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

[GAT]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[tp49]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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:

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]

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]

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:

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]

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.

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

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.

He is free, left this morning with Carter.

 

[Guest]

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]

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.

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

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.

He is free, left this morning with Carter.

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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,