Ravi
Diamond Member
If it shows you naked I agree it is more invasive. If it shows you as a stick figure I disagree.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.