your dog walker?



I need hundreds of dollars - and I won't keep them for so long!

But you'll probably make me do some work - maybe even like walk a dog!


----------



## amamba (Aug 21, 2010)

the_traveler said:


> amamba said:
> 
> 
> > The only person I ever write checks to is my dog walker, and I pay her on a weekly basis. She sometimes keeps the checks for a while, not in the thousands category but definitely in the hundreds and they would absolutely be sequential.
> ...


Well you would have to come to PVD everyday, maybe not so convenient for you  And its not just dogwalking, she also lets my dog stay with her when I go out of town. Corky even sleeps in her bed with her when I am away :lol:


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 21, 2010)

amamba said:


> Corky even sleeps in her bed with her when I am away :lol:


No can do! My cat takes up the whole bed!




(*YOU* tell her to move!



Cats do what they want, when they want and where they want!



)


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 21, 2010)

alanh said:


> That's really what it boils down to: how did her having sequentially-numbered checks endanger the flight? Did they think they would explode, or that she would use them to attack the flight attendants?


They can give some awful papercuts, you know.

That being said, I side completely with PRR60 without even reading the article. I don't know the article, but I know the PI and their adherence to proper journalistic procedure is... uh, limited. I refuse to trust a story that pointedly favors a side from the New York Times, let alone the Philly Inquirer.

Without extensively reading about this episode in detail, I refuse to draw a conclusion. However, as an aside, I tend to agree with general police treatment of people who act unjustifiably obnoxious towards them. People who treat hardworking law enforcement officials to the the kind of self-inflating nonsense that some people suggested as a possible cause for this incident deserve to be thrown in jail. They are committing the crime of being a total jerk. It isn't illegal to do so. But perhaps it should be.


----------



## LA Resident (Aug 21, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> alanh said:
> 
> 
> > That's really what it boils down to: how did her having sequentially-numbered checks endanger the flight? Did they think they would explode, or that she would use them to attack the flight attendants?
> ...


Wow! That's quite a statement.

I guess that the Birmingham, Alabama sheriff Bo Connors was perfectly justified, then, in sicking dogs on those citizens protesting for Civil Rights because they had the audacity to call his cops bad names. The police in the South were always in the right, of course.

And of course we know that there is no such thing as police brutality; only a justified loss of temper and mayhem by police when they get upset, as you put it, by people calling them names or being obnoxious.

And police, of course, are not trained to act professional in the face of stupid acts by people. They are trained, of course, to go off on a rant and brutalize them for poor manners.

Here's hoping I never run into you.


----------



## tp49 (Aug 21, 2010)

spacecadet said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > It's not quite that simple. If, in the course of security inspections, the TSA finds evidence of a crime not connected with security, they are authorized to detain that person and involve the local police. If, for example, they search a carry on and find a pound of cocaine, that person will not be cleared.
> ...


The only thing is that unless she consented to the search of her wallet the TSA officer should never have gone through it. That is a violation of the 4th Amendment plain and simple.


----------



## dlagrua (Aug 22, 2010)

Law abiding middle age people being treated as criminals.

This illustration speaks for itself:






Those that would sacrifice their liberty to obtain a little security deserve neither liberty or security- Ben Franklin


----------



## jis (Aug 22, 2010)

It would be good to get the other side of the story before reaching sweeping conclusions on this matter. The Inky is known to be a sensationalist paper which has little qualms about coloring up a story to make it more exciting.

A proper investigation of what actually happened would seem to be in order. Also what the Inky reporter conveniently chooses not to mention should be interesting to discover too.

I guess that I don't trust the Inky any more than I trust the TSA officialdom. Looks like many here trust the Inky more. I don't, having had the misfortune of being on the other side of their agenda at times. In my mind a newspaper has to earn the trust of its readership, and in the case of Inky they have not earned it, indeed they have actively managed to loose it as far as I am concerned.

I do agree with PRR's basic premise that people here sometimes tend to rise to the defense of railroads and train travel even when there is little justification for the same, while running down air travel any chance they get, even when there is little justification. This is unbalanced behavior and that does amuse me. However, I hasten to add that until we know more about this incident this falls in a gray area.

Note that this does not imply that I (or even PRR for that matter) condone violations of 4th amendment rights which does occur from time to time at the hands of various authorities.

As far as my personal experience with TSA goes, I have not had a personally targeted negative experience with them in many years. OTOH, their general level of lack of competence has been a bother from time to time, like their inability to clear checked baggage for a flight even when you checked in 3 hours before the flight, thus causing a misconnect; or almost routinely breaking TSA certified locks instead of using the key that they have to open them.

I actually have very little confidence that anyone who really wants to carry contraband and dangerous materials onto a flight will actually get stopped by TSA, which makes the whole song and dance a bit of a charade at the checkpoints. But then we all get exactly the form of governance that we choose and deserve. So we have no one else to blame at the end of the day.

Oh and unlike some of you.... I intend to keep flying over 100,000 miles a year and ride trains about 15,000 miles a year. I actually immensely enjoy both flying and riding trains, and refuse to give either up just because of governmental idiocies.


----------



## tp49 (Aug 22, 2010)

Jishnu, I generally agree with you which is why I limited my comment to the 4th Amendment violation. I reread the article and there is no mention that she consented to having her wallet searched. Obviously taking into account potential omissions by the columnist I would stand by my comment regarding the search of the wallet which I don't believe is a sweeping conclusion either.

I too intend to keep flying both because I don't mind it and because the train schedules between my most common destinations is slower and more inconvenient than driving.


----------



## leemell (Aug 22, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> alanh said:
> 
> 
> > That's really what it boils down to: how did her having sequentially-numbered checks endanger the flight? Did they think they would explode, or that she would use them to attack the flight attendants?
> ...


LEO types refer to these knuckleheads as "felony stupid".


----------



## leemell (Aug 22, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> Law abiding middle age people being treated as criminals.
> 
> This illustration speaks for itself:
> 
> ...


If they were criminals, trust me they would not be scanned but handcuffed and thoroughly searched by hand.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 22, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> Those that would sacrifice their liberty to obtain a little security deserve neither liberty or security- Ben Franklin


Ben Franklin never said that. The closest he came was "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." Not really the same thing.



leemell said:


> If they were criminals, trust me they would not be scanned but handcuffed and thoroughly searched by hand.


Don't let the facts get in the way of dlagura's hysteria.
As usual, Jisnu nails it. What amuses me is that there's no room these days for a nuanced opinion, everything has to be black or white, and distilled down to one sentence or less (preferably with no words greater than 3 syllables).


----------



## leemell (Aug 22, 2010)

Ryan said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > Those that would sacrifice their liberty to obtain a little security deserve neither liberty or security- Ben Franklin
> ...


Actually he did say something very close:

John Bartlett (1820–1905). Familiar Quotations, 10th ed. 1919.

NUMBER:	3929

AUTHOR:	Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790)

QUOTATION:	They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

ATTRIBUTION:	Historical Review of Pennsylvania.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 22, 2010)

There's actually a lot of reading to do about that quote, but even Bartleby got it wrong. Here's some interesting reading on the topic: http://futureofthebook.com/franklin-quoted-by-minsky/

In reality it was such a common sentiment back then, and the various versions of the quote significantly muddied, that the origin of the quote is lost to time.


----------



## sportbiker (Aug 22, 2010)

In a similar manner, I've had some uncomfortable experiences trying to back into this country from Canada. ICE is like TSA on steroids. What I don't care for, in general, is that I'm supposed to act happy when I'm barraged with questions about where I'm going and what I'm doing and where I'm going and who I'm seeing and where I live and where I'm going and what I'm doing and who I'm seeing and what I did and who I met...

The law does not say I have to be chipper and smiling and offer the dude a plate of cookies for giving me the third degree about why I can't remember where I was six days ago (on a 10-12 day vacation). GML aside, if I'm treated with respect as an adult I'm more likely to respond as such, and it's clear _the person with the power sets the tone of the exchange, not me._ If I'm grilled repeatedly in a forward, arrogant manner, don't be surprised if my patience wilts like a flower in the sun. I am not guilty until I can prove myself innocent; and if I'm bullied by the interrogator then strip-searched (it has happened) my fading decorum is _not_ "felony stupid" it is a human reaction to having my dignity ripped from me. Question: why is it my responsibility to maintain a Pleasantville-type demeanor in the face of something that no adult would accept in any other situation?


----------



## jis (Aug 22, 2010)

sportbiker said:


> I am not guilty until I can prove myself innocent; and if I'm bullied by the interrogator then strip-searched (it has happened) my fading decorum is _not_ "felony stupid" it is a human reaction to having my dignity ripped from me. Question: why is it my responsibility to maintain a Pleasantville-type demeanor in the face of something that no adult would accept in any other situation?


Just don't kid yourself by believing that all the legal niceties that apply when you are in United States applies when you have not yet been admitted into the US by the CBP agent at the port of entry, and you will do just fine.  It is prudent to assume that it is upto you to prove that you are eligible to gain entry into the US and not the other way round. As long as your proof of citizenship is irrefutable and you are not doing anything illegal you would be fine, notwithstanding all the silly questions that they ask.

If the repeated questions bother you and you often enter through one of the major port of entry airports, spend $100 and get yourself on the Global Entry System trusted traveler program and never face a human agent again for 5 years, provided no suspicion is raised that you may be doing something illegal. Your membership in the program is marked on your passport and in your entry record in the CBP database, and does smooth the process somewhat even at ports of entry not equipped with the machines. But then again, you have to go through the grilling in the interview to get accepted in the program. Before placing you on the program they will dig up every record that they can find on you and grill you about them, sometimes even using fictitious scenarios.


----------



## George Harris (Aug 22, 2010)

My all time favorite experiece occurred a few years ago, when entering the US, last stop being Japan.

My oldest son and I came in at Seattle. I plopped down my US passport and was asked, "Why are you entering the United States?"

Being somewhat jetlagged as well as churning around in my head the thought of what sort of trick question is this? I after a goodly pause answered, retuning my son to the US to start college. This was followed by a whole series of inane questions about whose passport belonged to who? I still have no idea whether there was anything going on or we just run into the village idiot of Customs and Immigration.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Aug 22, 2010)

George Harris said:


> My all time favorite experiece occurred a few years ago, when entering the US, last stop being Japan.
> 
> I plopped down my US passport and was asked, "Why are you entering the United States?"


I would have answered "uhhhh cause I live here"


----------



## AlanB (Aug 23, 2010)

jis said:


> sportbiker said:
> 
> 
> > I am not guilty until I can prove myself innocent; and if I'm bullied by the interrogator then strip-searched (it has happened) my fading decorum is _not_ "felony stupid" it is a human reaction to having my dignity ripped from me. Question: why is it my responsibility to maintain a Pleasantville-type demeanor in the face of something that no adult would accept in any other situation?
> ...


Precisely! Until it is confirmed that you are indeed a US Citizen, you are not entitled to the normal rights you have as a citizen. In fact, as I learned one fateful day in Canada, the only rights you have upon entering most countries are those granted under the Geneva Convention.

Innocent until proven guilty does not apply when you are seeking admittance to the US, even if you are a citizen. It's "you are not a citizen until you can prove it."

On a separate note, I've actually never had a problem coming back to the US. I've always sailed right through with only a few questions. It's getting into Canada that's a problem for me.


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2010)

Thats because you are a Yankee Alan!Regular people are welcomed with open arms! :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## RRrich (Aug 23, 2010)

Somewhat off topic.

we were on the LSL 48 in July - stopped at Buffalo?? for rather a while.. seems that a couple of uniformed Border Patrol Officers went into coach and questioned pax (we were in a sleeper so they didn't talk to us).

After a while I saw them lead off the train 2 possibly Hispanic men in handcuffs and a woman (not in restraints) with their luggage.

This has been reported here previously, is it better than what happens on boarding a plane??


----------



## jis (Aug 23, 2010)

RRrich said:


> This has been reported here previously, is it better than what happens on boarding a plane??


They don't do en-route checks and questioning on planes of course. But they deny boarding on a flight if your name gets red-flagged by CAPS II and they are unable to resolve the issue before the flight leaves. Those who often get flagged by CAPS II can get a special clearance certificate, certifying that they are not the one that are actually flagged in CAPS II, which helps them go through the check without further hassle.

If entering the US on an international flight, if your name as received by the US through APIS gets flagged, then the flight may be denied entry into US airspace too.


----------



## jis (Aug 23, 2010)

Guest said:


> Thats because you are a Yankee Alan!Regular people are welcomed with open arms! :lol: :lol: :lol:


Coming to think of it, I have never had problem with US Immigration agents even when I was on a non-resident student visa back in the 70s and early 80s, and of course none whatsoever after I became a citizen, except for occasional remarks like "Gee you do travel a lot!" to which my response always is "No kidding!".

But then I did get held up by Customs once many years ago (while I was on Green Card), when I was coming in with a huge pile of baggage from India, but they were thoroughly disappointed and let me go after 20 minutes, in disgust. No money to be collected from me. I gave them a full accounting in a spreadsheet of exactly what I had bought while abroad together with receipts for each item  This was in JFK when the Customs folks there had gained some notoriety for shaking down unsuspecting visitors. :lol:


----------



## PRR 60 (Aug 23, 2010)

jis said:


> ...then I did get held up by Customs once many years ago (while I was on Green Card), when I was coming in with a huge pile of baggage from India, but they were thoroughly disappointed and let me go after 20 minutes, in disgust. No money to be collected from me. I gave them a full accounting in a spreadsheet of exactly what I had bought while abroad together with receipts for each item  This was in JFK when the Customs folks there had gained some notoriety for shaking down unsuspecting visitors. :lol:


I would have loved to have seen the look on their faces when you pulled out that spreadsheet and the pack of receipts. That's great!


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Aug 23, 2010)

jis said:


> Just don't kid yourself by believing that all the legal niceties that apply when you are in United States applies when you have not yet been admitted into the US by the CBP agent at the port of entry, and you will do just fine. It is prudent to assume that it is upto you to prove that you are eligible to gain entry into the US and not the other way round. As long as your proof of citizenship is irrefutable and you are not doing anything illegal you would be fine, notwithstanding all the silly questions that they ask.


My understanding is that nobody is legally allowed to prevent an American citizen from otherwise lawfully entering the United States. Any law would likely be unconstitutional if used to prevent entry by otherwise law abiding Americans. Well, at least prior to the Roberts Court. Despite all these new laws saying you need a passport and whatever else they can only detain you so long before they will eventually have to let you in. That's a little known aspect of our immigration process from the articles I've read. You'll be detained and questioned for a few hours and your friends and family will be contacted to corroborate your claims. But eventually you'll be let in so long as you can provide any number of conventional details any American citizen should be able to provide. I suppose if you were an undocumented baby or you lived your adult life as a scavenging loner you might be screwed without any legal recourse.



jis said:


> If the repeated questions bother you and you often enter through one of the major port of entry airports, spend $100 and get yourself on the Global Entry System trusted traveler program and never face a human agent again for 5 years, provided no suspicion is raised that you may be doing something illegal.


I love this line of reasoning. If you feel your rights are being trampled on the solution is to invite far more intrusion willingly. That sort of bizarre subservience to overbearing authority figures isn't what this country represented when I was born here and I see no reason to accept it now.


----------



## George Harris (Aug 23, 2010)

daxomni said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > If the repeated questions bother you and you often enter through one of the major port of entry airports, spend $100 and get yourself on the Global Entry System trusted traveler program and never face a human agent again for 5 years, provided no suspicion is raised that you may be doing something illegal.
> ...


Exactly!!!!!

I worked in Asia for the most part of 17 eyars, and the country that ALWAYS gave me more hassle on entry than anybody else was the good old USofA. Maybe I was a wimp about it, but I always tried to maintain my cool and answer their stupid questions and figuratively pound my head against a wall later. Equally, dealing with either the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the Foreign Affairs police in Taiwan was always easier than having to deal with the American Institute of Taiwan, the US's imitation embassy there. (Funny how the US govenment / State Department pretends that a democratically governered country of 23 million people does not exist because the biggest dictatorship and international bully on this planet does not like it.)


----------



## AlanB (Aug 23, 2010)

daxomni said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > If the repeated questions bother you and you often enter through one of the major port of entry airports, spend $100 and get yourself on the Global Entry System trusted traveler program and never face a human agent again for 5 years, provided no suspicion is raised that you may be doing something illegal.
> ...


You're missing the pivotal point here. Until it is confirmed that you are a US Citizen, you have no rights except for those granted under the Geneva Convention. Your normal rights as a US Citizen don't start until you are across the border line from no man's land to the US.

With the trusted traveler program you are being given a choice to voluntarily submit to some extra questioning upfront to avoid in effect being in that no man's land upon returning from travel abroad. But no one is forcing you to submit to the up front questioning. That is your choice! You can freely go right on having only Geneva Convention rights upon your return to the US and dealing with all that entails if you like.


----------



## tp49 (Aug 23, 2010)

George Harris said:


> Exactly!!!!!
> 
> I worked in Asia for the most part of 17 eyars, and the country that ALWAYS gave me more hassle on entry than anybody else was the good old USofA. Maybe I was a wimp about it, but I always tried to maintain my cool and answer their stupid questions and figuratively pound my head against a wall later. Equally, dealing with either the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the Foreign Affairs police in Taiwan was always easier than having to deal with the American Institute of Taiwan, the US's imitation embassy there. (Funny how the US govenment / State Department pretends that a democratically governered country of 23 million people does not exist because the biggest dictatorship and international bully on this planet does not like it.)


I had a very bad experience at AIT when I visited Taiwan. I too found dealing with the Taiwanese bureaucracy much easier and more painless than dealing with any aspect of the US government.


----------



## jis (Aug 23, 2010)

daxomni said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > If the repeated questions bother you and you often enter through one of the major port of entry airports, spend $100 and get yourself on the Global Entry System trusted traveler program and never face a human agent again for 5 years, provided no suspicion is raised that you may be doing something illegal.
> ...


First of all it is each individual's choice, so there is no obligation to do this. If the overall convenience works for one this is a choice that one has.

See since I was not born here, Having gone through the juggeernaut a couple or three times (once for H-1, second time for Green Card, and third time for citizenship) by the US Feds anyway, that is ignoring the third degree for obtaining the first F-1 Visa from a grumpy old lady consular officer in the Delhi Embassy. It is not clear what rights I exactly had at these various stages of dealing with the US bureaucracy, but I just take it all in stride. So what do I care if they decide to go over their own handiwork one more time  . Only those who have the luxury of having been born here and who hardly ever travel outside anywhere, have the consequent luxury of dealing with legal niceties obtained when you are in the US.

Actually, it was truly amusing to discover how many errors they have of their own creation in their own records. Gave me visions of a giant sloth getting entangled in its own feet somehow. They even tried to convince me that I had not paid social security taxes that were due when I was on a student visa (that would be over 30 years ago!), and I had to quote them chapter and verse of their own regulations which says that under those circumstances no social security taxes are due. Also the fact that their own Social Security Administration agreed with me on that matter on a earnings report I had in my pocket which I pulled out and showed them, was somewhat of a precious moment.

But the reward of going through that fun experience is that now I walk upto a machine, stick my passport into it and give it my fingerprints, and it prints out an authorization to enter, and I am on my way. No fuss, no muss.


----------



## leemell (Aug 23, 2010)

sportbiker said:


> In a similar manner, I've had some uncomfortable experiences trying to back into this country from Canada. ICE is like TSA on steroids. What I don't care for, in general, is that I'm supposed to act happy when I'm barraged with questions about where I'm going and what I'm doing and where I'm going and who I'm seeing and where I live and where I'm going and what I'm doing and who I'm seeing and what I did and who I met...
> 
> The law does not say I have to be chipper and smiling and offer the dude a plate of cookies for giving me the third degree about why I can't remember where I was six days ago (on a 10-12 day vacation). GML aside, if I'm treated with respect as an adult I'm more likely to respond as such, and it's clear _the person with the power sets the tone of the exchange, not me._ If I'm grilled repeatedly in a forward, arrogant manner, don't be surprised if my patience wilts like a flower in the sun. I am not guilty until I can prove myself innocent; and if I'm bullied by the interrogator then strip-searched (it has happened) my fading decorum is _not_ "felony stupid" it is a human reaction to having my dignity ripped from me. Question: why is it my responsibility to maintain a Pleasantville-type demeanor in the face of something that no adult would accept in any other situation?


Because you are not in "any other situation". As has been pointed out, until you are admitted, your rights are much more limited than after admission. That admission is conditional on being able to prove that you are a US citizen to the duly empowered border authority, namely the CBP and ICE (unlike the TSA these are Federal law enforcement agencies). You will also find that maintaining at least a neutral disposition will be far more helpful than becoming hostile, because that will raise suspicions in the very people who are deciding if you can be admitted. BTW, this kind of interrogation is also a tool, among others, used to see what you will say. Suck it up, as many have learned in the military, the situation is similar.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Aug 23, 2010)

AlanB said:


> You're missing the pivotal point here. Until it is confirmed that you are a US Citizen, you have no rights except for those granted under the Geneva Convention. Your normal rights as a US Citizen don't start until you are across the border line from no man's land to the US.


There is no destination you can travel to where your American citizenship ceases to exist simply by virtue of your location, including North Korea or outer space. But hey, if you're convinced otherwise then I guess I'll let you deal with living inside your own self-constructed cage. Perhaps some day the meek and subservient will inherit America from the free and the brave, but if that day ever comes it won't be a country I'd ever want to live in anyway.


----------



## jis (Aug 23, 2010)

daxomni said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > You're missing the pivotal point here. Until it is confirmed that you are a US Citizen, you have no rights except for those granted under the Geneva Convention. Your normal rights as a US Citizen don't start until you are across the border line from no man's land to the US.
> ...


All I can say is them are brave words and I am happy for you. But make no mistake. The State Department bureaucracy will abandon an American citizen somewhere in the wilderness of the rest of the world in a flash if that is deemed diplomatically prudent, It is all about cost-benefit analysis. And then all of ones American Citizenship will do nothing to get one out of a fix. So while the citizenship does not ever cease to exist, its effective exercise can cease to exist quite quite easily. Have seen it happen, and I am sure will happen again. It is generally better to be safe than sorry.


----------



## leemell (Aug 23, 2010)

daxomni said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > You're missing the pivotal point here. Until it is confirmed that you are a US Citizen, you have no rights except for those granted under the Geneva Convention. Your normal rights as a US Citizen don't start until you are across the border line from no man's land to the US.
> ...


You are quite naive if you believe that will help you in many other parts of the world.


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 23, 2010)

Guest said:


> Thats because you are a Yankee Alan!Regular people are welcomed with open arms! :lol: :lol: :lol:


And it's even easier if you belong to Red Sox *NATION*!




(Especially if you have some *CHOW-DAH* or *LOBS-TAH*!



)


----------



## FrankStar (Aug 23, 2010)

Since I'm going to England in a couple of weeks, I'll report back as to how the TSA experience was. I won't be flying out of PHL, however - the direct flight from EWR was $300 cheaper. So I even get an Amtrak trip out of it (to Newark airport - I'll take NJT/Septa home since it's not as time sensitive).

I do recall a flight from PHL a few years ago to Denver when the TSA personnel didn't seem to have the best attitude. A simple question about what had to come out of my carry-on bag that wasn't covered in their signs was met with a hostile stare.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 23, 2010)

daxomni said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > You're missing the pivotal point here. Until it is confirmed that you are a US Citizen, you have no rights except for those granted under the Geneva Convention. Your normal rights as a US Citizen don't start until you are across the border line from no man's land to the US.
> ...


It's not a matter of your American citizenship ceasing to exist. You are and will always be an American citizen; unless of course one decides to renounce their citizenship.

This issue is that when your standing in that line asking for admitance into the US, your citizenship is uncertain. The fact that you're carrying an American passport means nothing. It could have been lost or stolen or even forged. In the eyes of that officer and under US laws concerning entry to the US, you have no citizenship of any country until you can prove that you do indeed hold citizenship in X country. You are in effect, a man without a country until you prove it to the officer.

And therefore the only right you have are those guaranteed under the Geneva Convention.

I've looked into this rather extensively after I wrongly got thrown out of Canada. Now granted I'm not a citizen of Canada, but their laws are remarkably similar to ours. And trust me it was pretty scarry sitting there knowing that I didn't even have the right to call a lawyer, that I would loose my car and its contents, and land in jail. And all without much fanfare.

Perhaps because my story was the truth and they couldn't shake me, perhaps maybe I just got lucky, I'll never know, but instead the supervising agent instead decided to return me to the US and ban me from entering Canada for a period of 1 year.

But again, after that I did considerable research into this issue, because I never realized that the only rights I had were those granted under the Geneva Convention and that assumes that the country your traveling to actually signed that accord. If they didn't, then you have even fewer rights.

You don't have the rights of a US Citizen until you are able to prove to that officer that you are indeed a US citizen! And that's not a 9/11 thing; it's always been that way. It's probably gotten harder to prove that you are a US citizen since 9/11 and the officers are most certainly more suspicious of you since 9/11. But make no mistake, you don't have citizenship rights when you show up at a US Border control point.


----------



## tp49 (Aug 23, 2010)

the_traveler said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > Thats because you are a Yankee Alan!Regular people are welcomed with open arms! :lol: :lol: :lol:
> ...


Why would anyone want to belong to the Red Sawks nation especially when the Yankee Universe is a much better more civilized place   . We'll take the chow-dah and the lobs-tah though.


----------



## ayndim (Aug 23, 2010)

daxomni said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Just don't kid yourself by believing that all the legal niceties that apply when you are in United States applies when you have not yet been admitted into the US by the CBP agent at the port of entry, and you will do just fine. It is prudent to assume that it is upto you to prove that you are eligible to gain entry into the US and not the other way round. As long as your proof of citizenship is irrefutable and you are not doing anything illegal you would be fine, notwithstanding all the silly questions that they ask.
> ...


Don't you believe it. I was denied entry into the US from Canada back in 94. I'm a citizen. One girl in the car didn't have her papers (she was from Iran), so they sent the 4 of us back and told us to try again in 24 hours. 3 of us got in the next day. The girl with no papers took a greyhound bus in with no problems. I really didn't want to argue because I didn't think prison would suit me.


----------



## nightrider (Aug 23, 2010)

I get the impression that some (not all), TSA are what you might call "gun and badge wannabe's". For whatever reason, they can not get a job as a real police officer, so they take this job to give their ego's some semblance of the power posesses by cops.

And the screener's job is certainly a most tedious one. And I'm sure that any 'excitement' provided by a suspicious or uncooperative subject is a very welcome diversion from their boring routine.

Again, I emphasize that not all fit this description, but one or two can spoil the barrel.

And the press are always looking to sensationalize a story, and drag it on for days, if possible.


----------



## amamba (Aug 24, 2010)

jis said:


> daxomni said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


One of my college classmates (yes, an american citizen) is in prison in North Korea. Enough said. He crossed the border (probably intentionally) and is thus reaping exactly what he sowed. He has been in prison for months over there.


----------



## George Harris (Aug 24, 2010)

amamba said:


> One of my college classmates (yes, an american citizen) is in prison in North Korea. Enough said. He crossed the border (probably intentionally) and is thus reaping exactly what he sowed. He has been in prison for months over there.


"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." If you want a trip into the twiliight zone or world of complete imagination and paranoia whatever you want to call it, hunt up the North Korean web sites. The dear Leader is the world's greatest at everything, either believe or else enjoy a long period of reeducation.


----------



## leemell (Aug 24, 2010)

George Harris said:


> amamba said:
> 
> 
> > One of my college classmates (yes, an american citizen) is in prison in North Korea. Enough said. He crossed the border (probably intentionally) and is thus reaping exactly what he sowed. He has been in prison for months over there.
> ...


Jimmy Carter is being dispatched by the administration right now to try to get him released.


----------



## amamba (Aug 24, 2010)

leemell said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > amamba said:
> ...


Leemell, that is great news. I knew him in school (we went to a very small college) and he was the RA for my husband's dorm. He was a very nice guy, and I have been very sad to think of him in prison in North Korea. Looks like the news about Jimmy Carter just came out today, hopefully it will be enough to get him freed.


----------



## JayPea (Aug 24, 2010)

I remember several years ago (1998, if I remember right) I went for a day trip into Canada for some sightseeing and picture taking. I live about three hours from the border and got into Canada with no problem at all. I spent a few hours enjoying the sights and then drove back to the US. I had all sorts of problem with the border crossing guard as I was trying to enter. She asked all sorts of stern questions and didn't seem to believe a word I said. I didn't see the point of blowing up and getting angry at her so I just gritted my teeth and answered her inquisition. At one point she insisted on searching my trunk. All I had in my trunk was a spare tire, tool boxes, assorted other junk, and my fishing tackle box. She insisted on thoroughly searching my tackle box. It was getting dark by then and she couldn't see too well. She ended up getting a hand full of fishhooks for her trouble. She was furious by now and I was trying not to laugh out loud. That did end the inquisition, though. :lol:


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Aug 25, 2010)

JayPea said:


> I remember several years ago (1998, if I remember right) I went for a day trip into Canada for some sightseeing and picture taking. I live about three hours from the border and got into Canada with no problem at all. I spent a few hours enjoying the sights and then drove back to the US. I had all sorts of problem with the border crossing guard as I was trying to enter. She asked all sorts of stern questions and didn't seem to believe a word I said. I didn't see the point of blowing up and getting angry at her so I just gritted my teeth and answered her inquisition. At one point she insisted on searching my trunk. All I had in my trunk was a spare tire, tool boxes, assorted other junk, and my fishing tackle box. She insisted on thoroughly searching my tackle box. It was getting dark by then and she couldn't see too well. She ended up getting a hand full of fishhooks for her trouble. She was furious by now and I was trying not to laugh out loud. That did end the inquisition, though. :lol:


This would get you arrested for sure but next time have armed mouse traps in there hehe.


----------



## JayPea (Aug 25, 2010)

amtrakwolverine said:


> JayPea said:
> 
> 
> > I remember several years ago (1998, if I remember right) I went for a day trip into Canada for some sightseeing and picture taking. I live about three hours from the border and got into Canada with no problem at all. I spent a few hours enjoying the sights and then drove back to the US. I had all sorts of problem with the border crossing guard as I was trying to enter. She asked all sorts of stern questions and didn't seem to believe a word I said. I didn't see the point of blowing up and getting angry at her so I just gritted my teeth and answered her inquisition. At one point she insisted on searching my trunk. All I had in my trunk was a spare tire, tool boxes, assorted other junk, and my fishing tackle box. She insisted on thoroughly searching my tackle box. It was getting dark by then and she couldn't see too well. She ended up getting a hand full of fishhooks for her trouble. She was furious by now and I was trying not to laugh out loud. That did end the inquisition, though. :lol:
> ...



It was several years and long after 9-11 that I made my next trip into Canada but believe me that very thought did cross my mind. :lol:


----------



## nightrider (Aug 25, 2010)

I am very curious as to what sort of profile or activites the aforementioned

"behaviour specialists" are looking for. Probably this info is 'classified', but nonetheless, it would be interesting to know.

The most obvious would be someone extremely nervous and appearing paranoic, but what else?


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Aug 25, 2010)

If you have a strong accent they might grill you then or ask for ID etc.


----------



## LA Resident (Aug 25, 2010)

the_traveler said:


> amamba said:
> 
> 
> > Corky even sleeps in her bed with her when I am away :lol:
> ...


Sounds like your cat would never be satisfied with anything but the lower bed in a deluxe bedroom!


----------



## Guest (Aug 25, 2010)

LA Resident said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> > amamba said:
> ...


Probably demands Beech Grove for any trips, lets Dave visit if the service and food is up to standards! :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## jis (Aug 25, 2010)

LA Resident said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> > amamba said:
> ...


I thought cats prefer the upper bed since they like to climb. But I guess there are lazy cats :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## railiner (Aug 25, 2010)

Cats in lower beds??

This discussion brings to mind the famous C&O patriotic magazine ad from World War II featuring "Chessie" their mascot, titled: "Lower 9 Has Gone To War".

Anyone seen that?

It depicts a young American soldier going off to war, lying in the bunk that was usually occupied by Chessie, who was now displaced to a spot on the floor.


----------



## GAT (Aug 27, 2010)

Just for fun, let's get back to the lady with the checks (or,as we say in Canada, cheques).

The TSA guy might have had defensible grounds for suspicion if the checks were made out to "Mrs. Smith and/or Mr.Smith." But if they had been made out to "Mrs. Smith and Mr. Smith," then he should have known that endorsements from both parties would have been required to cash or deposit the checks and, consequently, she couldn't have been capable of fraud with those checks. So, whether the TSA agent was justified in calling the cops or not boils down to whether he was fully conversant with the laws of negotiable instruments.

So there! I think it's way past my bedtime.


----------



## tp49 (Aug 27, 2010)

amamba said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > daxomni said:
> ...


North Korea released the guy a couple of hours ago. He and Jimmy Carter are on their way back stateside.


----------



## tp49 (Aug 27, 2010)

George said:


> Just for fun, let's get back to the lady with the checks (or,as we say in Canada, cheques).
> 
> The TSA guy might have had defensible grounds for suspicion if the checks were made out to "Mrs. Smith and/or Mr.Smith." But if they had been made out to "Mrs. Smith and Mr. Smith," then he should have known that endorsements from both parties would have been required to cash or deposit the checks and, consequently, she couldn't have been capable of fraud with those checks. So, whether the TSA agent was justified in calling the cops or not boils down to whether he was fully conversant with the laws of negotiable instruments.
> 
> So there! I think it's way past my bedtime.


I still don't think the TSA guy was able to go through the wallet. My gut screams that the search of the wallet was a 4th Amendment violation. Also, I would think that being conversant in the law of negotiable instruments would be beyond the scope of a TSA officer's knowledge or job duties. You do present an interesting idea though.


----------



## TN Tin Man (Aug 27, 2010)

tp49 said:


> George said:
> 
> 
> > Just for fun, let's get back to the lady with the checks (or,as we say in Canada, cheques).
> ...



Why is it that we "Americans" (citizens of the United States of America) will scream violation of my 4th amendment rights in a voluntary search and seizure situation. The 4th amendment protects us from involuntary (non-warrant) search and seizure by government agents. If we as Americans elect to travel, we are submitting to rules established by those government agencies for whatever reason they deem. We have the choice. Travel by the rule or not. The 4th amendment does not apply. It's our choice.

As a LEO, I am that goverment agent, I must justify every action by a probable cause or constitutional standard. We do this because we deprive other citizens of the USA their rights when we make arrests (seizures). Always that depravation of rights is involutary, and the 4th amendment applies.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 27, 2010)

Close but not quite - tp49 made a really good point, going through someone's wallet and examining financial documents is likely outside the scope of the purpose of the search the TSA is allowed to do.

Suppose that I'm carrying a laptop through a TSA checkpoint. It's perfectly reasonable that they power on the laptop to verify that it is actually a functioning laptop, but it's outside their scope to go through the hard drive searching for evidence of illegal activity. However, change that to a CBP checkpoint entering the country, and they're well within their rights to scan through the hard drive to ensure that contraband (child pornography is a prime example) isn't being brought into the country. Two voluntary searches, but scanning the hard drive can be legal or not depending on the purpose of the search.


----------



## dlagrua (Aug 27, 2010)

WY Tin Man said:


> tp49 said:
> 
> 
> > George said:
> ...



There is no voluntary search when boarding a plane. When you have no choice its not voluntary. As a LEO you have no right, to harass, search or question any citizen without probable cause. You work for the citzenry who pay your salary. You get paid to enforce the LAW for us. Remember YOU ARE NOT THE LAW. If we start accepting that this behavior is acceptable then we are no better than WW2 Germany or the USSR. Do you want to live in a country where your rights are respected or do you want to live under totalitarian rule? I am a perfectly law abiding citizen but refuse to submit to the dehumanizing search procedures of the TSA which in fact has not caught a single terrorist since 9-11. Therefore I do not fly anywhere.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 27, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> There is no voluntary search when boarding a plane. When you have no choice its not voluntary.


When you choose to get onto that plane you consent to the TSA's security.


> As a LEO you have no right, to harass, search or question any citizen without probable cause. You work for the citzenry who pay your salary. You get paid to enforce the LAW for us. Remember YOU ARE NOT THE LAW.


He's given no indication that he's done anything of the sort. Personally, I think that you owe the man an apology.


> I am a perfectly law abiding citizen but refuse to submit to the dehumanizing search procedures of the TSA which in fact has not caught a single terrorist since 9-11. Therefore I do not fly anywhere.


Haven't caught any terrorists that you know of. Anyhow, it looks like those searches are in fact voluntary, since you've discovered how to avoid them.


----------



## dlagrua (Aug 27, 2010)

Ryan said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > There is no voluntary search when boarding a plane. When you have no choice its not voluntary.
> ...


If you want to live in a Police state, move to Cuba, Iran or Venezuela where you may feel more comfortable. BTW if you read my post it was not accusatory it was just a friendly reminder of what LEO's have a duty to do. They have taken an Oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States and I will continually remind them that they need to keep that Oath.

As for airport security I must disagree. It is not voluntary but a mandatory search of the innocent. You cannot fly without being searched exactly like a criminal is after he is arrested. You somehow have been convinced that this is freedom but it is gross depravation of freedom. If it ever gets like this on Amtrak then I'll drive.


----------



## amamba (Aug 27, 2010)

Thanks for providing an update, I just saw the news on the HuffPo that Jimmy Carter was successful. So glad to know that he is being freed and on his way back to Boston!!!


----------



## Ryan (Aug 27, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> They have taken an Oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States and I will continually remind them that they need to keep that Oath.


Yeah, so did I. Put my life on the line for 7 years of active duty, so I don't need a lecture from some stranger on the internet about the Constitution that thinks spewing forth false information about the Constitution and the protection it provides, thanks. If you're going to provide the lecture, do yourself (and us) a favor and learn what the Constitution says and means, and stop relying on your incorrect assumptions about the protections it provides. If you were anywhere in the neighborhood of being right, the courts would have put a stop to these searches years ago. Don't be this guy.
It amazes me that you don't see the inherent contradiction in your logic - that by having the ability to not fly (or not take Amtrak if they instate security measures you disagree with) you're exercising the very choice that you're claiming not to have.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 27, 2010)

tp49 said:


> George said:
> 
> 
> > Just for fun, let's get back to the lady with the checks (or,as we say in Canada, cheques).
> ...


While I concur about the search of the wallet, the idea about the checks doesn't wash. While it would have been fraud of course, the simple reality is that I could have signed the back of that check and it would have gone through the banking system. If you deposit a check into an account, no one pays attention to the signatures. In fact there was 20/20 investigation a few years back, or maybe it was Dateline, but regardless they went around depositing checks signed by Mickey Mouse. Out of like 20 checks or so, only one teller balked. All other checks were taken and deposited in the accounts.

So how the check was made out would be useless, at least until and unless she had signed the backs of them. No crime has been committed until they are signed, and then that assumes that she somehow falsely placed her husband’s signature on the backs.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 27, 2010)

Ryan said:


> Close but not quite - tp49 made a really good point, going through someone's wallet and examining financial documents is likely outside the scope of the purpose of the search the TSA is allowed to do.
> 
> Suppose that I'm carrying a laptop through a TSA checkpoint. It's perfectly reasonable that they power on the laptop to verify that it is actually a functioning laptop, but it's outside their scope to go through the hard drive searching for evidence of illegal activity. However, change that to a CBP checkpoint entering the country, and they're well within their rights to scan through the hard drive to ensure that contraband (child pornography is a prime example) isn't being brought into the country. Two voluntary searches, but scanning the hard drive can be legal or not depending on the purpose of the search.


You are correct, but not for the reasons that you think. The reason that the CBP search is legal is because you don't have the rights of a US Citizen until after the CBP admits you into the country. When you're seeking admission to the US, even though you are a citizen of the US, the only rights you have are those granted by the Geneva Convention. When you first approach a CBP officer, he/she doesn't know who you are, much less that you are a US citizen. It's you and your documents that must convince them that you are a US citizen. And until you do, you aren't entitled to your normal rights. You are essentially in no-mans land until they admit you.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 27, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > dlagrua said:
> ...


It's not about being in a police state. And indeed it is voluntary. No one put a gun to your head and said "you have to fly today." *You* made that choice to fly voluntarily. And in doing so, you subjected yourself to the rules. By the act of booking that flight *You* volunteered and/or agreed to that search.


----------



## Guest (Aug 27, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Close but not quite - tp49 made a really good point, going through someone's wallet and examining financial documents is likely outside the scope of the purpose of the search the TSA is allowed to do.
> ...


Gee, I think back to High School when we had to read "The Man Without A Country", my old English teacher would be smiling if she was still around! Ironic and sad that a few fanatics have made the freeist and mightest country on earth so paranoid and afraid of it's own citizens! :help:


----------



## jis (Aug 27, 2010)

AlanB said:


> tp49 said:
> 
> 
> > George said:
> ...


One important thing that I don't know from the article or elsewhere is whether there was some additional tipoff or such that the cops were investigating. If that was the case then I believe (though I cannot quote chapter and verse at this moment) there is precedent in case law which allows a search without a warrant in a situation where the subject would potentially become unavailable were the search not carried out immediately. So a little bit more information about the circumstances is needed before one can arrive at a definitive conclusion.

I guess we will no for sure when this shows up in court, or from the reason for it not showing up in court, won;t we?

Good thing though is that TSA agents are not customs officers, since at border checkpoints AFAICT customs officers can pretty much go through anything that they please without violating any law or constitution.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 27, 2010)

Guest said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


And you missed the point. You're not a citizen until you can prove it to the officer.

If the officer assumed that you were a citizen, then he would have to do the same for anyone presenting themselves for entry to the US. That means that even a terrorist would be given the same rights as you, until it was proven that they aren't citizens.


----------



## amamba (Aug 27, 2010)

AlanB said:


> If the officer assumed that you were a citizen, then he would have to do the same for anyone presenting themselves for entry to the US. That means that even a terrorist would be given the same rights as you, until it was proven that they aren't citizens.


But what about the terrorists that are US citizens? :help:


----------



## jis (Aug 27, 2010)

amamba said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > If the officer assumed that you were a citizen, then he would have to do the same for anyone presenting themselves for entry to the US. That means that even a terrorist would be given the same rights as you, until it was proven that they aren't citizens.
> ...


I think too much use is made of the "terrorist" word gratuitously.

The real point is that there are immigration laws, and those require that the admissibility of everyone that presents themselves at a US border post be established before letting them in. This applies to everyone. Since per se by looking at someone's face one cannot establish whether they are admissible or not, evidence establishing admissibility in the form of various acceptable credentials like Passport, Visa and what not have to be checked. This has nothing to do with whether the person is a foreign terrorist or US terrorist, except that there exists indeed a red flag list of people who are not to be admitted, which among others contains suspected terrorists.

And until the border agent or a GOES terminal in his/her/its judgment has established admissibility of the subject presented to him/her/it and admits the subject to the US by making appropriate endorsements in the paperwork (which may just amount to making an entry in the computer records) the subject in question is not inside US yet, and laws of US in general don't apply, Geneva Convention applies. (At least until characters like Rumsfeld and Chaney come up with strange arguments about when even that does not apply, thus putting at great risk all US citizen travelers traveling to other countries in the world; since these treatments are quite reciprocal in nature. So if US decides to arbitrarily treat people arriving at their border, Other countries will be quite happy to treat US citizens arriving at their borders.)

All this has nothing to do with the free and brave US being scared or any such. Indeed for certain races and groups, admissibility rules were for more draconian, arbitrary and discriminatory in various periods in the past. So there is no general harking back to the glorious past to say how much better things were back then either.


----------



## leemell (Aug 27, 2010)

amamba said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> > George Harris said:
> ...


He is free, left this morning with Carter.


----------



## Guest (Aug 27, 2010)

As usual jis sums it up pretty well base on his frequent International travel and status as a Naturalized citizen! All things from back in the good old days werent all "good". That being said HLS/ TSA still doesnt need to put on their Security Theater in train stations!


----------



## jis (Aug 27, 2010)

leemell said:


> amamba said:
> 
> 
> > leemell said:
> ...


That is very good news indeed. It seems when all the guns of the world don't work, Carter is the go to guy to apply the humanitarian approach.


----------



## tp49 (Aug 28, 2010)

WY Tin Man said:


> Why is it that we "Americans" (citizens of the United States of America) will scream violation of my 4th amendment rights in a voluntary search and seizure situation. The 4th amendment protects us from involuntary (non-warrant) search and seizure by government agents. If we as Americans elect to travel, we are submitting to rules established by those government agencies for whatever reason they deem. We have the choice. Travel by the rule or not. The 4th amendment does not apply. It's our choice.
> 
> As a LEO, I am that goverment agent, I must justify every action by a probable cause or constitutional standard. We do this because we deprive other citizens of the USA their rights when we make arrests (seizures). Always that depravation of rights is involutary, and the 4th amendment applies.


Because at the point of the secondary screening I do not believe the search is voluntary. Most people would not feel as though they were "free to leave" in that situation and the screening takes the form of a "custodial interrogation." Thus, the secondary screening is akin to a stop pursuant to _Terry v. Ohio_, which I'm sure as an LEO you know to which I am referring, and as such searching the wallet is illegal and any evidence gained from it would be tossed once the suppression motion was heard.

Second, the fact situation doesn't wash. The article states that the TSA officer said he was looking for "razor blades" in the wallet and then came across the checks. Razor blades would have shown up on the screen when the bag was placed through the x-ray machine and if spotted the bag would have been backed up and re-run through the x-ray to determine whether it was one of the "test" images placed on the screen to make sure the officer is alert on his post. If there were razor blades in that wallet they would have known and been able to pinpoint their location. This was a "fishing expedition."

Third, as an LEO I'm sure you're aware that you need reasonable suspicion to stop a person then have probable cause to search. Also, that deprivation of rights is not always involuntary as there is an exception to the warrantless search for consent. Consent of course being a voluntary waiver of rights which if consent isn't properly obtained or obtained through false pretenses will also make the search illegal.

Last, again I go to the scope. I believe that the TSA officer in this situation exceeded the scope of the reason to search. Last time I checked personal checks were not about to harm a passenger on nor bring down an airplane. The scope of the TSA's screening is to look for weapons and other prohibited items.

A true voluntary search situation is when they look through your bag when going to a sporting event or a concert at a stadium where a private party is the one doing the searching. I would even put the initial screening at the airport into this category. However, the secondary screening being done by a "government officer" is more along the lines of a _Terry_ stop and a custodial interrogation situation than a voluntary waiver of rights.


----------



## tp49 (Aug 28, 2010)

jis said:


> One important thing that I don't know from the article or elsewhere is whether there was some additional tipoff or such that the cops were investigating. If that was the case then I believe (though I cannot quote chapter and verse at this moment) there is precedent in case law which allows a search without a warrant in a situation where the subject would potentially become unavailable were the search not carried out immediately. So a little bit more information about the circumstances is needed before one can arrive at a definitive conclusion.
> 
> I guess we will no for sure when this shows up in court, or from the reason for it not showing up in court, won;t we?
> 
> Good thing though is that TSA agents are not customs officers, since at border checkpoints AFAICT customs officers can pretty much go through anything that they please without violating any law or constitution.


Jishnu, you are in the ballpark but the concept has just a little more to it. The exception I believe you are referring to is called "exigent circumstances" and generally comes up when there is a belief that the evidence will be destroyed or that a suspect will escape without immediate intervention and permits entry into a structure without a warrant to prevent this.

The cases I've seen where exigent circumstances is used are when evidence is about to be destroyed as an example flushing drugs down the toilet. In the person situation from what I have seen law enforcement will usually "sit on" the structure until a warrant is signed by a judge and delivered to the scene.


----------



## tp49 (Aug 28, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> There is no voluntary search when boarding a plane. When you have no choice its not voluntary. As a LEO you have no right, to harass, search or question any citizen without probable cause. You work for the citzenry who pay your salary. You get paid to enforce the LAW for us. Remember YOU ARE NOT THE LAW. If we start accepting that this behavior is acceptable then we are no better than WW2 Germany or the USSR. Do you want to live in a country where your rights are respected or do you want to live under totalitarian rule? I am a perfectly law abiding citizen but refuse to submit to the dehumanizing search procedures of the TSA which in fact has not caught a single terrorist since 9-11. Therefore I do not fly anywhere.


As I've stated to you before and will do again...

If I were you I would read the jurisprudence on the 4th Amendment.


----------



## PRR 60 (Aug 28, 2010)

tp49 said:


> ...Last, again I go to the scope. I believe that the TSA officer in this situation exceeded the scope of the reason to search. Last time I checked personal checks were not about to harm a passenger on nor bring down an airplane. The scope of the TSA's screening is to look for weapons and other prohibited items.


I do not believe the TSA exceeded the scope of a security search. The checks were not in a wallet. The checks were in a pocket of a carryon bag. Search of the carryon, and the various pockets and compartments of the carryon, is within the scope of the TSA secondary screening.

While the TSA's mission is security, they are authorized to detain anyone who was found with evidence of a crime not related to security. In such cases, the matter is immediately turned over to local law enforcement. Local law enforcement makes the final determination as to what happens from that point forward. In this case, the TSA felt that the type and nature of the checks was suspicious enough to involve the police. I doubt they did that without some specific guidelines and experience supporting that suspicion,


----------



## dlagrua (Aug 28, 2010)

One last point to ponder.

How much humiliation, fealty and degradation are we prepared to accept in the name of being protected from a menace that the government has proven time and again it has no motivation in stopping? The very people promoting the mass implementation of body scanners stand to reap the financial rewards because they are heavily invested in the technology.

Are we going to allow perverts and pedophiles in positions of power enjoy naked images of our children or are we finally going to draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough and start boycotting and filing lawsuits against airports and other institutions that attempt to ram through these revolting and dehumanizing measures? Body scanners are X-Ray machines and they cause cancer.

The USA is becoming a police state and the citizenry needs to make up its mind if it wishes to be free or become slaves under total government control. We are slowly being trained to accept all of this in the name of the public good but its really all for the few at the top.

The day that Amtrak get body scanners or metal detectors is the day that I stop riding the rails. I am a law abiding citizen and I will not sit idle while my constitutional rights are taken away from us.


----------

