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

[striker754]

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.

My second sentence about body cavity searches was serious. Let me direct you here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/28/eveningnews/main5347847.shtml

And a quote:

Taking a trick from the narcotics trade - which has long smuggled drugs in body cavities - Asieri had a pound of high explosives, plus a detonator inserted in his rectum.

Like someone said, TSA is purely a reactionary agency. What happens when someone blows a plane up with a bomb in their ass? "Sorry sir but you have to bend over and let me put my finger in your ass before you can get on this plane"

Regarding Chertoff:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/fear_pays_chertoff_n_787711.html

Chertoff's clients have prospered in the last two years, largely through lucrative government contracts, and The Chertoff Group's assistance in navigating the complex federal procurement bureaucracy is in high demand. One example involves the company at the heart of the recent uproar over intrusive airport security procedures -- Rapiscan, which makes the so-called body scanners. Back in 2005, Chertoff was promoting the technology and Homeland Security placed the government's first order, buying five Rapiscan scanners.

After the arrest of the underwear bomber last Christmas, Chertoff hit the airwaves and wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post advocating the full-body scanning systems without disclosing that Rapiscan Systems was a client of his firm. The aborted terror plot prompted the Transportation Security Agency to order 300 machines from Rapiscan. Yet last spring, the Government Accountability Office reported that, "It remains unclear whether [the scanners] would have been able to detect the weapon" used in the aborted bombing attempt. And according to a recent report by DHS's Inspector General, the training of airport screeners is rushed and poorly supervised

Anyone with a brain can see that security holes are massive at airports. To say that TSA does an effective job of preventing terrorism is a giant joke.

 

[MaddSkillz]

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.

Well stated young gentleman.

 

[Hobbes]

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.

Osama Bin Lodden and the rest of his al queda cohorts must be watching tv and laughing their ***** off.

 

[Dave70968]

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.

Actually, you can back out halfway through a police search. From Wikipedia, but properly referenced:

Once consent to search is given, an individual may withdraw consent with an “unequivocal act or statement of withdrawal.” Consent may be withdrawn by statements, actions, or a combination of statements and actions. In United States v. Bily, the court found that Bily's statement to the agents of “That’s enough, I want you to stop,” was a revocation of consent. And in United States v. Ho, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that Ho's attempts to retrieve his portfolio from the officer during a search constituted a revocation of his earlier consent to search. In this decision the court recognized his acts constituted a valid revocation of consent.[3]

However, the revocation of consent must clearly be a statement revoking consent: an expression of impatience or dislike is not sufficient to terminate consent.[3] For example, in United States v. Gray, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found that Gray did not revoke consent with the statements “[t]his is ridiculous,” and “how long [is] the search going to take.” The district court found that while Gray and his passenger had made “protests to leave,” “there was no specific request to leave, and under the circumstance,... [the officer] was reasonable in continuing the search.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_search

The article goes on to discuss the ever-growing "transportation exception" to the Fourth Amendment. It's questionable whether Mr. Tyner would fall under Herzbrun or Pulido-Baquerizo rules, as they were both partway through the search ("after passing through the magnetometer" and "after an inconclusive X-ray," respectively); Mr. Tyner never started the search procedure as the TSA refused to let him go through the magnetometer, saying that his only options were the invasive ones that he refused.

Oh, and as to those of you who say "take a bus," I would suggest reading http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...scanners-could-be-trains-boats-and-the-metro-. To wit:

“I think the tighter we get on aviation, we have to also be thinking now about going on to mass transit or to trains or maritime. So, what do we need to be doing to strengthen our protections there?”
--Janet Napolitano

So the right to travel freely is about to be limited to the right to an invasive search every time you travel. Oh, and don't forget your internal passport, comrade.

 

[LightningCrash]

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

GDP is up, not down.

 

[vvvvvvv]

Actually, you can back out halfway through a police search.

This.

 

[338Shooter]

This.

That.

 

[striker754]

GDP is up, not down.

Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment increased 8.9 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 9.1 percent in the second. National defense increased 8.5 percent, compared with an increase of 7.4 percent. Nondefense increased 9.5 percent, compared
with an increase of 12.8 percent. Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross investment increased 0.8 percent, compared with an increase of 0.6 percent.

There is why.

 

[BadgeBunny]

That.

The other ...

 

[338Shooter]

The other ...

Let's not get carried away here.