Man Cites 4th Amendment Violation, Sues TSA Over Full-Body Scans

[DearAbby]

Robert Dean Cites 4th Amendment Violation, Sues TSA Over Full-Body Scans



LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — An Arkansas man has filed a federal lawsuit against the Transportation Security Administration, claiming that the agency's new screening rules are detrimental to his "emotional, psychological and mental well-being."

Robert Dean filed the lawsuit Monday in federal court in Little Rock, even though the Little Rock National Airport does not yet have the full-body scanners that have drawn criticism throughout the country. Dean's lawsuit asks a federal judge to issue an injunction stopping the TSA from conducting full-body pat-down searches and using the full-body imaging scanners.

The lawsuit claims that the new practices violate Dean's civil rights and his Fourth Amendment right protecting against unlawful searches and seizures.

TSA says it does not comment on pending litigation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/robert-dean-sues-tsa-over_n_787777.html

[leeroysphitz]

1. I'm not sure if I support this or not. What party is this man registered with?

[guardian]

4. WTF?

Who care what party this man is registered? So if he is a register Democrat you are against TSA sticking there hand up your ass?? If he is a Republican you'll bring your own lube??

[cleanhippie]

7. +100

[underseasurveyor]

6. oh i get it

:sarcasm:

[PBS Poll-435]

25. Although you are getting some flack downthread... I agree

This could be one of those phony lawsuits that triggers a Circuit of Appeals opinion that backs the TSA.

And don't look for a fast-track to SCOTUS on this issue.

[TwilightGardener]

2. I'm curious, didn't the old-school screening also come under fire

for violating the 4th? Metal detectors, pat-downs, xray of luggage--how are these new techniques any different (besides offering more of a feel, or a clearer picture?)

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Yes

[treestar]

20. Yes, all of it.

I found this:

http://llr.lls.edu/docs/41-1kornblatt.pdf


In one of the cases, an attorney sued over one going into a courthouse!

Just some refreshers there. These are administrative searches, subject to the Fourth Amendment, and have to be reasonable under it, which involves balancing the intrusion with the harm to be avoided.

[Ikonoklast]

3. Good luck with that one.

The courts will tell him to take a bus.

[LisaL]

5. What makes you think TSA won't do the same thing on the bus?

[Ikonoklast]

9. Umm, are they now? No.

Until they do, it's a moot point as the court will only rule on the facts of the case, not 'what-ifs'.

[LisaL]

11. Maybe you should read this:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/130549-next-step-for-body-scanners-could-be-trains-boats-and-the-metro

[Ikonoklast]

23. Read where this all started from, and the REAL reason this is happening now:

http://www.thenation.com/article/156647/tsastroturf-washington-lobbyists-and-koch-funded-libertarians-behind-tsa-scandal


This has all been orchestrated from the very beginning.

Funny how none of these people cared about getting pat-downs under the Bush administration, when this all started.

Now it's a problem all of a sudden?

Funny dat.

[Winterblues]

10. Where is the bus terminal for London?

:shrug:

[Ikonoklast]

24. It's not far from the main airport terminals.

After you fly into Heathrow.


http://www.milesfaster.co.uk/information/heathrow-airport/heathrow-to-london-transfer.htm

[jberryhill]

26. The Underground is quicker

One of the great things about European airports in general is that there is a rail connection right there.

[Ikonoklast]

27. The bus took me right to the front door of the hotel, almost.

I never even got a raindrop on my hat.


But the doorman at the hotel aggressively patted me down, said it was 'hotel policy' for foreign visitors booked there...I swear I had a fiver in my pocket before that, but when I reached for it later it was gone.

[taught_me_patience]

8. He's going to lose big time

but if he's got the resources to fight this, then all the more power to him.

[somone]

12. Does he have standing?

[fascisthunter]

14. pat downs don't even keep us secure... and people here are defending the indefensable

violation of our 4th Ammendment. Disgustingly naive...

[jberryhill]

15. Actually, what is naive...

Is the blithering ignorance of 4th Amendment law in the area of what is called "administrative search", such as sobriety checkpoints.

This is an area of "suspicionless search" which is permitted in certain circumstances, so long as it is neutrally applied, such as on a statistical or random basis.

The question here is the degree of intrusiveness, but I would like to know you thoughts on how a metal detector and bag x-ray - both of which are searches under the law - were somehow defensible violations of the 4th Amendment.

I have not seen one post on DU referencing the 4th Amendment which provides a relevant commentary on the actual factors that apply to searches in this context.

If you think a "probable cause" standard is required, then do I gather correctly that you opposed metal detectors all the way back to the late 1960's? If not, why not?

[fascisthunter]

16. I'm talking about pat downs

not xray machines. You are just making more excuses for this bullshit that doesn't even keep us safe. In your case, it's not so much naivity as it is apathy towards people's rights. No one should be allowed to touch you... especially your private parts.

[TBF]

17. +1 nt

[jberryhill]

19. I'm talking about the Fourth Amendment

You've never spent any part of your life or career defending anyone's constitutional rights. I have.

You cannot sit there and say "oh a pat down violates the Fourth Amendment" but a bag x-ray does not.

An x-ray of your luggage is a search.

Walking through a metal detector is a search.

The Fourth Amendment refers to "persons, houses, papers, and effects".

A search of your bag - i.e. effects - is every bit as much a search as is a search of your person.

I am not making excuses for anything, by the way. However, if you are going to make an intelligent criticism, you are going to have to understand what you are talking about.

There are dozens of people here who are quite willing to trash the Fourth Amendment by somehow excluding metal detectors and baggage x-rays from their personal definition of "search" under the Fourth. I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to do that.

The actual battleground is where lines are drawn under the administrative search doctrine, which is the controlling law for suspicionless searches, and which have been going on at airports, sobriety checkpoints, and other contexts for years.

"No one should be allowed to touch you" - is that what you want to limit the Fourth Amendment to say?

[TheKentuckian]

28. Xrays are an active search, so I agree that scanning the baggage is probably a step too far

However, I do think a reasonable argument can be made that a metal detector is passive as in it does not actually constitute an invasive search but happens to indicate the presence of a substance.

So, the detector it's self may not be seen as a search but then we have to talk about what says you can't have metal on your person and what right does the state have to determine what kind and what form that metal takes on a person.

[treestar]

22. Why are x-ray machines OK with you under the 4th Amendment?

That's the question. If you're going to talk 4th Amendment at least learn something about it first.

[liberal N proud]

18. Should be a class action lawsuit

[emulatorloo]

21. "emotional, psychological and mental well-being."

Can he sue for something that hasn't happened to him? Not sure of the law here. . .