TSA gets some of it's own medicine!

[jimlongley]

For reference:

In 1973 the 9th Circuit Court ruled on US v Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908, there are words that give the TSA its power to search essentially any way they choose to. The key words in this ruling include “noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.”

US v Davis goes on to to state “[an administrative search is allowed if] no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.”

US v Davis was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court in 1986 in US v Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d 899, 901 with this ruling “To judge reasonableness, it is necessary to balance the right to be free of intrusion with society’s interest in safe air travel.”

These 9th Circuit Court ruling laid the path for the creation of Public Law 107-71, the Aviation Transportation and Security Act, which was virtually unopposed by legislators when it was it was signed into law on the 19th of November 2001 by President George W. Bush. This law laid the groundwork for the Transportation Security Administration and the evolution of its current security procedures.

While I do not necessarily agree, until the Supreme Court overturns US v Davis, there is no rights violation.

[terryg]

What rights are being violated?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Nope, don't see it.

So you don't see forcing people to either choose a nudie scanner or a physical pat down (or in many cases both) - without any probable cause and without a warrant - do be a direct violation of the words above?

Edited: Oh, I missed the response above somehow ... sorry - I will respond below.

[terryg]

For reference:

In 1973 the 9th Circuit Court ruled on US v Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908, there are words that give the TSA its power to search essentially any way they choose to. The key words in this ruling include “noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.”

US v Davis goes on to to state “[an administrative search is allowed if] no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.”

US v Davis was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court in 1986 in US v Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d 899, 901 with this ruling “To judge reasonableness, it is necessary to balance the right to be free of intrusion with society’s interest in safe air travel.”

These 9th Circuit Court ruling laid the path for the creation of Public Law 107-71, the Aviation Transportation and Security Act, which was virtually unopposed by legislators when it was it was signed into law on the 19th of November 2001 by President George W. Bush. This law laid the groundwork for the Transportation Security Administration and the evolution of its current security procedures.

While I do not necessarily agree, until the Supreme Court overturns US v Davis, there is no rights violation.

Yes, that is the well established law of the land currently. So was the assault weapons ban until it expired, so is the federal gun free school zone act, so are the gun various gun restrictions (10 round mags, etc) in California and other states, etc. Are you saying that these are not rights violations?

What if, instead of a virtual strip search, they started implementing actual strip searches? Would that also not be a violation'?

---

The bottom line is that just like the question of 'reasonable restriction' on 2A - this becomes a question of what is 'more intrusive or intensive than necessary'. Each person might answer that question differently.

But, IMO, if one takes the tack that there should be no (zero) restrictions on our second amendment rights - regardless of the current 'law of the land' - and that the various restrictions already in place are unconstitutional; then I would think that one would take a very similar tack when it comes to this restrictions on the fourth amendment.

[mamabearCali]

For reference:

In 1973 the 9th Circuit Court ruled on US v Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908, there are words that give the TSA its power to search essentially any way they choose to. The key words in this ruling include “noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.”

US v Davis goes on to to state “[an administrative search is allowed if] no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.”

US v Davis was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court in 1986 in US v Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d 899, 901 with this ruling “To judge reasonableness, it is necessary to balance the right to be free of intrusion with society’s interest in safe air travel.”

These 9th Circuit Court ruling laid the path for the creation of Public Law 107-71, the Aviation Transportation and Security Act, which was virtually unopposed by legislators when it was it was signed into law on the 19th of November 2001 by President George W. Bush. This law laid the groundwork for the Transportation Security Administration and the evolution of its current security procedures.

While I do not necessarily agree, until the Supreme Court overturns US v Davis, there is no rights violation.

All of those court cases happened long before nudie radiation scanners, genital pat downs, and the sticking of fingers inside people's waistlines. I remember flying as a child--you put your teddy bear on the x ray machine and walked through a metal detector--that was the level of searching the court was ruling on--not what the TSA does today. To quote the ruling "[an administrative search is allowed if] no more intrusive or intensive than necessary," the only way we could get even more intrusive or intensive into peoples bodies is to require actual strip searches and body cavity searches (not entirely outside the realm of sanity as a terrorist could smuggle a contraband item on in a body cavity). So if the next TSA regulations say that is ok and not a violation of rights are you going to agree with them? Where does it stop?

[seeker_two]

For reference:

In 1973 the 9th Circuit Court ruled on US v Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908, there are words that give the TSA its power to search essentially any way they choose to. The key words in this ruling include “noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.”

US v Davis goes on to to state “[an administrative search is allowed if] no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.”

Only problem with that ruling....in 1973, the security for air travel was handled by private security agencies hired by the airports, not agents of the Federal Government. This ruling will have to be revisited....esp. in light of the BOR restrictions that are placed on Federal security and law enforcement agencies....


....or, at least the restrictions that used to be in place back when the Gov't recognized the BOR......

[jimlongley]

For reference:

In 1973 the 9th Circuit Court ruled on US v Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908, there are words that give the TSA its power to search essentially any way they choose to. The key words in this ruling include “noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.”

US v Davis goes on to to state “[an administrative search is allowed if] no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.”

Only problem with that ruling....in 1973, the security for air travel was handled by private security agencies hired by the airports, not agents of the Federal Government. This ruling will have to be revisited....esp. in light of the BOR restrictions that are placed on Federal security and law enforcement agencies....


....or, at least the restrictions that used to be in place back when the Gov't recognized the BOR......

I don't disagree that the ruling should be revisited and overruled, but it hasn't, and despite its age, it remains the law of the land, so no one's rights are being violated, unless and until the Supreme Court says so, everything else is just complaining.

Heller and McDonald established that what DC and Chicago were indeed violations of civil rights, but only after numerous other courts disagreed. Until then it wasn't really a violation of anyone's rights, just as what TSA, and private security, in airports that have opted out of TSA, does today is not, per se, a violation of rights and people who don't want to submit can, as the court suggested, go another way.

I don't believe that actual strip and cavity searches would be ANY MORE of a violation, but I do believe that it would lead to a massive loss of revenue for the airline industry as people finally started finding alternative ways to go, in droves.

But unless and until someone challenges existing law, successfully, the law is still the law, and the right is not really being violated, and DHS can go right on telling TSA to do intrusive searches.

And blaming the screeners, the very bottom level of TSA, for what they do is, as I said above, equivalent to calling all CHL holders gun toting criminals. Unlike the prison guards at Nazi camps, and I believe that some of them were coerced or forced into their positions, TSA screeners are not shoving people into gas chambers or torturing them with forced labor and no meals, they are merely checking them for weapons and explosives before they board what have proved to be one of the most lethal weapons devised by man.

And I still find the thread title offensive, the thread is about someone committing an obvious crime as payback against someone performing a legally protected job.

And I still haven't found a prom that TSA showed up at.

[fickman]

the thread is about someone committing an obvious crime as payback against someone performing a legally protected job.

TSA needs to be challenged, but this action was ineffective, hypocritical, and an active personal assault against an employee of the agency as opposed to a statement / civil disobedience / passive movement aimed at the agency as an entity.

No positive reversal of TSA policy will result from this.

[snorri]

They're just following orders.

[mamabearCali]

the thread is about someone committing an obvious crime as payback against someone performing a legally protected job.

TSA needs to be challenged, but this action was ineffective, hypocritical, and an active personal assault against an employee of the agency as opposed to a statement / civil disobedience / passive movement aimed at the agency as an entity.

No positive reversal of TSA policy will result from this.

This is about the tryanny of the TSA. As Thomas Jefferson said “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” What this woman did was a crime and she will likely suffer some consequence for it (and should). However the TSA agent, who has done the very same action, is shielded from the consequences of her actions by TSA regulations. Do you think that the hundreds (likely thousands) of people that the TSA agent patted down have felt any less violated than she did?

Though her actions were illegal they are doing good in a general awareness of the issues sense. They are showing quite clearly the hypocrisy of the TSA's standard line that they are not "assaulting anyone." When faced with a very similar manner of touching the agent found the actions to be assault and upsetting. I understand why she was upset--she should be upset--but so were many other women at her hands. The more attention we can point at how the TSA is doing their business these days the better.

I think we are having a disconnect because of perhaps apriori assumption of where rights originate from. I believe as it states in the declaration of independence that our rights come from our creator, not the state. So I don't buy it that unless the "law of the day says we are violating someone rights" we aren't. It was the law of the land in communist Ukraine to starve people to death that the USSR did not like--just because the state says something is ok--does not make it such.

Tyrannical laws need to be resisted--when at all possible by non-violent means. However I will say that it is very difficult to control ones' emotions when one has been sexually assaulted numerous times by the same entity and then be told to be sit down, be quiet, and write your senator--some people won't be able to control themselves and will act out. When the state acts with such harsh means on ordinary everyday citizens they are going to see more and more ordinary citizens act harshly towards the government agents they put there.

[terryg]

I don't disagree that the ruling should be revisited and overruled, but it hasn't, and despite its age, it remains the law of the land, so no one's rights are being violated, unless and until the Supreme Court says so, everything else is just complaining.

...

But unless and until someone challenges existing law, successfully, the law is still the law, and the right is not really being violated, and DHS can go right on telling TSA to do intrusive searches.

Again Jim, I can agree that you have an argument for just about everything except what is in Red. I can also see how you could find the thread title offensive.

Perhaps it is semantics, but just because something is the current law of the land - and I agree that this is currently the case - does not mean that rights are not being violated. It is called the bill of rights. Even if current federal statutory laws allow a certain action, that action can still be a violation of basic rights.

Earlier in the thread, I compared this to past and current restrictions on second amendment freedoms that so many here decry. In fact, in a previous thread many many months ago, you made great headway in convincing me that the CHL fees (and other factors) as implemented in Texas are indeed an infringement of the second amendment. You were essentially arguing that the current law of the land in Texas (the CHL process) violated the rights afforded to you in the bill of rights. I don't see how this is any different - it is simply a different amendment that is being trampled.

I do get your point, though, that the screeners should not be a target. But I don't agree with the assertion that they are not violating rights. The TSA agents themselves and their actions can be defended given the current state of statutory law without whitewashing the violation of rights that is occurring.

[jimlongley]

the thread is about someone committing an obvious crime as payback against someone performing a legally protected job.

TSA needs to be challenged, but this action was ineffective, hypocritical, and an active personal assault against an employee of the agency as opposed to a statement / civil disobedience / passive movement aimed at the agency as an entity.

No positive reversal of TSA policy will result from this.

This is about the tryanny of the TSA. As Thomas Jefferson said “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” What this woman did was a crime and she will likely suffer some consequence for it (and should). However the TSA agent, who has done the very same action, is shielded from the consequences of her actions by TSA regulations. Do you think that the hundreds (likely thousands) of people that the TSA agent patted down have felt any less violated than she did?

Though her actions were illegal they are doing good in a general awareness of the issues sense. They are showing quite clearly the hypocrisy of the TSA's standard line that they are not "assaulting anyone." When faced with a very similar manner of touching the agent found the actions to be assault and upsetting. I understand why she was upset--she should be upset--but so were many other women at her hands. The more attention we can point at how the TSA is doing their business these days the better.

I think we are having a disconnect because of perhaps apriori assumption of where rights originate from. I believe as it states in the declaration of independence that our rights come from our creator, not the state. So I don't buy it that unless the "law of the day says we are violating someone rights" we aren't. It was the law of the land in communist Ukraine to starve people to death that the USSR did not like--just because the state says something is ok--does not make it such.

Tyrannical laws need to be resisted--when at all possible by non-violent means. However I will say that it is very difficult to control ones' emotions when one has been sexually assaulted numerous times by the same entity and then be told to be sit down, be quiet, and write your senator--some people won't be able to control themselves and will act out. When the state acts with such harsh means on ordinary everyday citizens they are going to see more and more ordinary citizens act harshly towards the government agents they put there.

Yes, tyrannical laws need to be resisted, but the thousands of people who are patted down, EACH DAY, put up with it, except for a very small few who commit illegal acts in Pyrrhic attempts to protest and "bring general awareness" of the wrongs to someone's attention, as if hundreds of YouTube videos were not enough, as well as blogs, vlogs, and even offensively titled threads celebrating criminal acts.

It doesn't really matter where rights originate from, until someone successfully gets the issue in front of SCOTUS, and wins the case it isn't really a violation of rights, it's merely a theoretical violation, which I agree with.

What really, in my own humble opinion, needs to be done, beyond the obvious attempts of letter writing and phone calls to legislators, is what I term a "travel holiday" everyone who objects to TSA, actually Department of Homeland Security, screening, should find an alternate way to travel, for a week or so, and see what the airline industry says to DHS when they suffer the loss of revenue. And then extend it. Everyone who objects, follow the court's suggestion, not originally mine, and go another way, every time. Every other attempt at non-violent protest is likely to fail, barring a mass revolution in an airport terminal, and that is not likely to succeed either.

The real problem is that DHS is a knee jerk reaction to a very real threat, a reaction that has gone awry, but DHS has been given the power to do what they do, based on that old decision, and bureaucracies like that are always reluctant to give up any power, right or wrong, look how long it took to get the decisions in DC and Chicago, and they are still almost as restrictive as they were before.

And I still haven't found a prom that TSA did anything at.

[i8godzilla]

They're just following orders.

That defense did not work in Nuremberg.

[terryg]

It doesn't really matter where rights originate from, until someone successfully gets the issue in front of SCOTUS, and wins the case it isn't really a violation of rights, it's merely a theoretical violation, which I agree with.

So by this logic:

Texas CHL process and fees are merely a theoretical infringement of our second amendment rights ...
The assualt weapons ban was merely a theoretical infringement of our second amendment rights ...
The federal gun free school zone law is merely a theoretical infringement of our second amendment rights ...
The BAFTE reporting criteria would be merely a theoretical infringement of our second amendment rights ...

[jimlongley]

It doesn't really matter where rights originate from, until someone successfully gets the issue in front of SCOTUS, and wins the case it isn't really a violation of rights, it's merely a theoretical violation, which I agree with.

So by this logic:

Texas CHL process and fees are merely a theoretical infringement of our second amendment rights ...
The assualt weapons ban was merely a theoretical infringement of our second amendment rights ...
The federal gun free school zone law is merely a theoretical infringement of our second amendment rights ...
The BAFTE reporting criteria would be merely a theoretical infringement of our second amendment rights ...

Yes
Yes
Yes
No

It's a sad fact that no matter what WE see as infringements, the sad fact is that unless and until the Supreme Court says it's so, it ain't. Sometimes legislative bodies and executives recognize that what they are planning might be an infringement, and they cancel the effort, which appears to be happening with BATFE's proposed rule.

[snorri]

Yes, tyrannical laws need to be resisted, but the thousands of people who are patted down, EACH DAY, put up with it, except for a very small few who commit illegal acts

The founding fathers committed illegal acts. I'm glad they did.