27/10/2015
Please be careful..... remember these tips.
No screenshot, no case!
supervisor should be summoned whenever a security officer has reason to physically search a piece of luggage, again, even before the bag is touched.
physical search should be conducted in the open, in clear view of the bag owner, the supervisor, and bystanders.
the whole process should also be done under the watchful eye of a security camera.
Read the full details below.
First, the x-ray machine. I believe all airport luggage scanners are capable of saving a screenshot at the push of a button. I don't know if this is standard practice at Philippine airports, but it should be required by law. A screenshot should be taken as the very first step whenever a scanner operator sees something suspicious, and that image should be submitted as part of the official report. This should happen even before the luggage is touched. No screenshot, no case!
Second, a supervisor should be summoned whenever a security officer has reason to physically search a piece of luggage, again, even before the bag is touched. This might require additional supervisors, but the current situation clearly calls for it. Again, no supervisor, no case!
And third, any physical search should be conducted in the open, in clear view of the bag owner, the supervisor, and bystanders. Place the bag on a table, and stand behind the table in a position where the bag owner can watch everything. In other words, go to great lengths to make the entire process highly visible. This should all be documented in the arresting officer's report, and included as evidence. If the cops can't show that these procedures were followed to the letter, no case!
Finally, although NAIA has a spotty record with CCTV cameras, the whole process should also be done under the watchful eye of a security camera.
This is not about mistrusting the security officer. It's about conducting a professional, legal search that will stand up in court, and about protecting the rights of accused persons. Under the current system, a crooked cop can ruin an innocent person's life, just by saying "I found something". And by virtue of his position, that cop is presumed to have done his job properly just because he said he did. In legal terms, that's called the "presumption of regularity."
'Under the current system, a crooked cop can ruin an innocent person's life, just by saying "I found something"'