Frequent Flyer tells why he refused TSA pat down and scanning

[harvey007]

Here's a good news clip on one man's protest and refusal to participate with TSA.

http://www.KOB.com/article/stories/S1852863.shtml?cat=500

[liberal N proud]

1. Probable cause, Now we are getting somewhere

From a former Police Chief too, someone who know a little about searches an probable cause.

[Dappleganger]

4. I've brought that up several times here...

and get shot down every time.

Sorry, but my 4th Amendment rights don't stop while flying.

[jberryhill]

13. No, they didn't. However, it would be good to bone up on some relevant cases

The entire point of statistical random screening is driven by 4th Amendment law in this area.

In a nutshell, the 4th Amendment requires probable cause.

However, courts have permitted certain kinds of searches on "reasonable suspicion", such as a Terry stop. If you are running down the street a block away from a bank robbery, a cop doesn't have probable cause, but can stop briefly on suspicion, and limited to purposes for dispelling that suspicion. Incident to that stop, a cop can frisk you to ensure you have no weapons, for his/her safety during the brief stop.

Okay, with me so far? There are kinds of searches on "probable cause" and searches on "reasonable suspicion".

There is AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CATEGORY OF THINGS WHICH ARE A SEARCH, AND PERMITTED AS LONG AS CERTAIN RULES ARE FOLLOWED.

This category is the "administrative search" or "suspicionless search". It grew out of cases where there was a recognized administrative need to keep weapons off of planes, and drunk drivers off of roads, under which EVERYONE is subject to search without any cause or suspicion whatsoever.

The key point is that EVERYONE is subject to it under the context in which it is being conducted.

At a sobriety checkpoint, for example, what happened was that cops started pulling over cars on hunches. That made the searches illegal, because they were not based on either probable cause or a reasonable, articulable suspicion. The rule that evolved was, essentially:

1. You can search everyone to the extent necessary in relation to the reason (weapons, drunks, whatever)

2. You can search every Nth person

3. You can search X% chosen by a random process

4. You can search anyone for whom you would have a reasonable, particular, suspicion (e.g. car with missing tail light)

The cop in the story, and the poster above, are completely wrong about there being some kind of "exception" to the 4th Amendment. The 4th Amendment, as interpreted by the case law on this point, REQUIRES SUSPICIONLESS SEARCHING NOT TO BE BASED ON TARGETED FACTORS.

So, this guy, demanding "probable cause" is an idiot who does not know 4th Amendment law in this area.

What some people are proposing - e.g. profiling factors - is actually an erosion of the 4th Amendment, because what they want to do is to permit individually targeted searches on LESS than any standard which has been applied to individual searches.

Arguments about what is "practical" or "effective" don't enter into the question. The current policy, in terms of who is selected, is dictated by a long line of court decisions.

The real question here is whether the TSA can justify the level of intrusiveness as reasonable in view of the purpose for which the search is being conducted. Resolving that question is going to take saner heads than people whose idea of an argument is simply quoting the 4th Amendment in total ignorance of relevant case law, quoting Ben Franklin, or saying "don't touch my junk".

[csziggy]

19. Wouldn't that mean that the additional searches and radiating people with implants

Is outside of that criteria? As it stands now, 100% of people with any kind of medical device are now being patted down and are subject to multiple additional X-rays every single time they pass through a security check point. On the other hand, "regular" people are subjected to additional and invasive screenings maybe 20% of the time.

Selecting 100% of people with implants is not a random percentage, it is not an effective use of the machines or the time of the TSA agents and I would think violates ADA. Just having an implant should not be a trigger for additional and excessive screening every single time.

[jberryhill]

22. Quite possibly

And some sort of ADA argument might be effective.

I would imagine that the question would be "okay, a person set off the metal detector twice - how do I know if it is a hip implant or a gun?"

The fact that the methods have a disparate impact on persons with implants is an important fact.

The problem is that if you had some sort of "implant certification" where anyone with an implant receives some sort of a priori certification that they have an implant, then you have pretty much dictated an attack strategy.

[csziggy]

24. What is even more significant is that anecdotes indicate TSA agents have NO training

To deal with medical devices. The man whose urostomy bag seal was broken, soaking him with urine. Stories about people with medical ports asking the devices not be touched due to danger of infection and TSA agents still wanting to touch them. The woman who had to remove her artificial breast, women with breast implants having to got through intrusive screening, the stories go on and on.

At this point, we are only getting anecdotal evidence, but it certainly seems as though those with medical issues are getting more thorough screenings at a much higher rate than their percentage in the total population.

Currently I don't travel much since my knees are too painful to consider it. Once I get my knee replacements, I was hoping to have a few years when I could travel. But as long as these policies are in effect, I will not use any form of travel that would subject me to this level of abuse by authorities.

[EFerrari]

2. A rational person. How refreshing!

[arcane1]

3. Honest question about the 4th amendment:

Would it not also apply to the common practice of x-raying people's luggage? :shrug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. That actually was taken to the courts

in the 1980s... it was passed by the courts as reasonable. Seeing you in your birthday suit and exposing YOU to radiation hazard does not meet the same standard. They are trying to slide them in under the same standard.

Of course if they were serious they'd check more than just one third of cargo, which is better than zero... and things like oh perimeters would be far better secured...

[arcane1]

6. Ah, thanks, I didn't know that! n/t

[CreekDog]

8. because they are making that radiation (optional)...but hoping you take it to avoid the "grope"

i wonder if constitutionally they more covered for the "grope" than the scanning -which is touted as easier and faster than the "pat-down"?

as you've seen, i have come up with one instance where you can't opt out of multiple xrays to your body:

CastScope. TSA has confirmed to me that it is required. If you, someone you know, your kids, have casts, artificial limbs, etc. TSA is saying that they REQUIRE them to have multiple x-rays from this machine...but TSA is also saying once you start the screening process you must complete it.

I'm trying to figure out how a person can avoid ionizing radiation focused on their body, multiple times per trip and not run afoul of TSA.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. It is high time we have an adult conversation on this

and so far both you and I have seen just screaming.

It will be up to courts.

But the industry is also fighting the real measures. You gotta wonder why.

[jberryhill]

10. Airport Security Procedures and Sobriety Checkpoints Are A Category of "Suspcionless Search"

NB is, as usual, all wrong, as is the guy in the story.

The entire point of statistical random screening is driven by 4th Amendment law in this area.

In a nutshell, the 4th Amendment requires probable cause.

However, courts have permitted certain kinds of searches on "reasonable suspicion", such as a Terry stop. If you are running down the street a block away from a bank robbery, a cop doesn't have probable cause, but can stop briefly on suspicion, and limited to purposes for dispelling that suspicion. Incident to that stop, a cop can frisk you to ensure you have no weapons, for his/her safety during the brief stop.

Okay, with me so far? There are kinds of searches on "probable cause" and searches on "reasonable suspicion".

There is AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CATEGORY OF THINGS WHICH ARE A SEARCH, AND PERMITTED AS LONG AS CERTAIN RULES ARE FOLLOWED.

This category is the "administrative search" or "suspicionless search". It grew out of cases where there was a recognized administrative need to keep weapons off of planes, and drunk drivers off of roads, under which EVERYONE is subject to search without any cause or suspicion whatsoever.

The key point is that EVERYONE is subject to it under the context in which it is being conducted.

At a sobriety checkpoint, for example, what happened was that cops started pulling over cars on hunches. That made the searches illegal, because they were not based on either probable cause or a reasonable, articulable suspicion. The rule that evolved was, essentially:

1. You can search everyone to the extent necessary in relation to the reason (weapons, drunks, whatever)

2. You can search every Nth person

3. You can search X% chosen by a random process

4. You can search anyone for whom you would have a reasonable, particular, suspicion (e.g. car with missing tail light)

The cop in the story, and the poster above, are completely wrong about there being some kind of "exception" to the 4th Amendment. The 4th Amendment, as interpreted by the case law on this point, REQUIRES SUSPICIONLESS SEARCHING NOT TO BE BASED ON TARGETED FACTORS.

So, this guy, demanding "probable cause" is an idiot who does not know 4th Amendment law in this area.

What some people are proposing - e.g. profiling factors - is actually an erosion of the 4th Amendment, because what they want to do is to permit individually targeted searches on LESS than any standard which has been applied to individual searches.

Arguments about what is "practical" or "effective" don't enter into the question. The current policy, in terms of who is selected, is dictated by a long line of court decisions.

The real question here is whether the TSA can justify the level of intrusiveness as reasonable in view of the purpose for which the search is being conducted. Resolving that question is going to take saner heads than people whose idea of an argument is simply quoting the 4th Amendment in total ignorance of relevant case law, quoting Ben Franklin, or saying "don't touch my junk".

[coalition_unwilling]

25. I'm not an attorney, but I thought the Police Chief in the story was also on very shaky ground when

he referenced his 'Consitutional right to fly.' I take a pretty expansive view of the U.S. Constitution and the rights enshrined within the first 10 amendments. But one would have to stretch ingenuity to its limits to find in the Constitution a 'right to fly.'

We do have a right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures except upon probable cause but, as your post makes clear, the courts have carved out exceptions to this within the very framework of the 4th Amendment itself, in essence requiring that 'reasonable searches' be an all-or-nothing affair, i.e., not based on profiling of any sort. As far as I know, the Constitution does not grant any citizen or anyone for that matter a right to travel or to fly. However, there probably is case law around this, so I will defer to those who have studied the matter in more detail. It may be that a 'right to travel (fly)' is latent within the Cosntitution, much as Griswold v. New Hampshire established a 'right to privacy' back in the early 1960s.

[phasma ex machina]

7. What this country needs is a good support network to facilitate civil disobedience.

The resistance needs to challenge authoritarianism.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. But they still didn't let him on the plane

Not really a victory or a good story, IMO.

[jberryhill]

12. You didn't like the restaurant scene in Five Easy Pieces?

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. Jack Nicholson was trying to get on a plane??

[jberryhill]

15. Aww dude, you have to watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wtfNE4z6a8

[seafan]

16. Serious and unaccountable health risks are good reasons to refuse to submit to total body scans.

Link


And with the alternative of "enhanced patdowns" inside clothing by TSA, also consider public health risks of potentially transferring from person to person such nice little gifts as pubic lice, body lice, ringworm, scabies, bacterial infections or infectious bodily fluids.


This is beyond unsafe. What is happening is criminal.

[jberryhill]

17. Do you know what happens between flights with that seat in the plane?

Not a whole lot. Not much to the headrest either.

[LisaL]

18. Most people don't put their naked butts into the seats.

[jberryhill]

20. Most people's "naked butts" don't extend to the waistband either

But that's not where you are going to get head lice.

Usually.

[CreekDog]

21. I had a TSA agent place his hand inside my pants, between my body and inside the pantleg

i was a little startled, but thought, "wow, they went further than before --what's next?".

((shudder))

[LisaL]

23. ACLU posted on its website complains from passengers

that experienced these new enhanced pat downs.
http://www.aclu.org/passengers-stories-recent-travel/