First place I encountered mandatory screening or full pat-down was Paris/CDG

[uppityperson]

End of summer 2009. The security procedures there had changed from the yr before (nice to have family in France, free housing). (and nice to have freq flyer miles to get there). I am not saying that this is good, just giving some info and perhaps perspective so people might realize it's not just TSA, not just "trying to get people in the USA to allow a police state" or other such stuff. Other countries are doing it. Other countries did this over a yr ago.

Used to be you showed your passport and ticket # to airline person who then let you into line to check in. At check in you showed ID and got your boarding pass. Going toward Security you showed both ID & boarding pass to the person who let you into line for Security. At the carry-on x-ray/going through metal detector thingie you showed your ID/pass.

A new layer was then added. When you got to the gate, your carry-on was examined again, in person (opened up and looked through). They gave me a choice, scan or pat-down. I chose the scanner, thinking it was the puffer but I was wrong. It took about 2 sec and I was let through.

CDG (Charles de Gaulle Airport) does NOT use TSA as those are USAnian thing. They have their own security (in multiple multiple layers, beauracracy IS a French word) but it was the same as is going on here now.

Thanks for reading.

[flamingdem]

1. Heathrow requires the x-ray machine for everyone nt

[Angry Dragon]

2. When did they start that??

I was there in spring of 2009 and they did not have it then

[flamingdem]

9. They put it in place earlier this year nt

[uppityperson]

3. Thanks. It is obnoxious but not just TSA thing.

[gateley]

4. What adds to my complaint about this, is that the Israelis have decided this

doesn't WORK. They're more concerned about actual attack than "giving the impression" of security, I would think. Why wouldn't we do whatever it is they do? Haven't they been successful?

That being said, I've never been to Israel and have only read that their security chose not to use these.

For those who have traveled there, what is their security like?

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Mutil layered

I also suspect some airports are doing the machines on our insistence... you don't meet our standards, you can't land on our airspace.

That said the manual search of luggage is actually good practice.

Israeli security starts at the airport perimeter, going through check poings before you park,

Then they have outer layer of people keeping an eye, before you reach the counter questions are asked, after you do the counter, they check papers again... and so on.

They have people walking around looking for things that are out of place and nervous people. If you are ever there, do NOT under any circumstances, leave your luggage, or you will be answering a lot of questions and they will BLOW IT UP.

[gateley]

18. See? They DO take it seriously! No humiliating body scans there!

Yikes! Blowing up the suitcase!

Thanks!

[uppityperson]

7. I wish they would scan all baggage, not do the stupid minimal shampoo bs

in a quart baggie, NOT a gallon one but a quart one.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. As I told a lady complaining about this

in Mexico City... these are FAA rules that foreign and national airlines have to comply with to enter US Airspace...

Why I am hoping more Airports and countries follow Israel and now Italy and tell us NO.

[gateley]

22. That seems goofy to me but I think the reasoning is I can have 2 oz of something

cleverly disguised as shampoo that could in theory be used as an explosive and 2 oz can't do the job, whereas 20 oz of that "shampoo" could? :shrug:

Ha! Years ago my mother and Aunt Margaret and I took a voyage to Vancouver, BC from Seattle (this was in the late 50's - early 60's). We had a stateroom and they had a big Lavoris bottle full of bourbon since alcohol wasn't permitted or something. Nothing was going to keep Helen and Margaret from their cocktails, so they thought they'd be slick about it. A steward came to the cabin and there's a bottle of "mouthwash" sitting on the table and two hoity-toity ladies sitting there sipping it from water glasses. He said "that's not booze, is it?" kind of laughing, and they said, "Oh, no! It's Lavoris!" After he left I said "Brilliant - Lavoris is blue, you should have used a Listerine bottle - that's at least brown".

The "shampoo" story just reminded me of that - haven't thought of it in years.

[struggle4progress]

15. Israeli airport gives rare glimpse into security

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101102/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_airport_security


.. The multi-layer system begins outside Israel’s biggest port of entry — Ben Gurion airport. Cars approaching the terminal are stopped by guards and asked one or two questions, usually about where they are coming from or what is the purpose of their visit. A nervous response, or one revealing an Arab accent, could trigger further scrutiny even before entering the airport. When walking into the terminal, visitors pass by another set of security agents searching for passengers behaving suspiciously. The next stop for human evaluation is before the check-in counter, where passengers are required to show their travel documents and answer a series of seemingly standard questions from trained security personnel. (Did you pack your bags by yourself? How long did you spend in Israel? What was the purpose of your visit?) Screeners are interested more in the tone and body language than in the content of passengers’ replies ... An Israeli official aware of the security practices said that profiling is not based solely on ethnic, religious or national affiliation, but rather on a combination of factors that also include behavioral patterns, travel information and previous intelligence. Adding to the personal screening process, passengers at Ben-Gurion also go through a metal detector, and an X-ray machine checks their luggage ...
srael’s Airport Security, Object Of Envy, Is Hard To Emulate Here
System Based on Interaction and Group Profiling Doesn’t Travel Well
By Nathan Guttman
Published January 06, 2010, issue of January 15, 2010.
http://www.forward.com/articles/122781/#ixzz15hjET8VZhttp://www.forward.com/articles/122781/#ixzz15hivdN2n

[gateley]

19. Interesting - thank you. I would assume that their security personnel are

better trained than ours. Several years ago when I flew I think the 'security' was provided by a minimum-wage company and the girl who made me empty out my jewelry bag was more interested in talking to the security person in the next line than paying attention to me. The last time I flew it had changed, the automatic taking off shoes, coats, etc., and the security people seemed to be paying more attention, but didn't really impart a sense of security.

I would also guess that one of the reasons we don't have such a security procedure is $$$. More people, better trained, better paid.

Since there are weapons that are undetectable by a metal detector (or so I've read), I bet their skills at "reading" people are finely honed. Professionals, not just employees.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Here is a comparison for you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9588182

[gateley]

25. I love your last line - scrap the security theater for real security.

Yes, that must have been the difference in the flights I mentioned -- pre and post TSA.

You talk about the 'old' days. Hell, I remember going down the jetway to meet my arriving boyfriend or mom and dad, just because I was excited to see them. I wasn't supposed to, but nobody stopped me (and as my mom used to always say, "nobody tells Mary Ellen what to do!" :7). I've gone ON to planes before to say goodbye to someone. When I was a flight attendant (again, pre-security days) I would have let people do that, too -- even though it was against the rules. We weren't AFRAID, and the world sure didn't seem as crazy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Well I would not put that blade in checked luggage

these days. This is how far things have changed.

[struggle4progress]

23. Israel as a society is security conscious

One of my links says some of the screeners are typically university students who have been trained about what to look for

[pnwmom]

43. Here's a critical sentence that got snipped out of that clip.

"This is also the point where profiling takes place: While most Jewish Israeli citizens will be waved through after the brief conversation, others, mainly Israeli Arabs and non-Jewish visitors, will be taken aside for lengthy questioning and a thorough luggage and physical check.

Read more: http://www.forward.com/articles/122781/#ixzz15iALNZSX

We have a different constitution than Israel has and their kind of racial and religious profiling would be much less acceptable here. The ACLU has come out strongly against it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Yes we have a bill of rights

that is being systematically ignored, read my sig.

As to the cost, so?

Oh never mind, we'd rather violate ours this way...

There are days... and I will ask you again, are you so afraid of the terrorist that you will submit yourself to something COPS cannot do WITHOUT A WARRANT?

I have yet to hear a reasonable answer from you, so I guess the terrorist really scare you.

[pnwmom]

48. You're willing to submit yourself to questioning that SHOULD

be prohibited under the Miranda decision.

What's the difference?

None of the alternatives are perfect. You'd prefer a mind search. I'd prefer a pat-down.

Or maybe you'd just prefer some sort of profiling that targeted anyone but you?

:shrug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. Actually what they do is NOT prohibited under Miranda

But thank you for answering the question, you are that afraid.

[pnwmom]

57. They can ask questions but under Miranda, you shouldn't be required

to answer them.

As far as WHO is afraid of WHAT, jberryhill said it better than I can:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9586726&mesg_id=9587552

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. You watch tv don't you

here are two hints about this.

Miranda is used to protect your fifth amendment rights, AFTER you are arrested. Nobody has placed you under arrest at the airport.

Secondly, there are many circumstances in your life where a cop can ask you questions, not mirandize you, and not arrest you.

For example, when was the last time you got a fucking ticket? Were you mirandirized? No.

Now if you chose to believe this, have a good day. You really have no clue what you are talking about. Establishing that you belong at the airport by asking if you packed your stuff is not a violation... groping you IS.

And you are well, very afraid, weby, weby afraid. Have a good day. Oh and enjoy the sexual battery at the airport.

[pnwmom]

62. I prefer to get legal information from lawyers, not TV.

The same principle stands, both before, during, and after arrest. When a government authority is questioning you, you have the right not to answer.

That doesn't mean you would have the right to fly. Flying isn't a civil right.

But if I had to choose between a government interrogation, Israeli style, or a pat-down search, I'd take the search. You obviously would choose differently.

Here's a post by a lawyer on this subject. Read and learn.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9586726&mesg_id=9587322

[jberryhill]

66. You are correct

Miranda is primarily about your right to counsel during a custodial interrogation.

The right not to answer questions always applies.

By NB's logic, you can be questioned and compelled to answer in any non-custodial situation, which of course would be silly.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. You watch tv don't you

here are two hints about this.

Miranda is used to protect your fifth amendment rights, AFTER you are arrested. Nobody has placed you under arrest at the airport.

Secondly, there are many circumstances in your life where a cop can ask you questions, not mirandize you, and not arrest you.

For example, when was the last time you got a fucking ticket? Were you mirandirized? No.

Now if you chose to believe this, have a good day. You really have no clue what you are talking about. Establishing that you belong at the airport by asking if you packed your stuff is not a violation... groping you IS.

And you are well, very afraid, weby, weby afraid. Have a good day. Oh and enjoy the sexual battery at the airport.

[uppityperson]

51. Miranda has to do with being arrested and yes, they can search you without Mirandizing you

A decision by the United States Supreme Court concerning the rights of persons in police custody. In the case of Miranda versus Arizona , in 1966, the Court ruled that, before questioning by the police, suspects must be informed that they have the right to remain silent and the right to consult an attorney, and that anything they say may be used against them in court. The Miranda ruling protects a suspect's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Miranda warning, a written statement of these rights, is normally recited by a police officer before interrogating the suspect in police custody.

[pnwmom]

56. You have the right to remain silent any time government authorities are

questioning you. Both before and after an arrest. You have the right to remain silent or to ask for a lawyer. Police don't usually read the "Miranda rights" until they know they're going to arrest you. But you don't have to talk to them before that -- and you shouldn't have to.

For more on this, a post from a lawyer:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9586726&mesg_id=9587322

[uppityperson]

60. They can feel you up without Mirandizing you.

[jberryhill]

67. Two different lines of cases

The reason we do things in an apparently inconsistent way is driven by rulings in a variety of different cases.

While you are correct that the Miranda case itself was about custodial interrogation, and included right to counsel, the more general right not to be compelled to answer questions is present prior to being taken into custody. If you think about it, it has to be present, otherwise you would simply be interrogated prior to physical arrest.

But the rules relating to detention, arrest, and interrogation arise from different lines of cases than the rules relating to administrative search, so you are comparing apples and oranges to some extent.

[uppityperson]

68. Do you think people need to be Mirandized before interrogated by TSA?

At what point? Serious question here, wondering your opinion.

I know the situations are different, wondering how or if Miranda ruling applies to pre-flight "security" searches by TSA. Thanks.

[jberryhill]

69. No

Miranda applies to "custodial interrogation". The default assumption is that people can choose to talk to police or not, in a casual encounter. I can walk down a street, a cop can ask me "Did you rob a bank yesterday?" and I can say "Have a nice day officer." If I say "yes", I can be arrested and my statement used against me. I can't object under Miranda, because I was not under arrest when I made the statement. Miranda does not apply.

Any LEO may ask you any question at any time. Some questions may be perfunctory and legitimate - no big deal. But you have to bear in mind that 18 USC 1001 criminalizes giving false answers to federal officials in the course of their duties. That's how, say, Martha Stewart was convicted not for securities violations, but for statements made in the investigation.

Anyway, Miranda is relevant to custodial interrogation. Non-Mirandized statements made in a non-custodial situation are easier to use as evidence against you.

So if you don't want to tell the TSA agent that you were staying with your mistress on that "business trip", your affair now becomes a ederal crime if you are compelled to say "Where have you been staying on your trip?" and you lie about it.

[uppityperson]

71. Thanks. They can ask and you can chose to answer or not.

Don't lie, but you don't have to answer. But then I thought the TSA can make you stay for full exam or you get a big fine? I know this is another thing, not miranda thing, but just continuing thinking through the process.

[jberryhill]

72. Right

...which raises an issue of the extent to which the interrogation context might be some form of detention.

But when you consider the range of psychological conditions and cultural variations among 2 million air passengers a day in the US, asking a lot of questions is going to open up a whole nother can of worms.

[pnwmom]

42. What they do costs several times as much as what we do.

And it involves racial and religious profiling, in addition to "behavioral profiling." If you're not Jewish or have an Arab accent, your experience will be entirely different than if you're an Israeli Jew.

Also, Israel has only have one large international airport in the country. What works for them wouldn't translate well to the U.S.

http://www.forward.com/articles/122781/

But while Israel does maintain an excellent track record for preventing airplane terrorism, its unique system of security, which leans heavily on personal interaction and on group profiling, cannot easily be emulated by the United States.

“The way things work in the United States is 180 degrees opposite to the way things work in Israel,” said Yuval Bezherano, an executive at an Israeli consulting firm that designs airport security systems. “Adopting the full Israeli system won’t work, because of costs, time and legal differences.”

SNIP

The multi-layer system begins outside Israel’s biggest port of entry — Ben Gurion airport. Cars approaching the terminal are stopped by guards and asked one or two questions, usually about where they are coming from or what is the purpose of their visit. A nervous response, or one revealing an Arab accent, could trigger further scrutiny even before entering the airport.

When walking into the terminal, visitors pass by another set of security agents searching for passengers behaving suspiciously. The next stop for human evaluation is before the check-in counter, where passengers are required to show their travel documents and answer a series of seemingly standard questions from trained security personnel. (Did you pack your bags by yourself? How long did you spend in Israel? What was the purpose of your visit?) Screeners are interested more in the tone and body language than in the content of passengers’ replies.

This is also the point where profiling takes place: While most Jewish Israeli citizens will be waved through after the brief conversation, others, mainly Israeli Arabs and non-Jewish visitors, will be taken aside for lengthy questioning and a thorough luggage and physical check.


SNIP

[StarsInHerHair]

64. going with what works? here? wtf is the matter with you?

:sarcasm: Billions MUST be SPENT! on junk!

I agree with you, we should go with what works, but I have a weird feeling that that path is narrow.

[Mz Pip]

5. I had my

"junk" grabbed in Venezuela in 1997 going through security. Sorry but I don't know the female slang equivalent of "junk." It was by a woman. I think this has been going on in other countries for quite a while.

I don't agree with it but even if we don't do it here, expect to encounter it in other countries.

[jancantor]

8. Junk is gender neutral

actually. At least that's how I hear it used. Fergie uses it this way

[CreekDog]

36. Which Fergie?

:shrug:

[jancantor]

49. Black Eyed Peas

Fergie. Actually, it was Will.I.Am who referred to wanting Fergie's junk.

Also, Kesha in the song Tik Tok refers to men wanting to touch her junk

[jberryhill]

70. Mine's not /nt

[drmeow]

10. What airline?

I flew through CDG in October of 09 and July of 10 and didn't encounter it either time ... unless what I thought was a metal detector was a scanner (I wasn't given an option). My carry on wasn't opened, either. I was asked screening questions and passport questions in line for check-in and everything I had they put a sticker on. At check in I showed passport and got boarding pass. Got in line for the gate when they announced it. Was exactly the same as what I did in the US going out (shoes off, laptops out, liquids out). I flew United.

[uppityperson]

13. Delta/AirFrance, maybe not doing it everywhere there? Did you fly to

USA? I was. Maybe they're doing it to USA only, comply with reqs here? In which case it would be TSA related and I'm wrong.

[drmeow]

63. Must be airline

specific. I flew to USA both times. Probably using different security companies. Except that this is now required in the US so probably required of all flights to the US, that would have been an argument for selecting a specific airline in the past.

[marmar]

12. I went thru CDG in '09, and remember the layers of security.....

..... but no pat down.

Delta/Air France to Detroit.

[HuckleB]

14. The US is not alone.

On the other hand, some places are far more practical. While it is actually mildly disturbing to fly out of Taipei, with security that resembles the US back in the '90s, it's also comforting to know that the tighter security at Tokyo Narita comes with common sense. Those of us flying to the US from Taipei may have obtained liquids after going through Taipei security (which, as noted, is minimal). But, instead of obsessing on the liquids, we merely dump them in a closed container and move along. No fuss. No muss.

Security can be had with speed, diligence and respect. That should be the aim of the TSA, in my opinion.

[JackRiddler]

16. I don't know about France, but Germany adopted biometric IDs to conform with US demands.

No kidding.

9/11 set off mini-PATRIOT acts around the globe, sometimes under US pressure, plenty of Interior Ministries just taking the opportunity.

This is the creation of a global surveillance state, with many countries fully into it.

[uppityperson]

17. Could be the CDG security I went through was to conform to USA demands

In which case I am wrong and it is the TSA at fault. been wrong before, will be again.

It sucks and is more window dressing rather than actually working with the problems.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Yes, the pat downs

you went through at De Gaulle were "adopted" in Mexico as well, it was a demand from the US, on all US bound flights. One lady started to complaint about abusive Mexicans. Staff could not say a word, so I told her, this is YOUR government demanding this on all US bound flights. So complaint to the Feds...

It was IN THE PAPERS, and they blamed the US. They make it very clear who demanded it.

A few places have already said no... and I hope that expands

This violates human rights, according to EU Chief Counsel and Ben Gurion and the whole of Italy have rejected the back scatters and a few other things. With the Israelis it got cute, when they threatened EL Al, and Israel, in typical israeli way, threatened to retaliate to US Carriers, as in you do not meet OUR security standards, you cannot enter our airspace.

We can't meet them, so it was quietly dropped.

[JackRiddler]

24. Head of El Al security was on one of the shows last night - Olbermann? Anyway...

He expressed open contempt for the scanners and the TSA system, pointing out the superiority of their interrogation process followed by selection of those judged "suspicious." (It's a bad experience, I assure you having gone through it.) The shocking part was he also said the Afghanistan war had been a pointless overreaction from the beginning, with so many people killed as a result, and the only sensible reaction to terror attacks is sensible security measures.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. I agree with him

Although I was all for that action, insofar as the announced objective, once they let OBL skate (with the help of ISI) out of Tora Bora... at that point it became clear the objective was not what they told us. The smoke and mirrors has not stopped.

I mean the Spec Ops to capture OBL made sense, since it was a quasi police action... but they were stopped from achieving their mission. The order came from very high up, as in Sec Def or higher level for them to stand down at Tora Bora. Some links

http://foreign.senate.gov/reports/download/?id=30753123-b747-4b7c-83fb-d350cc0aacef

[gateley]

31. Wow, nad, did you read that entire thing? Yikes! I've downloaded it and will

print it out and start slogging through it, but I remember hearing a long time ago that Clinton had the opportunity to nab OBL but decided against it because it was during the Lewinsky brouhaha and he was advised it wouldn't help his public image (or something like that). What was the gist of Kerry's report?

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Well with Clinton there were a few other issues

as we had much tighter regs before an execute order. It was the pre-911 world after all. They had to do with operations and safety.

This first came out in 2003, I cannot remember the name of the reporter for the New Yorker who first broke the story.

This report came after a LOT of pressure.

[gateley]

37. I never really believed they stopped assassinations - just figured they

did it secretively. Isn't that sad when one is so cynical about one's country and leadership?

I''m looking forward to reading the report.

Who applied the pressure for this report?

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. ACLU, other civil rights

and citizens... no, not the truthers, even if at times they have some of it right, and they don't even realize why. (Yes there is a stink of LIHOP on this, and the argument is for how much it was done on purpose and what was done because they just didn't get it)

This is one of those that we will look back like the McCarthy years.

[gateley]

39. In other areas, too, it's like the McCarthy years. Sad. I always think we

learn our lessons (VietNam, McCarthy, etc) when it's I who should be learning my own lesson -- that we never do learn. :(

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Americans are PROUD of not knowing their history

Oh we luuve our national myth, but this thanksgiving I am not raising a glass to toast the myth, but to remember the thousands upon thousands of WHITE slaves that were brought to the Colonies to work the plantations. Yes, if you survived your term you could be free, but most did not. Oh and Maas Bay was a theocracy, not quite a free place. in short, this country was not conceived in liberty.

[gateley]

29. Hmmmm -- the only sensible reaction to terror attacks

is sensible security measures. I like that.

[pnwmom]

44. And their system costs many times what ours does.

All those highly educated multi-lingual University trained screeners add up.

[avaistheone1]

46. Thanks for sharing.

It echos my understanding of how effective Israeli security is.

[gateley]

27. Oh - that's what your references to Israel and Italy meant. I wondered but

didn't want to ask because I've been badgering you with questions -- but you're such a font of information!

Good for Israel and Italy!

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. You will be interested in this

http://reason.org/news/show/airport-policy-and-security-news61

[gateley]

33. Either your brain is GOOGLE or you subscribe to more newsletters than I ever

knew existed!

You're right - I did find this interesting. I REALLY liked:

"...while Kenneth Dunlap of IATA stressed the need to shift aviation security’s focus from bad objects to bad people and end “one-size-fits-all screening."

And this was encouraging:

" came away from the conference less pessimistic than I’ve been in several years about the possibility of real reform of U.S. aviation security policies."

Thanks again! :hi:

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. I've become very good at using the google

over the last few years.

And save things like this for fun.

Google is a lot on how you do the search...

:-)

[HEyHEY]

35. Well, it WAS Paries, coulda just been a perv

[pnwmom]

40. Thanks for the additional perspective. n/t

[Catherina]

47. CDG only does it for US bound passengers

Sarkozy, bless his sick little heart, is honoring a US request for greater precautions.

Same thing with Dutch airlines, it's onlf for US bound flights http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/klm-flying-dutchman/1033124-ams-use-body-scanners-us-bound-flights-dutch-press-eu-adopt-pax-scannners-3.html

Sick eh?

[uppityperson]

52. Thank you. SInce I've only flown to USA from there, makes sense and it is TSA requested

Funny thing happened in Amsterdam, getting rechecked between hopper and longer flights. Traveling companion had an anti-bush sticker inside briefcase and the screener said was very happy to see we weren't all braindead over here.

[Gin]

53. Chertoff must be making a bundle with all these machines being in

airports in other countries...bastid!

[Bluenorthwest]

54. Worst of my life was way back late 80's or early 90's Heathrow

It was extensive, multi-layered, involved much touching and questioning, frisking in the jetway at the aircraft door, my papers were gone through, every name on them asked about, you name it. I had to give them addresses of people I had stayed with, met with, whom they knew in common with me in America, on and on. Long time ago. We went though my address book, yes we did.

[Missy Vixen]

55. We went through Heathrow in 2001

It was the usual wanding and stuff. I don't remember anything out of the ordinary. The thing that made the biggest impression on me was our flying out on Remembrance Day, and the fact the airport came to a complete standstill at 11:00 a.m. that morning for an observance.

The worst TSA experience I've ever had was at DFW three years ago. I will do what I need to do to stay out of that place in the future.

[uppityperson]

61. Was that right after the Somalia thing?

[malletgirl02]

65. UK Heatrow Airport August 2006

i got an invasive pat down when I was coming home from the UK in August 2006. Grant this was after an attempted terrorist attack, but it was still invasive. I got patter down twice. The first one was really invasive, I didn't just get patted down, the women searching me searched inside my pants waist band. a combination of my jean being fairly low raise and they type of underwear I was wearing, the women who was searching me touched the very top of my pubic area. :(