TexasCHLforum.com

Read story at:
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/03/22/texa ... -a-felony/

Simpson has filed House Bill 1937 which would make the enhanced searches a state crime and the agents who perform them could be charged with a felony.

Simpson also thinks the full-body x-ray scanning machines are just as bad. He has filed another bill, House Bill 1938, that would ban them from use in airports across Texas.

Not just filed. It's scheduled to be heard in committee TODAY. I don't know what's going on in there, been busy at work.

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... ill=HB1937" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

While I agree with the intent of the legislation, a TSA employee that would be charged under this proposed legislation would be protected as a federal employee. If the TSA are doing their "job," whether that includes invasive pat-downs or looking at nude-o-scan images, any State charges filed against them would result in the case being removed to a federal court and you know what will happen there.

Legislation dealing with the prohibition of scanners (HB 1938) may have a decent chance of holding up against challenge. I'm not aware of jurisdictional problems related to airport property (there may be, I don't know).

Of course, all this IMHO - ianal.

Thread already running:

viewtopic.php?f=94&t=42842&p=516779&hil ... on#p516779" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Slowplay wrote:While I agree with the intent of the legislation, a TSA employee that would be charged under this proposed legislation would be protected as a federal employee. If the TSA are doing their "job," whether that includes invasive pat-downs or looking at nude-o-scan images, any State charges filed against them would result in the case being removed to a federal court and you know what will happen there.

Legislation dealing with the prohibition of scanners (HB 1938) may have a decent chance of holding up against challenge. I'm not aware of jurisdictional problems related to airport property (there may be, I don't know).

Of course, all this IMHO - ianal.

NO, federal employees are not protected from state charges. Given an option, I would never bring federal charges against a federal employee, always state charges.

OldCurlyWolf wrote:

Slowplay wrote:While I agree with the intent of the legislation, a TSA employee that would be charged under this proposed legislation would be protected as a federal employee. If the TSA are doing their "job," whether that includes invasive pat-downs or looking at nude-o-scan images, any State charges filed against them would result in the case being removed to a federal court and you know what will happen there.

Legislation dealing with the prohibition of scanners (HB 1938) may have a decent chance of holding up against challenge. I'm not aware of jurisdictional problems related to airport property (there may be, I don't know).

Of course, all this IMHO - ianal.

NO, federal employees are not protected from state charges. Given an option, I would never bring federal charges against a federal employee, always state charges.

Sorry but...YES, they are. If the charge is a result of them performing a duty authorized to the federal government by the Constitution and statute. You can argue about whether safety of air travel is federal responsibility, but current state of the law is that it IS. While I believe there are valid 4th amendment arguments against the pat downs, it's legitimately a matter for the federal courts. Rather than making a "point", I think passing this statute would make our great state look foolish, since it has about a 99.9% of being struck down. It would be like passing a law saying that a US Army soldier may not possess a machine gun while perfroming his duty (training, practicing, preparing to deploy, etc.) while in Texas.

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

...

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
...

OldCurlyWolf wrote:NO, federal employees are not protected from state charges. Given an option, I would never bring federal charges against a federal employee, always state charges.

I'm not saying anything about federal charges.

A federal employee sued in a civil action in State court OR brought for criminal prosecution in a State court, is entitled to have such legal action removed from the State court to a federal district court, as long as that federal employee was acting in their capacity (performing their work duties) as a federal employee. Refer to U.S. Code Title 28 § 1442. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/28/IV/89/1442

Do you really think the Federal district court would remand the case back to the State court? No, they would dismiss the case.

The famous Ruby Ridge incident and subsequent case against the FBI sniper that was charged in State Court (Idaho) provides an example of removal jurisdiction. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1430138.html

What a joke and waste of our state governments time and money...deal with the real issues guys!

safety1 wrote:What a joke and waste of our state governments time and money...deal with the real issues guys!

It may be in vain, but I would rather fight this battle to respect the 4th amendment than sit by idle and watch it disappear into the wind.

safety1 wrote:What a joke and waste of our state governments time and money...deal with the real issues guys!

Yeah, lay down and take it! We probably couldn't do anything about it any way!

ScottDLS wrote: Sorry but...YES, they are. If the charge is a result of them performing a duty authorized to the federal government by the Constitution and statute. You can argue about whether safety of air travel is federal responsibility, but current state of the law is that it IS.

I believe that is exactly the meat of the argument that will be made. It has been stated by those with greater legal knowledge than I that this is outside of any constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government. It will be interesting to follow the progress of this.

TxKimberMan wrote:

ScottDLS wrote: Sorry but...YES, they are. If the charge is a result of them performing a duty authorized to the federal government by the Constitution and statute. You can argue about whether safety of air travel is federal responsibility, but current state of the law is that it IS.

I believe that is exactly the meat of the argument that will be made. It has been stated by those with greater legal knowledge than I that this is outside of any constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government. It will be interesting to follow the progress of this.

It would surprise me, as the vast majority of air travel is interstate and international, and certainly represents "commerce". I think the better grounds to fight is that the invasive pat downs of everyone represent an "unreasonable search", especially when they are not incident to arrest or detention.

ScottDLS wrote:

TxKimberMan wrote:

ScottDLS wrote: Sorry but...YES, they are. If the charge is a result of them performing a duty authorized to the federal government by the Constitution and statute. You can argue about whether safety of air travel is federal responsibility, but current state of the law is that it IS.

I believe that is exactly the meat of the argument that will be made. It has been stated by those with greater legal knowledge than I that this is outside of any constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government. It will be interesting to follow the progress of this.

It would surprise me, as the vast majority of air travel is interstate and international, and certainly represents "commerce". I think the better grounds to fight is that the invasive pat downs of everyone represent an "unreasonable search", especially when they are not incident to arrest or detention.

Operation and management of an airport (landlord) is a distinctly separate business from air travel (airline tenant).