TSA Hires Felon & Forces Airport To Issue Security Badge
5/2/2010 –TSA Hires Felon & Forces Airport To Issue Security Badge
It appears the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has placed Richmond (VA) International Airport (RIC) in a troubling situation regarding the issuing of a security access badge to a convicted felon … and that the TSA’s own policy for criminal background checks of Transportation Security Officers (TSO) has a gaping loop hole that has allowed this situation to arise.
Richmond International Airport (RIC) like many airports controls the security badges issued to those with access to secure areas of their airport. Like most airports, RIC will not issue a secure area badge to those convicted of a felony or convicted of ‘disqualifying crimes’ … unless of course they are forced to issue a security badge by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) & Transportation Security Administration.
This problem begs the following question … should the TSA employ someone convicted of Felony Robbery within the past 10 years?
Now that I have your attention…let’s get to the details here.
The TSA has recently hired a front line Transportation Security Officer who at the age of 17 committed felony robbery. Although a minor at the time of the offense, this person was convicted of the crime when they were 18, thus they were convicted as an adult and their records were not sealed. The TSA claims that since the crime occurred when the person was a minor it is not disqualifying crime … however they served their entire felony sentence as an adult and they have direct access to passenger’s personal property.
At the time the TSA TSO submitted their employment application, and again at the time they were hired, they failed to disclose their felony conviction to the TSA. All applicants are required to disclose a felony conviction within the past 10 years, as per FAR 108.33(c)(5). (*FAR 108.33(c)(5) has been replaced by 49 CFR Part 1542, I was directed to an outdated law by the FAA at the time I was originally seeking the correct regulations*)
Upon being hired by the TSA the TSO was required to submit to a routine background check by the Capital Region Airport Commission to be issued a secure area display badge. The TSA TSO failed to disclose their felony conviction, as required in the security badge application process, to the Airport Commission. The background search discovered the conviction and RIC refused to issue a security badge.
Following the Capital Region Airport Commission’s discovery of the undisclosed criminal history the TSA stood behind their Transportation Security Officer, rather this fire them, and further demanded that RIC issue a security badge to the TSO.
The TSA’s demand that a badge be issued to this TSA Officer is disturbing on a number of levels, but two really stand out in this situation.
1) RIC’s security badging policy is a Transportation Security Administration approved security program. This program expressly prohibits issuing security badges to people convicted of any disqualifying crimes.
2) The TSA policy for criminal background checks at time of employment, as dictated by FAR 108.33 (c)(5) leaves holes for felons to slip through. In this policy, those applying for jobs must disclose felony convictions in the past 10 years, however criminal background checks are only conducted if there are specific deficiencies in the applicants employment history. This means someone can easily create a faux job history to cover their felony convictions and be hired by the TSA.
FAR 108.33(2) Is even a bigger loop hole, stating that felony conviction must not disclose conviction by reason of insanity, or espionage, murder, rape, interfering with an in-flight crew, extortion, sedition…but it does include armed robbery…but not “robbery.” Felony convictions not on the list and over 10 years old may not disqualify applicants from being employed by the TSA as a TSO.
(This info can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Volume 2, Revised Jan 1, 2001, CITE 14CFR108.33, between pages 340-344)
To make matters worse for the TSA, rather than admit its error, the TSA’s Principal Deputy Chief Counsel, Margot F. Bester, who has been with the TSA since 2002, is quoted as stating the following when confronted with the agency hiring convicted felons:
“Our [transportation security officers] are highly motivated and talented individuals who have come from law enforcement, the military, the business community or out of retirement following 9/11 to make air travel secure for the American people”
While Ms. Bester may be correct about many of the TSA TSO’s, clearly in this case the Agency has hired a convicted felon. The TSA must admit what happened, since it has already been discovered and rather than follow its usual course of action, stonewalling the outside world and facing no oversight penalties, it should handle the situation properly.
The system in which travelers must place their trust to protect them is not working.
When will the Department of Homeland Security and Transportation Security Administration start focusing on real solutions to real problems in passengers’ transportation security? When will the Transportation Security Administration begin to at least follow its own guidelines?
…also would it be so hard for the TSA to lose its RMA tone with those it should be partnering with. What is RMA you ask? “Respect My Authority”
Happy Flying!
Maybe convicted felons make good TSA agents — they ought to know a thing or two about how to conceal dangerous weapons!
I hadn’t heard the term “RMA tone” before — so true!
Be advised FAR 108 has not been used for over 8 years. The current regulations on Airport Security, including requirements on these types of background checks, is Title 49 CFR Part 1542. This change came about after 9/11 along with the creation of DHS and TSA. Specifically, Part 1542.209 lists the disqualifying crimes for obtaining an airport-issued ID for SIDA access.
I agree with your stance, but you are building it on an inaccurate foundation. The quotes to FAR 108 are greatly outdated. FAA is no longer in charge of aviation security; FAR 108 has been superceded by Transportation Security Regulations in the 49 CFR series, with a number of changes from the 108 language.
Give the guy a second chance!
Bernard & Frank,
You are correct, the current regulations would be 49 CFR 1542. In researching this information I was actually directed to FAR 108.33 by a US Gov’t Agency. I had believed 49 CFR 154 to be the current set of regulations … but once again it seems that those in the US Gov’t are unsure of the rules, in this case an FAA representative directing me to FAR 108.33.
Thanks for pointing out the error, I appreciate it.
Happy Flying!
-Fish
I thought the point was rehabilitation, especially with juveniles. Obviously the guy has kept his record spotless if that was the only strike against him. It seems like he has worked to keep himself clean. I would think the airport and these politicians would show pride that here is an example of someone who turned their life around. Get off this guy’s back.
Actually, 49 USC 44936 specifically lists “armed robbery: US Code is Law that has been passed by the congress. CFR, or code of civil regulations is Administrative Law, created by a Federal Agency through “enabling statutes” created by the congress.
The true loophole here is the 10 year limitation. 49 USC permits it, and that flows to the CFR which also permits it.
It appears this convict committed his felony more than 10 years ago.
Hello,
Just a quick note on the story above. I’m sure that quite a few citizens are concerned with a TSA TSO being hired with criminal history; however, most police officers have a criminal history as well. In my personal and professional opinion, this increases our personal security. I’m sure you are wondering why this is my belief. Ask yourself this, would you feel safer being protected by somebody who has no street knowledge and has no idea what warning signs to look for? Would you let a doctor operate on you who has no experience in the field?
Everybody deserves a second chance, regardless of their criminal history. If somebody is willing to change and use their new knowledge for the protection of others, why not give them a shot at proving themselves? All of us have skeletons hiding in the closet. Where would you be if you didn’t get a second chance?
John
The person in question hired by the TSA at RIC was convicted as an adult. Additionally, they failed to reported they were committed of a felony within the past 10 years to both the TSA/DHS and Richmond International Airport. This double failure to disclose a felony conviction, where legally required to disclose this information, is a sign the person was simply not being honest.
Happy Flying!
-Fish
The person hired by the TSA at RIC was convicted of a felony within the past 10 years and failed to disclose they had been convicted within the past 10 years.
Happy Flying!
-Fish
Ty
Had the person properly disclosed they had been convicted of a felony in the past 10 years to the TSA and still been hired that is one thing…however the person failed to disclose this to the TSA and again failed to disclose it to RIC at the time they did a background check. There is a space on the applications that specifically asks if the person has been convicted in the past 10 years of a felony.
Happy Flying!
-Fish
Fish,
I understand your concern with the individual’s failure to disclose this information. Other than discovering that he/she had been hired by TSA, how much other research has been done as per why the information was not disclosed? In some instances, probation officers have advised convicts that certain information does not need to be disclosed. Although this person had been charged as an adult, is it not possible that he was advised to not be required to disclose certain information?
Ty
Your FAR references are off. In February of 2002 the federal aviation security regulations under Title 14 Part 107, 108, et al, we’re moved to Title 49 CFR Part 1542 (airport operator), 1544 (aircraft operator), etc. We have not called them FAR anything since 2002.
I do like your site though. Just thought I’d correct a few references for improved credibility.
Jeff,
As mentioned in other comments, I had contacted the TSA for the correct regulations, however the TSA would not answer my questions. I contacted the FAA for insight into this situation and the FAA provided me with the FAR information rather than the current CFR information.
The information will be updated shortly.
Happy Flying!
-Fish
Dear Steven,
Give the kid (guy) a break. Everyone deserves a second chance in life. What if YOU were in that or similar position?
No one is perfect and yes there are loop holes in laws, such as the ones you’ve listed. No bill/laws are 100% perfect, that is why they get amended. I pretty sure YOU have done somethings that were, lets say, illegal. You had to, unless you are 15 years old, which you are not by no means.
Nevertheless, if I was doing the hiring and managing of TSOs, I would ‘keep a close eye’ on employees who have had a criminal history and ALLOWE them to prove/change themselves.
Mike,
The fact is this … person in question did not list having been convicted of a felony within a certain time frame as required by law. The TSA failed to find the felony convictions in their background search … where as Richmond Airport did find the conviction.
I am not discussing a second chance, what I am focusing on is that a person failed to report the conviction of the Department of Homeland Security failed to find this conviction.
Happy Flying!
- Fish