Colo. lawyer sues over TSA airport screening

[Common Sense]

a car is considered your own person private property, thus you can refuse to have your vehicle searched. although if the officer has probably cause, ie he smells alcohol, or can actually see something potentially illegal happening, he does then have the right to search you. if you are a passenger in a car though, and the owner agrees to have it searched, then you also must comply. on the same not, since you own a the car, you have the responsibility to make sure that the vehicle is safe and are responsible for the passengers in that vehicle. if someone is caught doing something illegal in that vehicle, you can be held liable. (such as drinking, doing drugs, prostitution, etc)

an airplane and airport on the other hand are considered private property of a corporation, thus they have the authority to search those whom them service for the sake of the safety of the whole. this is the same premise of being searched before entering a building or sporting arena. but remember, an airport is not required to hire the TSA to perform its screening, they just have to follow the rules the TSA has put in place tn regards to screening passengers. Many airports hire private security firms to provide their screening instead of using the TSA.

remember when they determined that only ticketed passengers may enter the terminal? this was for safety concerns of the passengers, airplanes and airports. same premise here, screening is not only for passenger safety, but also airport and airport/airline personnel.

and the xray / pat downs are the secondary screening, not the primary. if you fail the primary, or raise suspicion during the primary, you may be asked to be screen with the new secondary measures. hence since they are not the primary form of screening, Alitos opinion does not come into play.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I guess you didn't read the whole thing. They not only have to be non invasive, they have to be effective. They are actually neither, so they are unconstitutional. There are less invasive ways to stop terrorism that actually work.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

a car is considered your own person private property, thus you can refuse to have your vehicle searched. although if the officer has probably cause, ie he smells alcohol, or can actually see something potentially illegal happening, he does then have the right to search you. if you are a passenger in a car though, and the owner agrees to have it searched, then you also must comply. on the same not, since you own a the car, you have the responsibility to make sure that the vehicle is safe and are responsible for the passengers in that vehicle. if someone is caught doing something illegal in that vehicle, you can be held liable. (such as drinking, doing drugs, prostitution, etc)

an airplane and airport on the other hand are considered private property of a corporation, thus they have the authority to search those whom them service for the sake of the safety of the whole. this is the same premise of being searched before entering a building or sporting arena. but remember, an airport is not required to hire the TSA to perform its screening, they just have to follow the rules the TSA has put in place tn regards to screening passengers. Many airports hire private security firms to provide their screening instead of using the TSA.

remember when they determined that only ticketed passengers may enter the terminal? this was for safety concerns of the passengers, airplanes and airports. same premise here, screening is not only for passenger safety, but also airport and airport/airline personnel.

and the xray / pat downs are the secondary screening, not the primary. if you fail the primary, or raise suspicion during the primary, you may be asked to be screen with the new secondary measures. hence since they are not the primary form of screening, Alitos opinion does not come into play.

You really should change your name, you have no common sense.

Private entities are not allowed to search you simply because you enter their property. They can, however, call the police and have you arrested for trespassing. Since airports are generally open to the public they are not private property. As a matter of fact, most airports are actually owned by the various government agencies around them, thus further destroying your argument.

On top of that, the TSA is a government agency, and thus subject to the same constitution of the police. That means that they either need your permission, or probable cause, to search you. You do not give up your rights by buying a ticket, but you do consent to a search if you do not protest.

 

[Common Sense]

I guess you didn't read the whole thing. They not only have to be non invasive, they have to be effective. They are actually neither, so they are unconstitutional. There are less invasive ways to stop terrorism that actually work.

Exact text from your post:

"He wrote that airport searches are reasonable if they escalate “in invasiveness only after a lower level of screening disclose a reason to conduct a more probing search."

hence the secondary screening only occurs after primary screening detects something that warrants it. now if youre arguing that people are being forced into secondary screening without cause, that is a different fundamental argument.

since primary screening has not been determined to be "invasive", your argument is baseless.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I guess you didn't read the whole thing. They not only have to be non invasive, they have to be effective. They are actually neither, so they are unconstitutional. There are less invasive ways to stop terrorism that actually work.

Exact text from your post:

"He wrote that airport searches are reasonable if they escalate “in invasiveness only after a lower level of screening disclose a reason to conduct a more probing search."

hence the secondary screening only occurs after primary screening detects something that warrants it. now if youre arguing that people are being forced into secondary screening without cause, that is a different fundamental argument.

since primary screening has not been determined to be "invasive", your argument is baseless.

Do you not understand English. that means that if someone walks through a metal detector and it beeps a further search is justified. That is called probable cause, just in case you want to brush up on legal terms. The way these machines are being rolled out is with the idea that everyone, repeat everyone, be subject to the same level of screening, You are presented with a choice between going through an AIT or getting a pat down, even if you safely passed through the metal detector. That is not a lower level of screening indicating a reason to conduct a higher level of search, that is a higher level of search being imposed without cause. That makes this unconstitutional, again.

You really should change your name, your level of sense is lower than rdean and TruthMatters, which I used to think was the bottom of the barrel.

 

[Common Sense]

You really should change your name, you have no common sense.

Private entities are not allowed to search you simply because you enter their property. They can, however, call the police and have you arrested for trespassing. Since airports are generally open to the public they are not private property. As a matter of fact, most airports are actually owned by the various government agencies around them, thus further destroying your argument.

On top of that, the TSA is a government agency, and thus subject to the same constitution of the police. That means that they either need your permission, or probable cause, to search you. You do not give up your rights by buying a ticket, but you do consent to a search if you do not protest.

the legal argument goes....
"When you enter any piece of private property willingly, you are essentially agreeing to their rules. On private property, within certain reasonable boudaries, the property owners and their employees are allowed to do things that would be considered under other circumstances to be a violation of your natural rights."

your argument that since they are "open to the public", they are not private property is completely false. sports stadiums are publicly owned and open to the public, yet they are allowed to search you before you allowed to enter.

yes you can protest, but they also do no have to allow admittance if you refuse to be searched. airline travel is not free travel. it is a good and service that is purchased and thus can be regulated under the interstate commerce act. we have the do not fly list, which restricts people from using airports.

legal precident for this:

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Once you enter the secure portion of the airport you CANNOT refuse NOR REVOKE consent to be searched, BUT the search does have limits.

The ruling, from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, says that 'requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world.

'Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by "electing not to fly" on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found.'

'...all that is required [for a search of the passenger] is the passenger's election to attempt entry into the secured area of an airport. See Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315; 49 C.F.R. § 1540.107.'

The 9th Circuit says that the 4th Amendment is not applicable because the airport search is "an administrative search in a highly regulated industry" - "...the constitutionality of airport screening searches is not dependent on consent..." [US v Aukai]

 

[logical4u]

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.

How about we put the TSA "inspectors" on the borders. After all the illegals are checked, if there is still a problem, then we can talk about citizens being searched and unusual punishment.

 

[Common Sense]

Do you not understand English. that means that if someone walks through a metal detector and it beeps a further search is justified. That is called probable cause, just in case you want to brush up on legal terms. The way these machines are being rolled out is with the idea that everyone, repeat everyone, be subject to the same level of screening, You are presented with a choice between going through an AIT or getting a pat down, even if you safely passed through the metal detector. That is not a lower level of screening indicating a reason to conduct a higher level of search, that is a higher level of search being imposed without cause. That makes this unconstitutional, again.

now youre changing argument.

"The way these machines are being rolled out is with the idea that everyone, repeat everyone, be subject to the same level of screening"

in no way shape or form is this the current policy that everyone will go through advance screening all the time. if this were the case, we would be talking about a fundamental change. since not everyone is subject to these screenings your argument is simply false. you just fail to see you ignorance on this point. how much much case law do i have to show you to prove the point that these are legal. if you dont like the options, once again you have the choice to no fly and travel by other means.

"Do you not understand English. that means that if someone walks through a metal detector and it beeps a further search is justified"

no where in the TSA security guidelines does it state that this is the only thing that can trigger secondary screening. youre simply making things up to support your end of the argument. in fact here is the exact words off the TSA website:

What triggers a pat-down?
Pat-downs are used to resolve alarms at the checkpoint, including those triggered by metal detectors and AIT units. Pat-downs are also used when a person opts out of AIT screening in order to detect potentially dangerous and prohibited items. Because pat-downs are specifically used to resolve alarms and prevent dangerous items from going on a plane, the vast majority of passengers will not receive a pat-down at the checkpoint.

TSA: Pat-downs

the rest of the article as well (since you probably wont read it either)

What can I do to prevent an alarm at the security checkpoint?
The majority of pat-downs occur when a passenger alarms either the metal detector or the AIT unit. To reduce this circumstance, the most important thing you can do is take everything out of your pockets before you go through screening. Also, when traveling, avoid wearing clothes with a high metal content, and put heavy jewelry on after you go through security.

What do I do during a pat-down?
All passengers have important rights during a pat-down. You have the right to request the pat-down be conducted in a private room and you have the right to have the pat-down witnessed by a person of your choice. All pat-downs are only conducted by same-gender officers. The officer will explain the pat-down process before and during the pat-down. If you have a medical device, please inform the officer.

Will children receive pat-downs?
Transportation Security Officers will work with parents to resolve any alarms at the checkpoint. If required, a child may receive a modified pat-down. Parents are encouraged to ensure their children have taken all items out of their pockets as they go through the security checkpoint.

it does list metal detector failure as one of the reasons to trigger at pat down. but if the TSA officer sees suspicious activity he can also subject that person to secondary screening.

 

[Ravi]

I'm pretty sure the AIT machine is a substitute for the metal detector. In other words, you go through one or the other and if you "fail" either you get a pat down. Or choose the patdown and avoid the machines to begin with.

 

[jillian]

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?

i figure the only "houses" you've ever had anything to do with are the ones you've sold appliances to.

ignorance is a plague on society... and so perhaps you should stop flaunting yours.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

ignorance is a plague on society... and so perhaps you should stop flaunting yours.

So you're going to enlighten all us cretins here where I have given up my 4th Amendment right by walking into an airport? Right?

 

[Common Sense]

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?

ignorance is a plague on society... and so perhaps you should stop flaunting yours.

So you're going to enlighten all us cretins here where I have given up my 4th Amendment right by walking into an airport? Right?

if you would pull your head and out think maybe you would hear things easier. you dont get searched simply for walking into an airport. you consent to the search once you purchase a ticket and try to gain access to the terminal. Ive already posted the legal precedent for searching passengers prior to entry into the terminal. so just because you dont like the new procedures, doesnt make them illegal.

here it is again:

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Once you enter the secure portion of the airport you CANNOT refuse NOR REVOKE consent to be searched, BUT the search does have limits.

The ruling, from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, says that 'requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world.

'Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by "electing not to fly" on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found.'

'...all that is required [for a search of the passenger] is the passenger's election to attempt entry into the secured area of an airport. See Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315; 49 C.F.R. § 1540.107.'

The 9th Circuit says that the 4th Amendment is not applicable because the airport search is "an administrative search in a highly regulated industry" - "...the constitutionality of airport screening searches is not dependent on consent..." [US v Aukai]

 

[The Rabbi]

The Ninth District is notoriously loony toons and gets overturned regularly. We'll see on this one.

 

[Common Sense]

The Ninth District is notoriously loony toons and gets overturned regularly. We'll see on this one.

so the only thing you can come up with you the ninth district is loony toons? great argument.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You really should change your name, you have no common sense.

Private entities are not allowed to search you simply because you enter their property. They can, however, call the police and have you arrested for trespassing. Since airports are generally open to the public they are not private property. As a matter of fact, most airports are actually owned by the various government agencies around them, thus further destroying your argument.

On top of that, the TSA is a government agency, and thus subject to the same constitution of the police. That means that they either need your permission, or probable cause, to search you. You do not give up your rights by buying a ticket, but you do consent to a search if you do not protest.

the legal argument goes....
"When you enter any piece of private property willingly, you are essentially agreeing to their rules. On private property, within certain reasonable boudaries, the property owners and their employees are allowed to do things that would be considered under other circumstances to be a violation of your natural rights."

your argument that since they are "open to the public", they are not private property is completely false. sports stadiums are publicly owned and open to the public, yet they are allowed to search you before you allowed to enter.

yes you can protest, but they also do no have to allow admittance if you refuse to be searched. airline travel is not free travel. it is a good and service that is purchased and thus can be regulated under the interstate commerce act. we have the do not fly list, which restricts people from using airports.

legal precident for this:

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Once you enter the secure portion of the airport you CANNOT refuse NOR REVOKE consent to be searched, BUT the search does have limits.

The ruling, from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, says that 'requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world.

'Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by "electing not to fly" on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found.'

'...all that is required [for a search of the passenger] is the passenger's election to attempt entry into the secured area of an airport. See Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315; 49 C.F.R. § 1540.107.'

The 9th Circuit says that the 4th Amendment is not applicable because the airport search is "an administrative search in a highly regulated industry" - "...the constitutionality of airport screening searches is not dependent on consent..." [US v Aukai]

If the "legal system" went that way restaurants and motels would be able to refuse to serve people on the basis of their skin color. If the legal system went that way stores would be able to charge you to leave. If the legal system worked the way you imagine I could declare that anyone who enters my house becomes my slave, and has to do anything I say until I decide they can leave. Unfortunately for your fantasy life, the legal system on this planet says no such thing.

I appreciate your rudimentary understanding of the legal system in whatever universe you live in, but in the one the rest of us live in you have no idea what you are talking about. An administrative search has to be non intrusive, and the new scans and pat downs do not meet that standard. You can misapply every case you can find and you will not be able to get past that standard.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

now youre changing argument.

"The way these machines are being rolled out is with the idea that everyone, repeat everyone, be subject to the same level of screening"

I am not changing the argument. My argument is that these searches are unconstitutional, period. You attempted to argue that they are constitutional by pointing out that the non intrusive search, if triggered, is grounds for a more intensive search. I pointed out that that is not what is happening, and that these searches are being applied across the board. That is one argument about why they are unconstitutional, but hardly the only one.

in no way shape or form is this the current policy that everyone will go through advance screening all the time. if this were the case, we would be talking about a fundamental change. since not everyone is subject to these screenings your argument is simply false. you just fail to see you ignorance on this point. how much much case law do i have to show you to prove the point that these are legal. if you dont like the options, once again you have the choice to no fly and travel by other means.

You should tell the TSA that, apparently they did not get the memo.

Myth: Everybody who travels must undergo AIT screening.Fact: Advanced imaging technology is optional – anybody can choose to opt out and receive alternate screening, which will include a pat down.

The TSA Blog: TSA Myth or Fact: Leaked Images, Handcuffed Hosts, Religious Garb, and More!

You have exactly two choices, the AIT or the patdown.

"Do you not understand English. that means that if someone walks through a metal detector and it beeps a further search is justified"

no where in the TSA security guidelines does it state that this is the only thing that can trigger secondary screening. youre simply making things up to support your end of the argument. in fact here is the exact words off the TSA website:

What triggers a pat-down?
Pat-downs are used to resolve alarms at the checkpoint, including those triggered by metal detectors and AIT units. Pat-downs are also used when a person opts out of AIT screening in order to detect potentially dangerous and prohibited items. Because pat-downs are specifically used to resolve alarms and prevent dangerous items from going on a plane, the vast majority of passengers will not receive a pat-down at the checkpoint.

TSA: Pat-downs

the rest of the article as well (since you probably wont read it either)

Your quote was from my link, not the TSA, and it was case law that ruled under what circumstances that enhanced screenings are allowed. Your argument that the TSA is actually ignoring precedent only enhances my position, not yours.

What can I do to prevent an alarm at the security checkpoint?
The majority of pat-downs occur when a passenger alarms either the metal detector or the AIT unit. To reduce this circumstance, the most important thing you can do is take everything out of your pockets before you go through screening. Also, when traveling, avoid wearing clothes with a high metal content, and put heavy jewelry on after you go through security.

What do I do during a pat-down?
All passengers have important rights during a pat-down. You have the right to request the pat-down be conducted in a private room and you have the right to have the pat-down witnessed by a person of your choice. All pat-downs are only conducted by same-gender officers. The officer will explain the pat-down process before and during the pat-down. If you have a medical device, please inform the officer.

Will children receive pat-downs?
Transportation Security Officers will work with parents to resolve any alarms at the checkpoint. If required, a child may receive a modified pat-down. Parents are encouraged to ensure their children have taken all items out of their pockets as they go through the security checkpoint.

it does list metal detector failure as one of the reasons to trigger at pat down. but if the TSA officer sees suspicious activity he can also subject that person to secondary screening.

What does any of this have to do with my argument that the searches are unconstitutional?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm pretty sure the AIT machine is a substitute for the metal detector. In other words, you go through one or the other and if you "fail" either you get a pat down. Or choose the patdown and avoid the machines to begin with.

I am saying that the AIT is unconstitutional because it is more invasive than the metal detector. What part of that argument is so difficult to understand? If it is unconstitutional it does not matter if it is being used to replace something else, does it?

Note:

It is probably constitutional to use it as part of secondary screening if they have some sort of probable cause to step up the scrutiny, but not as the initial search.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

ignorance is a plague on society... and so perhaps you should stop flaunting yours.

So you're going to enlighten all us cretins here where I have given up my 4th Amendment right by walking into an airport? Right?

if you would pull your head and out think maybe you would hear things easier. you dont get searched simply for walking into an airport. you consent to the search once you purchase a ticket and try to gain access to the terminal. Ive already posted the legal precedent for searching passengers prior to entry into the terminal. so just because you dont like the new procedures, doesnt make them illegal.

here it is again:

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Once you enter the secure portion of the airport you CANNOT refuse NOR REVOKE consent to be searched, BUT the search does have limits.

The ruling, from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, says that 'requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world.

'Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by "electing not to fly" on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found.'

'...all that is required [for a search of the passenger] is the passenger's election to attempt entry into the secured area of an airport. See Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315; 49 C.F.R. § 1540.107.'

The 9th Circuit says that the 4th Amendment is not applicable because the airport search is "an administrative search in a highly regulated industry" - "...the constitutionality of airport screening searches is not dependent on consent..." [US v Aukai]

The 9th Circuit is the most overturned circuit in the US, and this decision is only binding under that circuit, not the other 8.

 

[Liberty]

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.

i think the only loons are the ones who love getting their crotch rubbed in a public area by a stranger. Must be the only action you get though right?

 

[Common Sense]

I'm pretty sure the AIT machine is a substitute for the metal detector. In other words, you go through one or the other and if you "fail" either you get a pat down. Or choose the patdown and avoid the machines to begin with.

I am saying that the AIT is unconstitutional because it is more invasive than the metal detector. What part of that argument is so difficult to understand? If it is unconstitutional it does not matter if it is being used to replace something else, does it?

Note:

It is probably constitutional to use it as part of secondary screening if they have some sort of probable cause to step up the scrutiny, but not as the initial search.

AIT or Pat downs are secondary screening as it is. They are not replacing metal detectors.