Colo. lawyer sues over TSA airport screening

[Two Thumbs]

For today, and today only, I love lawyers.

Colo. lawyer sues over TSA airport screening - Travel - msnbc.com
By P. SOLOMON BANDA


DENVER — A Colorado attorney has asked a federal judge to order the Transportation Security Administration to abandon its airport screening procedures for United States citizens.

Gary Fielder filed his lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Denver last week, more than a month after he, his two daughters, ages 9 and 15, and a family friend underwent a TSA pat-down in San Diego.

Fielder's lawsuit claimed the pat-downs were "disgusting, unconscionable, sexual in nature" and in violation of the Constitution's protections against unreasonable searches.

He said subjecting U.S. citizens to the new procedures is wrong because no American has been accused of threatening commercial airliners with explosives.



"The terrorist's job is to terrorize the people, to interfere with freedom in such a way that disrupts ordinary life and commerce," Fielder wrote in his complaint. "With due respect, it is clear that the above referenced governmental agencies are aiding the terrorists' objective."

Couldn't have said that better.

Fielder/Cristi 2012

 

[bodecea]

So you dislike lawyers except when you find them useful for you and your causes.

 

[Two Thumbs]

So you dislike lawyers except when you find them useful for you and your causes.

pfft

Yes.

Have you not seen the ambulance chasers doing tv adds?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So you dislike lawyers except when you find them useful for you and your causes.

Speaking for myself, I dislike lawyers when they run for election, the rest of the time I pretty much ignore them.

 

[jillian]

So you dislike lawyers except when you find them useful for you and your causes.

all the idiots hate lawyers until they need one.

then it's all "my lawyer can beat up your lawyer".

loons.

 

[Two Thumbs]

So you dislike lawyers except when you find them useful for you and your causes.

all the idiots hate lawyers until they need one.

then it's all "my lawyer can beat up your lawyer".

loons.

Nice to see you haven't found your sense of humor yet. Assuming you ever had one.



Krist people learn to laugh a little bit.

 

[jillian]

So you dislike lawyers except when you find them useful for you and your causes.

all the idiots hate lawyers until they need one.

then it's all "my lawyer can beat up your lawyer".

loons.

Nice to see you haven't found your sense of humor yet. Assuming you ever had one.



Krist people learn to laugh a little bit.

i have a sense of humor for things that are humorous.

but you're still not funny. *shrug*

tell me, what did you say that was supposed to bring the yuks?

 

[jillian]

yep... that's what i thought.

not a thing funny about it.

 

[Common Sense]

IMO this lawsuit will probably get tossed out because traveling by airplane is a choice and preference. there are other ways to travel such as car, train, private jet and such. now you may be inconvenienced in travel time and or cost but its still a choice. just as going through a metal detector or getting a pat down before entering a sporting event or concert is agreed upon by purchasing a ticket, by purchasing an airline ticket you then consent to be searched prior to boarding a plane. you always have the option of asking to be taken to a private area and screened there.

as to the "unreasonable" search and seizure clause of the constitution, this fails the test. like i said by purchasing a ticket you have given the TSA or whomever the security agent is at the airport permission to search your person and any items you are carrying prior to entering the terminal. remember when you got your drivers license and in the fine print it said you must submit to a sobriety test. this mean you can either take on on the street or go back to holding and take one there. you have options, if you dont like those options you can either avoid flying, or submit to the screening.

 

[The Rabbi]

IMO this lawsuit will probably get tossed out because traveling by airplane is a choice and preference. there are other ways to travel such as car, train, private jet and such. now you may be inconvenienced in travel time and or cost but its still a choice. just as going through a metal detector or getting a pat down before entering a sporting event or concert is agreed upon by purchasing a ticket, by purchasing an airline ticket you then consent to be searched prior to boarding a plane. you always have the option of asking to be taken to a private area and screened there.

as to the "unreasonable" search and seizure clause of the constitution, this fails the test. like i said by purchasing a ticket you have given the TSA or whomever the security agent is at the airport permission to search your person and any items you are carrying prior to entering the terminal. remember when you got your drivers license and in the fine print it said you must submit to a sobriety test. this mean you can either take on on the street or go back to holding and take one there. you have options, if you dont like those options you can either avoid flying, or submit to the screening.

Really? Where does it say that on the ticket? What is the exact verbiage they use to strip U.S. citizens of their constitutional right?
I hope he succeeds with the suit. The searches are arbitrary and capricious. My wife and daughter were patted down (no option for a screening btw) because...they were wearing long skirts.

 

[Common Sense]

Really? Where does it say that on the ticket? What is the exact verbiage they use to strip U.S. citizens of their constitutional right?
I hope he succeeds with the suit. The searches are arbitrary and capricious. My wife and daughter were patted down (no option for a screening btw) because...they were wearing long skirts.

what constitutional right? this is not an illegal search and seizure. there is nothing about this constitutes anything illegal.

"The federal government has the authority to enact laws and develop policies requiring screening of air passengers under its power to regulate interstate commerce."


Heres even a legal opinion:
"Professor William Schroeder of Southern Illinois University says that the screening techniques are constitutional because air travelers give their consent for the search and because these searches are not being conducted for the purpose of discovering evidence of a crime, but rather to ensure the safety of air passengers"

you forget that airport are private enterprises, as are airlines. and they can develop their own rules and standards for who boards and doesnt board a plane, as long as it doesnt interfere with federal law.

The TSA is the security arm of the airport, although airports are not required to use TSA personnel as their screeners. they can hire outside companies to perform this. But like i posted before, the The federal government has the authority to enact laws and develop policies requiring screening of air passengers under its power to regulate interstate commerce.

here more about this, which was passed under Bush: 44901. — Screening passengers and property. - US 44901. — Screening passengers and property. - US Code :: Justia -- US Laws, Codes, Statutes & Cases -- Justia

so by US law, you consent to screening when you agree to travel on a flight originating in the United States.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Really? Where does it say that on the ticket? What is the exact verbiage they use to strip U.S. citizens of their constitutional right?
I hope he succeeds with the suit. The searches are arbitrary and capricious. My wife and daughter were patted down (no option for a screening btw) because...they were wearing long skirts.

what constitutional right? this is not an illegal search and seizure. there is nothing about this constitutes anything illegal.

"The federal government has the authority to enact laws and develop policies requiring screening of air passengers under its power to regulate interstate commerce."


Heres even a legal opinion:
"Professor William Schroeder of Southern Illinois University says that the screening techniques are constitutional because air travelers give their consent for the search and because these searches are not being conducted for the purpose of discovering evidence of a crime, but rather to ensure the safety of air passengers"

you forget that airport are private enterprises, as are airlines. and they can develop their own rules and standards for who boards and doesnt board a plane, as long as it doesnt interfere with federal law.

The TSA is the security arm of the airport, although airports are not required to use TSA personnel as their screeners. they can hire outside companies to perform this. But like i posted before, the The federal government has the authority to enact laws and develop policies requiring screening of air passengers under its power to regulate interstate commerce.

here more about this, which was passed under Bush: 44901. — Screening passengers and property. - US 44901. — Screening passengers and property. - US Code :: Justia -- US Laws, Codes, Statutes & Cases -- Justia

so by US law, you consent to screening when you agree to travel on a flight originating in the United States.

Wrong.

Any administrative search must use the least intrusive method, and it must be shown to be effective. These searches do neither, and will be found unconstitutional.

 

[WillowTree]

So you dislike lawyers except when you find them useful for you and your causes.

all the idiots hate lawyers until they need one.

then it's all "my lawyer can beat up your lawyer".

loons.

Here's hoping I never need one. Talk about pissing money away.

 

[Common Sense]

Really? Where does it say that on the ticket? What is the exact verbiage they use to strip U.S. citizens of their constitutional right?
I hope he succeeds with the suit. The searches are arbitrary and capricious. My wife and daughter were patted down (no option for a screening btw) because...they were wearing long skirts.

what constitutional right? this is not an illegal search and seizure. there is nothing about this constitutes anything illegal.

"The federal government has the authority to enact laws and develop policies requiring screening of air passengers under its power to regulate interstate commerce."


Heres even a legal opinion:
"Professor William Schroeder of Southern Illinois University says that the screening techniques are constitutional because air travelers give their consent for the search and because these searches are not being conducted for the purpose of discovering evidence of a crime, but rather to ensure the safety of air passengers"

you forget that airport are private enterprises, as are airlines. and they can develop their own rules and standards for who boards and doesnt board a plane, as long as it doesnt interfere with federal law.

The TSA is the security arm of the airport, although airports are not required to use TSA personnel as their screeners. they can hire outside companies to perform this. But like i posted before, the The federal government has the authority to enact laws and develop policies requiring screening of air passengers under its power to regulate interstate commerce.

here more about this, which was passed under Bush: 44901. — Screening passengers and property. - US 44901. — Screening passengers and property. - US Code :: Justia -- US Laws, Codes, Statutes & Cases -- Justia

so by US law, you consent to screening when you agree to travel on a flight originating in the United States.

Wrong.

Any administrative search must use the least intrusive method, and it must be shown to be effective. These searches do neither, and will be found unconstitutional.

Can you point out the legal back up for your claim or is this simply an opinion?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

what constitutional right? this is not an illegal search and seizure. there is nothing about this constitutes anything illegal.

"The federal government has the authority to enact laws and develop policies requiring screening of air passengers under its power to regulate interstate commerce."


Heres even a legal opinion:
"Professor William Schroeder of Southern Illinois University says that the screening techniques are constitutional because air travelers give their consent for the search and because these searches are not being conducted for the purpose of discovering evidence of a crime, but rather to ensure the safety of air passengers"

you forget that airport are private enterprises, as are airlines. and they can develop their own rules and standards for who boards and doesnt board a plane, as long as it doesnt interfere with federal law.

The TSA is the security arm of the airport, although airports are not required to use TSA personnel as their screeners. they can hire outside companies to perform this. But like i posted before, the The federal government has the authority to enact laws and develop policies requiring screening of air passengers under its power to regulate interstate commerce.

here more about this, which was passed under Bush: 44901. — Screening passengers and property. - US 44901. — Screening passengers and property. - US Code :: Justia -- US Laws, Codes, Statutes & Cases -- Justia

so by US law, you consent to screening when you agree to travel on a flight originating in the United States.

Wrong.

Any administrative search must use the least intrusive method, and it must be shown to be effective. These searches do neither, and will be found unconstitutional.

Can you point out the legal back up for your claim or is this simply an opinion?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...he-constitutional-issues-of-tsa-searches.html

 

[uscitizen]

For today, and today only, I love lawyers.

Colo. lawyer sues over TSA airport screening - Travel - msnbc.com
By P. SOLOMON BANDA


DENVER — A Colorado attorney has asked a federal judge to order the Transportation Security Administration to abandon its airport screening procedures for United States citizens.

Gary Fielder filed his lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Denver last week, more than a month after he, his two daughters, ages 9 and 15, and a family friend underwent a TSA pat-down in San Diego.

Fielder's lawsuit claimed the pat-downs were "disgusting, unconscionable, sexual in nature" and in violation of the Constitution's protections against unreasonable searches.

He said subjecting U.S. citizens to the new procedures is wrong because no American has been accused of threatening commercial airliners with explosives.



"The terrorist's job is to terrorize the people, to interfere with freedom in such a way that disrupts ordinary life and commerce," Fielder wrote in his complaint. "With due respect, it is clear that the above referenced governmental agencies are aiding the terrorists' objective."

Couldn't have said that better.

Fielder/Cristi 2012

I have said the same thing ever since we passed the Patriot act and invaded Iraq.
Damned freedom fries imbeciles.

 

[jillian]

So you dislike lawyers except when you find them useful for you and your causes.

all the idiots hate lawyers until they need one.

then it's all "my lawyer can beat up your lawyer".

loons.

Here's hoping I never need one. Talk about pissing money away.

until you... get sued, get divorced, buy a house, need to enforce a contract, get gypped out of money, find out your employer pays you less than the men you work with, get fired because someone discriminated against you or get injured.

*shrug*

 

[Common Sense]

Wrong.

Any administrative search must use the least intrusive method, and it must be shown to be effective. These searches do neither, and will be found unconstitutional.

Can you point out the legal back up for your claim or is this simply an opinion?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...he-constitutional-issues-of-tsa-searches.html

You're post actually in a way confirms that the searches are legal. Alito stated that the initial screening must be as minimally invasive as possible. Since the advanced screening techniques only come into play after a failure of the initial screening this would allow a more thorough search.

 

[The Rabbi]

all the idiots hate lawyers until they need one.

then it's all "my lawyer can beat up your lawyer".

loons.

Here's hoping I never need one. Talk about pissing money away.

until you... get sued, get divorced, buy a house, need to enforce a contract, get gypped out of money, find out your employer pays you less than the men you work with, get fired because someone discriminated against you or get injured.

*shrug*

I can't recall the last time I hired a lawyer. And I've bought plenty of houses and gone to court to evict tenants. The other stuff has never happened. Comes from living right.
Lawyers are a plague on society. Internet play poseur lawyers are even worse.
But I'm still waiting to see where I agree to give up my constitutional rights when I buy a plane ticket. Anyone? Buehler?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Here's hoping I never need one. Talk about pissing money away.

until you... get sued, get divorced, buy a house, need to enforce a contract, get gypped out of money, find out your employer pays you less than the men you work with, get fired because someone discriminated against you or get injured.

*shrug*

I can't recall the last time I hired a lawyer. And I've bought plenty of houses and gone to court to evict tenants. The other stuff has never happened. Comes from living right.
Lawyers are a plague on society. Internet play poseur lawyers are even worse.
But I'm still waiting to see where I agree to give up my constitutional rights when I buy a plane ticket. Anyone? Buehler?

Lets use an example.

I get pulled over for doing 80 and a 65 zone.

The officer will ask and get my license, registration and proof of insurance.
He will look through the windows of my ride, but nothing more.

Even though I just commited a minor offense, he may not search my ride nor demand that I step out and get searched. B/c it's an unconstitutional invasion of my privacy.

So how is buying a plane ticket give the government the right to x-ray and or search me?