4 ms·

this blog post was obviously written after the incident and so it could not have influenced the TSA's conduct. what's more, the OP is a fact-based summary, nam

this blog post was obviously written after the incident and so it could not have influenced the TSA's conduct. what's more, the OP is a fact-based summary, name calling seems to have been limited to a couple of instances of replacing the word "inspector" for "molestor" which is the sort of thing i should think the TSA is immune to by now. beyond that, i'm not sure how Mr Corbett could have been more cooperative. i assume he's correct that a traveller has no obligation to explain why they are in possession of an item in their luggage that is not on any type of contraband list. But suppose he did given an explanation for those documents. It's easy to imagine natural follow up questions requiring him to disclose some parts of his legal strategy in pending litigation. not sure if the TSA is required to provide it, but in any event, i would love to hear a single coherent reason having some nexus to public safety for this aggressive detention (not the "wait here and don't touch your bags", i'm talking about ordering him off the plane).

BoorishBears 10y ago
You can see my reply to the author's response, I think my reasoning is mostly explained there, but you have a good point about the follow up questions, except I would say that's exactly where one could stop answering questions and say it might affect litigation. In my response I talk to the varying extent one can cooperate, ranging from doing the bare minimum required by law, to doing the bare minimum required when dealing with human beings less infallible than the written law. If there had indeed been a follow up question which could affect litigation, saying so would be a great way to end the line of questioning (and I actually do have a hard time seeing why the average TSA employee would say much more as soon as you said it was a redacted version). I imagine an exchange like: Why do you have this document we're not supposed to share Mine are a redacted version Then what more? Maybe "Why do you have that"? (it's redacted so I don't think they'd even bother to ask), and you could answer "They're related to some litigation I'm involved in but I can't elaborate". It only gets harder to imagine the exchange going after that. But skipping that first explanation that it's redacted is legal, but also opens a rabbit hole of explanations for the agent who thinks someone has accidentally released confidential material to this person. And as to why he was ordered of the plane, I imagine it's a lag in communication. Someone (or a chain of people) on and off-site made the decision to delve further after a note was made by the TSA agents, which had already let him go. And they wouldn't speak about a possible leak of classified documents on a plane. It's not hard to imagine if the flight had taken off this would have played out at his destination.

BoorishBears 10y ago

You can see my reply to the author's response, I think my reasoning is mostly explained there, but you have a good point about the follow up questions, except I would say that's exactly where one could stop answering questions and say it might affect litigation. In my response I talk to the varying extent one can cooperate, ranging from doing the bare minimum required by law, to doing the bare minimum required when dealing with human beings less infallible than the written law. If there had indeed been a follow up question which could affect litigation, saying so would be a great way to end the line of questioning (and I actually do have a hard time seeing why the average TSA employee would say much more as soon as you said it was a redacted version). I imagine an exchange like: Why do you have this document we're not supposed to share Mine are a redacted version Then what more? Maybe "Why do you have that"? (it's redacted so I don't think they'd even bother to ask), and you could answer "They're related to some litigation I'm involved in but I can't elaborate". It only gets harder to imagine the exchange going after that. But skipping that first explanation that it's redacted is legal, but also opens a rabbit hole of explanations for the agent who thinks someone has accidentally released confidential material to this person. And as to why he was ordered of the plane, I imagine it's a lag in communication. Someone (or a chain of people) on and off-site made the decision to delve further after a note was made by the TSA agents, which had already let him go. And they wouldn't speak about a possible leak of classified documents on a plane. It's not hard to imagine if the flight had taken off this would have played out at his destination.