Airport Pat-Downs: TSA Says it Can Fine You for Backing Out

[LightningCrash]

My '"peers" are not afraid that everyone will stampede to the bus station. The media is the one saying that everyone is up in arms, but that's not what we're actually seeing here at the airport. Once again, the media speaks and everyone is suddenly a believer!

And yet the airlines say passenger miles were down in July... not the media, but the airlines.

 

[vvvvvvv]

How can you fine someone $11k for doing absolutely nothing wrong? That's like making a law that fines people $11k if they don't consent to having a police officer search their property without a warrant. At that point they are INNOCENT.

I hate to say it JB, but you'd loose every one of them.

If the fine that they are talking about is the same one that was discussed on the viral video, then I don't think he'd lose (at least until the SCOTUS level).

The fine that was on the viral video was a fine for leaving the terminal without submitting to a search. At this point, the citizen has made the economic decision that flying is not worth having his freedom violated. Basically, he has bought a plane ticket, entered the airport, refused the "enhanced" pat-down, and opted to forego his flight and leave the airport.

 

[vvvvvvv]

As long as our society will not accept this fact, it is a big part of the problem.

The problem is that the most vocal of the population attach the adjective "racial" to the beginning.

 

[Larry Morgan]

The fine that was on the viral video was a fine for leaving the terminal without submitting to a search. At this point, the citizen has made the economic decision that flying is not worth having his freedom violated. Basically, he has bought a plane ticket, entered the airport, refused the "enhanced" pat-down, and opted to forego his flight and leave the airport.

That's sort of what I was trying to get at. IMO, at that point, he had done nothing illegal, so how could he be fined for it? That's why I compared it to refusing a search without a warrant. There's nothing illegal about that. But what if, suddenly, you were told that you could be fined for refusing a search without a warrant, even though there was nothing illegal about refusing?

A lot of people are saying, "If you don't like it, don't fly." However, that's what this guy (supposedly) did. He went in, didn't like it, and decided not to fly. And he is threatened with a fine for that? THAT's what I'm saying is total B.S. Granted, I'm assuming the situation essentially went down the way he said it did.

 

[MaddSkillz]

Must Watch

 

[CHenry]

Must Watch

Thats some funny stuff right there!

 

[Glocktogo]

You are violating the rights of Americans, but it's ok because you're just doing your job right?

How long until body cavity searches?

All in the name of unjustified fear designed to try and control the public and line the pockets of Michael Chertoff.

I'm not violating anyone's rights. I can be investigated and sued just like any other federal employee for violating someone's civil rights. A lot of folks who know me think I was the honor graduate of my academy class because of my scores on the range, when it was actually my scores on the law block (which is a lot of constitutional law). I know the Constitution very well and I'm more likely to be the person to say you can't do something with a citizen than the one doing something I shouldn't.

Your second sentence is just inflammatory silliness and you know it.

You do know that Chertoff is no longer at DHS right? He has his own consulting firm, but I have no knowledge that he was involved directly or indirectly with the most recent changes.

We don't want to control the public, at least not at the local level. My position would still be necessary tomorrow even if there were no readily identifiable external threat. I don't deal directly with passengers very often. I work with the industry most of the time.

Lots of people feel that there is no serious threat to aviation anymore, but intel and the most recent actions of Al Qaeda and AQIM would indicate otherwise. Air travel is an integral part of the infrastructure of our country. Until the terrorists turn their attention elsewhere, the threat is still real and viable. Perhaps we're not communicating that effectively. Perhaps people just don't want to listen.

I don't have a problem with people getting fined for trying to bring banned items on a plane, or even because they "forget" they had them. That's the penalty for not following rules. What worried me was the first hand account from someone where he was basically threatened with a huge fine unless he submitted to something he really didn't have to submit to (he could back out and not fly at all). I have to admit, my first thought initially was in line with your response. Something like "Yeah, right, like they are ever actually going to fine some $11k for that".

I understand that the laws may have been around for awhile and may be kind of nuts. There are crazy laws/rules like that everywhere. Heck, there are websites devoted to them because some of them are so comical. However, I don't like it when those types of things are used as scare tactics.

Maybe they told him that out of frustration because he was being a d-bag (which is totally possible), who knows.

This is his account. I'm sure based on his subsequent actions that he was completely unreasonable and just wanted to stir up trouble, which he did. We have no intentions of patronizing people like him, that's not what we're here for.

And yet the airlines say passenger miles were down in July... not the media, but the airlines.

I'm sure the economy had nothing to do with that.

If the fine that they are talking about is the same one that was discussed on the viral video, then I don't think he'd lose (at least until the SCOTUS level).

The fine that was on the viral video was a fine for leaving the terminal without submitting to a search. At this point, the citizen has made the economic decision that flying is not worth having his freedom violated. Basically, he has bought a plane ticket, entered the airport, refused the "enhanced" pat-down, and opted to forego his flight and leave the airport.

That's not how it works and court precedents have been well established on this point. The case law all agrees that you can refuse to submit to screening procedures prior to the start of said screening. Once you initiate the process, you may no longer withdraw without jeopardy. This is to prevent operational testing of the system by those intent on circumventing it. For the purposes of prior cases, the point of initiation has been determined to be when you place your items on the x-ray belt or enter the walk through portal.

A lot of people are saying, "If you don't like it, don't fly." However, that's what this guy (supposedly) did. He went in, didn't like it, and decided not to fly. And he is threatened with a fine for that? THAT's what I'm saying is total B.S. Granted, I'm assuming the situation essentially went down the way he said it did.

See above.

Must Watch

That gets played every day in our office. That's funny right there, I don't care who you are.

 

[cjjtulsa]

Until the terrorists turn their attention elsewhere, the threat is still real and viable. Perhaps we're not communicating that effectively. Perhaps people just don't want to listen.

But the terrorists always do turn their attention elsewhere, albiet not away from aviation, but to different methods of attack. TSA is a reactionary agency; blades were used first, so no more pocket knives, etc., for the average passenger forever. Then shoes. Take off your shoes, and only small amounts of liquids for the average passenger forever. Then it was the skivvies, and now their checking everyone's skivvies and "personal" areas. Ever notice the terrorists never revisit the same thing that didn't work the first time? They move on and try something else - something that taking off one's shoes or feeling up someones twig & berries more than likely won't catch - the terrorists are smarter than our government. But the average passenger is going to get screwed with more and more, as the thugs figure out a different angle of attack.

I sure as hell hope they don't try a bomb up their poop-chute next, as we are planning a trip to St. John Island next summer. If they do, I'm sure the geniouses in our government will declare that they now have to look up everyone's tailpipe to "keep the public safe". If that happens, I'm staying home.

 

[inactive]

I hate to say it JB, but you'd loose every one of them.

I would give JB more credit than that; I think perhaps he was implying he implying a case involving allegations that a TSA employee went "above and beyond" the stated enhanced pat-down guidelines. Then of course the employee (not necessarily the TSA) could be held liable for civil damages. As he is a personal injury attorney, I have to think that is what JB is implying.

This isn't a statement against the TSA or meant to imply their employees are likely to commit such an act (hell, ANYONE is equally capable and likely of committing such an act). For the record, I have always been treated with professionalism by the TSA staff at Tulsa International.

 

[Larry Morgan]

The case law all agrees that you can refuse to submit to screening procedures prior to the start of said screening. Once you initiate the process, you may no longer withdraw without jeopardy. This is to prevent operational testing of the system by those intent on circumventing it. For the purposes of prior cases, the point of initiation has been determined to be when you place your items on the x-ray belt or enter the walk through portal.

Ah, hah. Okay, that makes sense to me. Like giving consent to a search, then trying to back out when the officer finds something you didn't want him to.