Can't really prove a negative - what would the evidence look like? The reasonable question to ask is "prove to me they did search his home without serving him a warrant."
Edit: P.S. note that I said evidence not proof.
P.P.S. I find it somewhat weird how people are so eager to jump to the defense of law enforcement with shouts of "that evidence proves nothing!" while at the same time supporting the idea that a now known to be false positive explosives test is more than sufficient to justify someone's ill-treatment for hours at the hands of law enforcement.
I'm not saying that Mukerjee's story of missing and tampered items in his apartment is sufficient to convict any law enforcement agent of wrong doing but maybe it's enough to justify an investigation (which could easily be rolled into the investigation into LEO behavior around the entire incident).
None of us on here know exactly what happened but the above seems (to me) just as likely as law enforcement breaking into his apartment. I would think they would also visit the apartment/residence he was vacating.
Let's go through the lines of evidence here.
First off, there were apparently no visible signs that anyone had broken into his apartment. If the FBI or the police had picked the lock or if they had gotten the super to let them in and told him or her to remain silent about it then that would explain such an absence. A thief could also pick the lock but why would they bother if it is so easy to simply break through the door?
Second, this seems like exceptionally odd timing for a random act of thievery.
Third, why would anyone except law enforcement bother to put everything back almost exactly where it was before?
The most logical conclusion that I can come to is that a law enforcement agent searched Mukerjee's apartment and probably took the photo so that it could be scanned or for some other reason but accidentally forgot to put it back. It's certainly not a very high degree of proof that such a thing happened but I think it's the most likely possibility, though it's mostly just a side-show compared to the other more troubling issues in this case.
Have you ever considered that his landlord could have come into the apartment to make sure it had been cleaned up properly by the outgoing tenants (remember, he had moved in the night before his trip). If the landlord had found a poster that had fallen off the wall, he may have thought it was trash left by the other tenants and thrown it away. His landlord would not have had to break in.
I don't think it's impossible that law enforcement searched his apartment; but if they had, wouldn't his bags have been unpacked, rather than just one of them a little out of place?
But really, why doesn't he just ask his landlord or super? If the police came, they probably would have asked the landlord to let them in. I mentioned the landlord idea on the previous thread, but he never responded.
If that's legal in the US, or something one might expect, that's almost more shocking to me than the original story. If any of my past landlords had entered my flat without permission, I would have called the police on them, with good cause.
He was living in NYC, so I'll quote their rules. From http://pubadvocate.nyc.gov/landlord-watchlist/tenant-rights:
> In general in New York City, a landlord may only enter a tenant’s apartment for three reasons: emergency repairs, non-emergency repairs or improvements, and apartment inspections. Emergency repair requires no advance notice to the tenant. However, access for non-emergency repairs and improvements requires a minimum of one week’s advance written notice, and access for inspection requires a minimum of 24 hours advance written notice.
If he was on vacation, then 24 hours written notice for inspection could consist of putting the notice on or under his door, waiting 24 hours, then going in for the inspection and removing the notice.
I've had my landlady enter my apartment without permission or notice before, and it was a little bit creepy, but I let it slide since she was such a nice lady. She wasn't some owner of a big apartment complex or anything, just had a second house down the street that she rented out, I think mostly so she could store all of the extra furniture she picked up at flea markets and couldn't fit into her own house. In fact, the reason she had entered our house was to stash a few lamps that she did't want her sister to sell at a yard sale, so we came back one day and there were extra lamps sitting around.
And if this seems implausible, consider -- how many times have you found yourself saying things like "I could have sworn I left the keys right there", and then finding them somewhere else? Is it more likely that you misremembered, or that they were moved by ninja-like FBI agents?
It sounds like the TSA's actions were excessive and heavy handed. It sounds like perhaps he got a little argumentative, due to being hungry (as he said, he hadn't eaten; I know I get cranky when I go too long without food), thirsty, and upset about missing his trip.
The TSA, and whatever other officers interviewed him, should probably be trained better in dealing with this kind of situation. In particular, using behavioral excuses to detain someone who's been singled out for extra screening is silly. Many people get upset about that kind of thing. And given that none of these TSA agents have ever actually interacted with a terrorist, and most likely never been trained with anyone who has, it's hard to believe that their training is any good at actually distinguishing a terrorist from someone who's just mad that they haven't had food or water in many hours. Heck, if you were a terrorist, you would prefer to blend in and act calm to singling yourself out for more screening by acting angry.
I feel like his article was a bit of an overreaction, but likewise the TSAs screening policies are much bigger, costlier, more painful overreaction.