EMAW

They, like everyone else, are capable of calling the authorities. I don't know why there are complainants to this. It sounds from the article like they had a reasonable suspicion, took action by calling the authorities, and their suspicions were confirmed by a breathalizer from the proper authorities. Sounds to me like they did the right thing.
Until I see where they illegally questioned him/her or worse yet detained them, it sounds like they handled it properly.

JohnBurke

You really didn't. Your article didn't invoke the TSA at all. Not mentioned once. I copied the text of the article here, as you read above. Several mentions of the police. Not a single one of the TSA.

The inference by the thread title is a lie. You attacked the TSA and flew off the handle, apparently without reading the article. Perhaps you simply elected to invent material to rant about, but it didn't come from the article that you linked.

Next time you post "facts," try using facts. It plays much better.

Xdashdriver

Talk about jailhouse lawyer nonsense.

Having read the article I would guess the first breath "test" was likely PBT used to help establish probable cause the pilot was over the limit. Generally not admissible in court due to its inaccuracy and the lack of ability to control the environment in which the sample is taken. In my jurisdiction, you cannot even testify it was administered let alone talk about the results.

The second test would have been on the Intoxilyzer unit at the station. The result of the test on this instrument is admissible in court. Two samples are taken with 2 minutes in between (not 15). The lower of the two results is then taken. As far as mouthwash etc in the mouth: officers are supposed to observe the person they testing closely for 15 minutes before they administer the test. This allows any residual mouth-alcohol to dissipate before testing occurs. Secondly, the Intoxilyzer is designed to generate an error message if it detects mouth alcohol. So with these protections in place it is highly unlikely any mouth alcohol would produce the feared "false positive". Yes, there are plenty of defense attorneys out there who would like to argue this point, but if the officer followed proper procedure, they rarely hold any water.

As far as alcohol recognition training goes, courts have long held that lay people can make observations about person's appearance and behavior as it relates to alcohol intoxication. They do not have to be qualified as expert witnesses in court in order to testify. In fact, most police officers are not qualified as expert witnesses in court for DUIs. On occasion, a DRE or SFST instructor may be qualified as an expert to testify about certain things but it doesn't happen on every case.

Furthermore, the TSA didn't make the arrest. It doesn't even sound like they detained the pilot (not enough info one way or the other and news reports are notoriously inaccurate on details). All they did was report their observations to airport police. Lay people call in drunk drivers all the time and on the rare occasion where the police can catch up with the person, their testimony is admissible in court. Their lack of training may go to credibility but not admissibility. That's something for the jury to decide. I've seen plenty of juries believe lay witness testimony on DUIs and convict as a result.

Sorry but your "facts" are what don't hold water.

NotPart91

Where in my facts is nonsense? None, just some stated facts about a certain Agency's Employees' actions and the overstepping of their granted authority. No nonsense, just facts.

Once you turn in your "Brass Pass" and have to endure some of these types of mistreatment, then maybe you'll understand.

Since you're now mixing apples and oranges I'll bite;

Were not talking about the public, we're speaking specifically about trained federal officers assigned solely with an administrative search authority, nothing more. A trained law enforcement officer is and will be held to a higher standard.

But TSA consistently overstep their authority not believing the restrictions on their authority. They're a step above a 7/11 clerk (as proven by their published job prerequisites).

I never mentioned the use of any "post arrest" testing, so my information about the 15 min sampling intervals, refers to field testing, that are common DUI/FWI SOP's in order to take into the variables inherent with the use of hand held field breathalyzers.

My whole point of this post was to bring attention to a group of under qualified, untrained TSA Screeners that are operating unchecked and overstepping their legal authority, AND HAVE LOST/SETTLED NUMEROUS CASES.

Don't believe me? here's some of the TSA Blunders.

(I doubt X-Dash that you'd still be employed if you tried to file a false report with your Agency)
TSA Supervisor makes up false report to substantiate false detention and arrest of Complaining Passenger by Local Police
https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...klok-v-tsa.pdf

TSA Useless in this Smuggling Incident
https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/...9-05_Oct08.pdf

Master List of TSA Circus Performances
https://tsascandals.wordpress.com/

So it's not just a few isolated missteps. These issues have occurred since TSA's inception.

I highly doubt you have any working knowledge of the Administrative Law Process that the TSA uses to adjudicate their administrative cases, (including the prohibition of discovery under

I'm getting more and more information, coming across my email, concerning the Blue Suiters violations of, not only their internal regulations, but much more.

Hopefully someone will wake up and correct the TSA boondoggle. Either make them stick to body pat-downs and Non Destructive Searches, (for which they were solely hired and trained for), or send them for the appropraite training to become a TSA Law Enforcement Officer.

If the TSA Screeners want Law Enforcement Authority, by all means, apply, successfully pass the federal academy and enforce the laws attached to your enforcement position.

NP

JamesNoBrakes

As a Federal Aviation Administration inspector, we are trained to do exactly what the TSA agent did, notify the airport police. I'm not sure why this seems so outlandish to you. Based on what I've read, this "appears" to be what happened. Notifying airport police in this case is most certainly not an over-stepping of their authority. You posting a bunch of information about other situations or things the TSA has done/missed is irrelevant. This seems more like a vendetta against the TSA.

Xdashdriver

The problem is you're jumping to conclusions. Where does it say the pilot was detained by TSA? All I read was that the TSA made a report to the airport police and they took it from there. They don't need any authority or training to do that, so how can they be overstepping their authority?

Don't get me wrong, the TSA doesn't always get it right and when I was in law enforcement I had to educate some screeners myself about some things. However based on the limited info we have in this case it seems like they acted appropriately and totally within the bounds of their training and authority. So while you may have a point about some other cases where they did overstep, you lose credibility on this one.

As for the field vs post arrest testing: I rarely used a PBT since the results are not admissible in court, but when I did I usually only asked for one sample. There were no requirements for 15 minutes in between samples etc etc. It was too much of a waste of time when I had plenty of other admissible evidence to arrest the person on. I will not go as far as to say that is the case everywhere....everyone has different policies and procedures. They will be much less uniform for a PBT than for the post-arrest testing.

Anyway, you mentioned the fact that the field breath test may have been inaccurate and as a result the pilot may have been operating legally. From the news articles it appears he did have a post arrest test administered and it appears he "failed" that one too, which makes the possible inaccuracy of the field breath test completely irrelevant. Unless an officer is completely untrained and negligent, he will never make an arrest based solely on the result of a PBT.

My level of knowledge of Administrative Law is irrelevant too. This was a criminal matter, not administrative. That's why the TSA made the report to a law enforcement agency.

You obviously don't understand the fact that anyone can report anything at any time to the police, regardless of what uniform or badge they may or may not be wearing. Just because they are "trained federal officers" does not mean they are no longer allowed to report suspicious behavior/activity to the police. They are not held to a higher standard than the public in making any such report. They are held to the exact same standard as the member of the public standing in line behind the pilot who may also see/hear/smell something and report it to the police.

JohnBurke

You didn't state facts. You ranted and raved about something which didn't exist; you pointed to an article about a drunk pilot and used it as your spring board to launch a written assault on the TSA. Your fact," the article which you linked to show the abuses of pilots who fly intoxicated, didn't mention the TSA. You keep referring to your "facts," when in fact your link didn't support your rant at all.

You've gone past ten feet deep and you're still digging. It's unfortunate that you're so cut-up over the TSA, and their "abuses." Perhaps if you really are abused, you need to find a different behavior.

My exchanges with TSA as pilot and passenger are quite pleasant, quick, and generally not worth a second thought. In your case, it seems to be a troublesome aspect of your life. This isn't normal. You're reporting and seeing things which aren't there, such as the invocation of TSA in your original article link. You may need help.

Invoking things which are not, calling upon an article which doesn't mention the TSA as part of your rant about the TSA, isn't a healthy sign, and neither is defending the rant.

Later in the thread, you simply grasp at straws and pull upon isolated cases of individual behavior. You paint with a ridiculously broad brush, out of turn, and characterize the entire organization based on the behavior of one or two.

Based on your broad assumptions, one might also characterize all pilots as alcoholics. After all, one was found in your original link, right? Unfortunately for you and you fevered rant, what the original link doesn't do is mention TSA.

Here again, you've posted a lie. You cite the case of Roger Vanderklok (not you, is it?), but present no evidence. What you've got is the complaint, one side of a civil suit. Much like your unsubstantiated assertions, Mr. Vanderklok's animated and melodramatic story is large adjectives and adverbs, and runs short on fact. The fact is that Mr. Vanderklok made a statement to a TSA officer about a bomb, and he made it in an airport. Nearly everyone knows this is a stupid thing to do. While accounts vary about the specific wording, even Vanderklok doesn't deny having said words to the effect of "anyone could bring a bomb into the airport and you wouldn't know it." Yell fire in a crowded theater, tell a TSA representative that anyone can bring a bomb, see what happens. Pick up one end of the stick, pick up the other.

Vanderklock is whining that he was arrested, and claims that the police failed their duties by establishing probable cause. He was detained less than 24 hours. The criminal charges were acquitted, and all that remains is his civil suit against the TSA agent and against the detective involved. Vanderklok has video on his side; his exchange with the TSA apparently substantiated his criminal defense that he did not misbehave, but it's clear from his own admission that he certainly misspoke, and even the inference of an explosive device in an airport setting, especially when attempting to cross into the sterile side of security, is adequate. Vanderklok can sue for false arrest and other "violations" of his civil liberty if he so chooses; nearly anyone can sue for nearly anything, but when he wins that civil suit, be sure to get back to us, will you?

The nimrod is claiming assault and battery for being handcuffed and patted down. Did you bother to read the complaint? Are you aware that he's suing the United States of America? Read his Seventh Claim for Relief. You'll find it on page 23.

This said, how does this support your claim that TSA has acted in a police capacity against intoxicated pilots? Still waiting for those "facts."

NotPart91

I have no connection to any of the posted TSA failures or related cases (going back to TSA's inception circa 2002).

John,

Please explain me how can you defend the TSA who recently was involved in interdicting a credentialed crew member(F/A) who fled the scene of a drug smuggling attempt and failed in maintaining security responsibilities in their Airport AOR.

The TSA then allowed the same drug smuggling suspect to board another commercial flight USING HER CREW IDENTIFICATION AFTER BEING SCREENED AND CLEARED TO BOARD BY THE TSA, (while several Federal Law Enforcement Agencies were actively seeking her arrest).

Now you have this;

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/crime/2016/03/28/woman-bypasses-tsa-boards-plane-nashville-airport/8235128/

The above un-ticketed passenger walked unrestricted through a TSA Airport Checkpoint, then boarded a Delta Flight.

This just demonstrates the continued ineptness of the TSA.

If the above two individuals had a different intent, the two situations had the potential to have turned out very badly.


I'll ignore the personal attack John, but please review my post about replacing the TSA with credentialed law enforcement officers, (which again is the whole purpose of posting factual and continuing failures by the TSA).

NP

JamesNoBrakes

Has nothing to do with the subject of your thread.

USMCFLYR

The OP likes to point out where TSA has failed; yet then complains when they succeed - in this case keeping an alleged drunk pilot off of a flight.
A no-win situation it seems.