USA Flag

Official website of the Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

Orlando Officer Arrested

Archived Content

Please note that older content is archived for public record. This page may contain information that is outdated and may not reflect current policy or programs.

If you have questions about policies or procedures, please contact the TSA Contact Center.

Members of the news media may contact TSA Public Affairs.

Tuesday, February 02, 2010
TSA logo

I was sickened to hear about a former TSA staffer in Orlando who was recently arrested for lewd and lascivious conduct.

TSA takes allegations such as these very seriously and steps were taken to terminate this employee. Yesterday, the employee resigned.

TSA uses background screening and perpetual vetting to keep those with criminal records out of our workforce, but background checks are not a crystal ball and cannot predict what a person will do in the future.

Our officers are deeply saddened and disgusted that someone who wore the uniform could commit such an unspeakable act. TSA holds the highest standards for our workforce and this individual's actions do not reflect on the more than 50,000 men and women who work every day to keep the traveling public safe.

Bob Burns
TSA Blog Team

Comments

Submitted by Anonymous on

Once again, Bravo to your high standards, quality employees, and high-quality management. Oh, I'm sorry I was being sarcastic. I really don't believe this agency can do anything right.

Submitted by Anonymous on

You should have addressed those morons with the "pickle smoker" scoreboard in the same post. As it is, it seems that this blog neatly alternates between posts expressing your disgust and disappointment with the idiotic/criminal acts of your employees and posts that ask us to believe that those same employees can be trusted with our security, let alone our nude images. l

Submitted by Anonymous on

Oh, look. A news item that alludes to poorly run background checks being done on prospective TSA employees. Now ask me why I am not surprised.

Submitted by Steve on

Love the blog, think it's a great idea. Was hoping you could clear something up for me. Why when the incident with the Officer in Philly scaring that woman, TSA claimed it could no disclose termination vs. resignation, only that employment had ended. But in this case, you announce that the officer was not fired and did resign. What's the difference between situations as to why you can elaborate on this and not on that one? Not looking to trick more info out on the Philly case, just looking for the differences in the cases.

Submitted by Anonymous on

DCO Bob,

More damage control, eh? Can't we start having more posts about stuff we care about rather than the latest bad press on TSA? The fact is that there are strange cats who work for each and every business and agency in the country; I'm not blaming TSA for this one. BUT, you said it yourself:

background checks are not a crystal ball and cannot predict what a person will do in the future.


People tend to have a warm fuzzy when background checks are done on people, as if it proves something. The so-called "vetting" you do is pretty much useless as far as keeping terrorists away from airplanes; because few terrorists actually have felony criminal records and you know it.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Love the blog, think it's a great idea. Was hoping you could clear something up for me. Why when the incident with the Officer in Philly scaring that woman, TSA claimed it could no disclose termination vs. resignation, only that employment had ended. But in this case, you announce that the officer was not fired and did resign. What's the difference between situations as to why you can elaborate on this and not on that one? Not looking to trick more info out on the Philly case, just looking for the differences in the cases.
----------------------------

You have to be something of a sovietologist to understand the TSA blog-- it's like reading between the lines of Pravda. I'll help you out.

The employee resigned=the employee resigned (as in this situation)
the employee is no longer working for us= the employee was fired (see Philadelphia incident)

privacy laws forbid us from saying anything whatsoever= the employee is still with the TSA (St. Louis).

Submitted by Anonymous on

And then you wonder why people don't want you taking naked pictures of their children. You're revolting.

Submitted by Anonymous on

In light of this grotesque violation of the public trust and the many, many other instances of TSA employees being arrested and charged with crimes, why is each TSO not screened each and every time they leave the "sterile area"?

What a sick joke.

Submitted by Anonymous on

So, Bob, will perverts like this guy be running the virtual strip search machines?

How will we know?

Submitted by Anonymous on

You mention that you run strict background checks and perpetual screening on your employees - yet this particular employee's screwed up fetishes were shown for the public on his MySpace page. This is something that is one of the first items to show in a Google search of someone. Can you clarify how you vette the backgrounds of your employees, yet so clearly missed this, one of the easiest examples.

Submitted by Isaac Newton on

I agree with you 100% on this, Bob: background checks are not a crystal ball and cannot predict what a person will do in the future.

But you use those same background checks to trust that TSA employees will not take anything dangerous into the secure area, instead of screening them as you do passengers.

So what you're saying is: you can't predict which of your employees are sex offenders, thieves, illegal drug users, drug smugglers or racists, but you think you can predict that they won't - knowingly or unknowingly - help terrorists. Sure.

And why didn't your highly trained BDOs suspect that this guy was a criminal?

Bob also said: TSA holds the highest standards for our workforce... You forgot to add "right up until they're convicted of a felony."

Submitted by Anonymous on

I see that TSA can't bother to screen your own employees for actual sexual predators, but your Orlando office has contests to see how many law abiding gay men and women you can detain?

How does this possible make us safer? How can you justify using our tax dollars this way.

Submitted by Colyn TSO on

Bob actually hasn't told u much.. A resignation is a voluntary separation and not the result of disciplinary action.

Bob cannot state the results of disciplinary action.

Submitted by RB on

"TSA uses background screening and perpetual vetting to keep those with criminal records out of our workforce, but background checks are not a crystal ball and cannot predict what a person will do in the future."
.......................

That perpetual vetting doesn't seem to be working all that well.

Think perhaps it's the people hired by TSA and not the process?

Is Crabtree still on the payroll?

Submitted by Bruce on

"Our officers are deeply saddened and disgusted that someone who wore the uniform could commit such an unspeakable act."

Bob, I know this is very difficult for TSA to understand but here in the US, someone is innocent until proven guilty. Until then, just an allegation.

Uh, we are still in the US, aren't we? Hello, anyone at TSA listening?

Submitted by Jim Huggins on

A thought for the TSA:

I agree with Bob that background checks cannot predict what a person will do in the future.

If that is indeed true, then why does TSA rely on the no-fly and selectee screening lists as a "layer" of security"? Such lists are essentially "background checks", after all (albeit a very primitive form).

Submitted by Anonymous on

So, what does the TSA do to prevent these things from ever happening again? What assurance do we have that our children are safe in the daily groping and in the WBI nude-o-scope scanning?

Talking about bad apples is a bad excuse. What do you do to the TSA to ensure that bad apples just DON'T EXIST?

Submitted by RB on

Colyn TSO said...
Bob actually hasn't told u much..
..............
Now that is the overstatement of the decade.

Hundreds if not thousands of questions have been directed to Bob and the TSA via this blog and just a very few have ever been answered.

So are the WBI images posted on this blog the same size and resolution that WBI operators see when screening travelers?

It's a simple yes or no Bob.

Are you up to it?

All TSA News-All the Time

http://rebelmodel.com/news/latest.php

Submitted by Anonymous on

Actually, a resigned employee can say, "I resigned.", when asked about previous employment with TSA. Which is honest and better than, "I was terminated." And, it's soooo much easier on TSA managers than trying to fire someone. Everybody wins.

So look forward to "resigned" TSA people getting jobs driving school busses...

Submitted by Anonymous on

This is disgusting. You want us to be virtually strip searched by these same background checked individuals?

Your entire organization is unconstitutional, unAmerican, and unacceptable.

Shame on the TSA.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Colyn TSO said...
Bob actually hasn't told u much.. A resignation is a voluntary separation and not the result of disciplinary action.

Bob cannot state the results of disciplinary action.
----------------------------------------

While this may be the case, I would argue that he should be able to state the results. If American tax payers are paying all of the TSO's salary's, your disciplinary records should be a matter of public record.

Sadly, that's probably not the case with your gray area fascist operation.

Submitted by RB on

Actually, a resigned employee can say, "I resigned.", when asked about previous employment with TSA. Which is honest and better than, "I was terminated." And, it's soooo much easier on TSA managers than trying to fire someone. Everybody wins.

So look forward to "resigned" TSA people getting jobs driving school busses...

February 3, 2010 10:12 AM

..............
Yeah everybody wins except possibly the next unwitting employer.

Submitted by Bob on

For everyone who is so quick to bash TSA for this, please note that this individual is a retired Marine who served 20 years in the United States Military. My point??? This can happen anywhere and you can't predict it.

This will give you chills.

Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team

Submitted by Bob on

RB Said... Yeah everybody wins except possibly the next unwitting employer. February 3, 2010 11:26 AM

-----------------------

How so? This individual now has a record of being arrested and due to his confession, I'm guessing he will be convicted. Is it not the responsibility of other employers to check into his background prior to hiring?

Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team

Submitted by Anonymous on

He "resigned"?

Not "fired"?

Not "fired and led away in handcuffs"?

What exactly does it take for the TSA to fire someone and charge them with a crime?

Submitted by Anonymous on

"What exactly does it take for the TSA to fire someone and charge them with a crime?"

Ummmmmmmmmmm he was arrested. He is in jail. Did you read anything or did you just decide to take a shot at TSA with a blind uninformed comment?

Submitted by Anonymous on

"For everyone who is so quick to bash TSA for this, please note that this individual is a retired Marine who served 20 years in the United States Military. My point??? This can happen anywhere and you can't predict it.
------------------------

Normally, I would agree. However, you seem to be forgetting something: you employ BDOs, who, after a few days of training, magically become human lie detectors. Why aren't you using them?

Submitted by Anonymous on

And you, Bob, are ignoring that fact that while employing someone like this to be a baggage clerk is bad, hiring them to look at naked pictures of people's children is orders of magnitude worse.

Say, I wonder if people like this are the reason Mikey keeps getting pat-downs.

Submitted by Anonymous on

For everyone who is so quick to bash TSA for this, please note that this individual is a retired Marine who served 20 years in the United States Military. My point??? This can happen anywhere and you can't predict it.
-----------------------------------

Good. Now why are you completely incapable of applying this logic to the risk of terrorist attack? There have been cases of doctors molesting patients since the beginning of medicine, but we don't strip-search physicians or demand that they be subjected to video surveillance. Why not? Why is TSA willing to accept that some of its employees are criminals, but unwilling to accept that air travel can never be 100% secure?

Submitted by Anonymous on

Some folks are acting like TSA is the only organization to employee child molesters in positions of trust. Can you say Catholic Church!!!

Come on people perverts like this are all around you stop blaming TSA.

Submitted by RB on

Bob said...
RB Said... Yeah everybody wins except possibly the next unwitting employer. February 3, 2010 11:26 AM

-----------------------

How so? This individual now has a record of being arrested and due to his confession, I'm guessing he will be convicted. Is it not the responsibility of other employers to check into his background prior to hiring?

Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team

February 3, 2010 11:45 AM
.............
He may convicted but of what is the real question.

If the person has no priors and pleads down to some low level charge it may not be apparent to another employer what has happened.

And I'm sure you didn't miss that I said "unwitting employer"!

So now that we know your really out there how about these WBI images?

Are the ones posted on this blog ( or linked to) of the same resolution and size that the operator of WBI systems see?

Submitted by Bob on

Anonymous said... Why is TSA willing to accept that some of its employees are criminals, but unwilling to accept that air travel can never be 100% secure?

------------------------------

When has any official from TSA ever stated that air travel is 100%safe? Provide the link when you find it, please.

Look up the post on this blog describing our layers of security and you'll get a better understanding of how we approach security.

Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team

Submitted by RB on

Bob said...
For everyone who is so quick to bash TSA for this, please note that this individual is a retired Marine who served 20 years in the United States Military. My point??? This can happen anywhere and you can't predict it.

This will give you chills.

Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team

February 3, 2010 11:35 AM
...................
So your saying that TSA BDO's can't identify these types of people?

Submitted by Anonymous on

Bob, I think you have been asked a perfectly valid question.

If background checks cannot predict what a person will do in the future, why are you still not screening TSOs when they arrive to their post or when they enter the sterile area?

X-Ray the shoes, no liquids over 3 oz (they can obtain more inside of the sterile area if needed,) metal detector, WBI.

Submitted by RB on

Look up the post on this blog describing our layers of security and you'll get a better understanding of how we approach security.

Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team

February 3, 2010 12:37 PM

..............
What layer of security is it that requires some TSA employee to hold some sort of test strip over a beverage already in the secure area that is being consumed by a person already in the secure area?

Submitted by Anonymous on

Fascinating that THIS is the post that makes Bobbo come out swinging at anyone who dares suggest TSA made a mistake or doesn't know what it's doing. Makes me wonder if he'll take a minute and say whether the virtual strip-search images he's posted are at the same size and resolution as those seen by the operator of the machine while he's at it.

Submitted by Bob on

Anonymous said... Makes me wonder if he'll take a minute and say whether the virtual strip-search images he's posted are at the same size and resolution as those seen by the operator of the machine while he's at it. February 3, 2010 1:00 PM

-------------------------------

You guys are killing me (and others) with this. These pictures were provided to TSA by the vendor. I have never claimed they are the exact size and resolution that our officers see. I have provided video examples showing what our officers see. I have requested the resolution and size and was told it was proprietary information that I could not release. I'm still looking into being able to get that info for you, but I can't promise anything.

Thanks,

Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team

Submitted by Bob on

Many of you are assuming that our BDO's should have recognized that there was something up with this individual. How so? BDO's are not mind readers. They can't guess your weight or tell you which horse to pick. They're trained to recognize behaviors indicative of somebody who is in fear of being caught. I can anticipate your next question and the answer is that I don't know. You don't either, so please don't assume that he was afraid of being caught for anything at the airport.

Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team

Submitted by Anonymous on

Look up the post on this blog describing our layers of security and you'll get a better understanding of how we approach security.

Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
------------------------

So will the TSA be adding another layer of security to sniff out the rest of the pedophiles and deviants that work for your Administration? How about making children exempt from the WBI screening process, if only to lessen the chances of our children being sexualized by TSA employees. And since you are in the mood to answer questions today:

Are the sample images provided by the TSA taken from the newest generation WBI machines, and of the same resolution and size the image screener sees?

Submitted by RB on

I have requested the resolution and size and was told it was proprietary information that I could not release. I'm still looking into being able to get that info for you, but I can't promise anything.

Thanks,

Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team

February 3, 2010 1:22 PM

.............
Why did it take a year for you to say just that?

So as it stands now we do not know if the images are safe for children to view claimed by Nico.

We do not know if the images are very detailed or not.

Every thing we've been told is supposed to be taken on faith.

From a previous TSA Blog posting dated 01/27/2010;

"Please take a look at this blog post to see larger versions of the images below and video of what AIT images actually look like."

My idea of what images "actually look like" would be those that show full detail.

It is apparent that TSA has intentionally engage in a campaign misleading the public so they can force through "TSA Porno-Vision Machines"

And TSA claims to have ethics!

Sorry TSA loses again!

Submitted by Anonymous on

Wow, Bob nearly answered a long-ignored question. Maybe he'll give us the name and number of his supervisor next!

Submitted by Anonymous on

Bob said:

You guys are killing me (and others) with this. These pictures were provided to TSA by the vendor. I have never claimed they are the exact size and resolution that our officers see. I have provided video examples showing what our officers see. I have requested the resolution and size and was told it was proprietary information that I could not release. I'm still looking into being able to get that info for you, but I can't promise anything.

Thanks,

Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
-------------------

I appreciate you answering what you're allowed to regarding the resolution & size of the images.

With that said Can you send an email to your bosses asking why the high resulution sample images provided by the manufacturer are proprietary when american tax dollars are paying for these machines? Thanks.

Submitted by Bob on

Anonymous said... So will the TSA be adding another layer of security to sniff out the rest of the pedophiles and deviants that work for your Administration? How about making children exempt from the WBI screening process, if only to lessen the chances of our children being sexualized by TSA employees. And since you are in the mood to answer questions today:

Are the sample images provided by the TSA taken from the newest generation WBI machines, and of the same resolution and size the image screener sees?

February 3, 2010 1:35 PM

-------------------------------

How are we to sniff out pedophiles and deviants? If they have no record, there is no way to sniff them out unless you catch them.

How are other organizations sniffing out their pedophiles and deviants?

What are your suggestions?

Based on your logic, how about not allowing children to see doctors?

The link I provided earlier points to an article about two pedophile pediatricians. They can see your children naked and touch them too.

I don't subscribe to that logic and there is no way I would judge the entire pediatric community on the actions of two pedophiles.

As far as the image question, scroll up to my comment at 1:22 PM.

Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team

Submitted by RB on

Bob said...
Many of you are assuming that our BDO's should have recognized that there was something up with this individual. How so? BDO's are not mind readers. They can't guess your weight or tell you which horse to pick. They're trained to recognize behaviors indicative of somebody who is in fear of being caught. I can anticipate your next question and the answer is that I don't know. You don't either, so please don't assume that he was afraid of being caught for anything at the airport.

Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team

February 3, 2010 1:32 PM
...................
So how many terrorist (convicted) have these BDO's identified or caught?

Submitted by Anonymous on

When has any official from TSA ever stated that air travel is 100%safe? Provide the link when you find it, please.

Look up the post on this blog describing our layers of security and you'll get a better understanding of how we approach security.

Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
----------------------

Your entire approach suggests that you are chasing after the specter of 100% security. Look at it this way-- you take an activity that is 99.9% safe (hypothetically speaking of course-- in reality air travel is even safer than that.) Apparently 99.9% isn't enough, so you introduce technology that is extremely expensive and poses a real and immediate threat to our privacy. And for what? To make it 99.99% safe? It is painfully evident that you have no understanding of the notions of risk management or diminishing returns. All of your rhetoric essentially comes down to the same tired response: "If it can keep one plane from going down, it's worth it, regardless of the expense or inconvenience." So, Mr. Burns, it is clear to me that your entire paradigm is aimed at 100% security.

(By the way-- I haven't gone back and read your posts about "layers" again. I read them the first time. That was enough to convince me that your approach is absolute nonsense.)

Submitted by Anonymous on

Anon - does that mean that you couldn't find the link? :) hahahahaha

Submitted by Anonymous on

How are we to sniff out pedophiles and deviants? If they have no record, there is no way to sniff them out unless you catch them.

How are other organizations sniffing out their pedophiles and deviants?

What are your suggestions?

Based on your logic, how about not allowing children to see doctors?

The link I provided earlier points to an article about two pedophile pediatricians. They can see your children naked and touch them too.

I don't subscribe to that logic and there is no way I would judge the entire pediatric community on the actions of two pedophiles.

--------------------------------
Bob,
There is a reason that we take the calculated risk in allowing our children to disrobe in front of a doctor -- the very small risk that the doctor is a pedophile is far outweighed by the benefits of medical care. The problem (or rather, one of the many, many problems) with the strip-search machine is that the increase in security that is provided is so miniscule as to be completely statistically insignificant. Look at it this way: there is such a small chance of a brick falling off of a building and killing us that it would be absurd to wear a hard-hat every time we walk out the door. On a construction site, on the other hand, the risk is great enough that wearing protection is a reasonable measure.

Submitted by Anonymous on

BDO's are not mind readers. They can't guess your weight or tell you which horse to pick. They're trained to recognize behaviors indicative of somebody who is in fear of being caught.
---------------------

So what was the BDO in the youtube clip doing harassing a passenger who was openly filming TSA staff?

Submitted by RB on

How are we to sniff out pedophiles and deviants? If they have no record, there is no way to sniff them out unless you catch them.

How are other organizations sniffing out their pedophiles and deviants?

What are your suggestions?

Based on your logic, how about not allowing children to see doctors?

The link I provided earlier points to an article about two pedophile pediatricians. They can see your children naked and touch them too.

I don't subscribe to that logic and there is no way I would judge the entire pediatric community on the actions of two pedophiles.

As far as the image question, scroll up to my comment at 1:22 PM.

Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team

February 3, 2010 1:49 PM

..........
First off no parent should ever allow another person to be alone with their children.

It's called layers of security!

That is exactly what TSA wants with the WBI Strip Search Machines.

You are asking us to trust everyone in TSA with these images and the machine operator. Those harmless machines that have no network or storage capabilities yet have USB and Network support along with the ability to save images all mandated into the design specs.

Put the operator in view of the person being imaged. Use one way glass or whatever is needed to make it happen. Exempt minors unless additional screening is required.

Heck, with the billions of dollars TSA is using to buy this ineffective screening device why not give a little comfort to the public?

Submitted by Anonymous on

You guys are killing me (and others) with this. These pictures were provided to TSA by the vendor. I have never claimed they are the exact size and resolution that our officers see. I have provided video examples showing what our officers see. I have requested the resolution and size and was told it was proprietary information that I could not release. I'm still looking into being able to get that info for you, but I can't promise anything.

Thanks,

Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
---------------------------
By "killing me," I assume you are referring to the repeated requests to clarify this issue. Why would it have been so difficult to answer the question the first (or the tenth, or the fiftieth) time that it was asked? Given that there is a roughly year-long turnaround time between a question and a response, I will assume that we should be getting the name and contact information for your supervisor sometime around New Year's 2011.

Pages