Airport Security Proceedures On Trial

[Dale00]

This peaceful protestor may be able to hold FEMA/TSA administrator's feet to the fire. It's an encouraging development. His rights were violated as are ours when we are subjected to invasive searches before getting on a plane.

Airport Security vs. The Constitution

You wouldn't think Aaron Tobey and Donald Rumsfeld have much in common. Tobey is the guy who stripped down to his shorts at the Richmond, Virginia airport last December. Rumsfeld is the former Defense Secretary under George W. Bush. Tobey, who was protesting the invasive airport screening practices that have outraged a good portion of the traveling public, is a stickler for constitutional rights. Rumsfeld? Not so much.

The two of them, however, are united by a common case: Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents. The other day a federal appeals court said two Americans who claimed to have been tortured by U.S. armed forces in Iraq can sue Rumsfeld for violating their constitutional rights. The court relied on the Bivens precedent. Bivens just happens to be the hook Tobey is hanging his hat on in his lawsuit against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Transportation Security Administration chief John Pistole. ...

On Dec. 30 last year, Tobey was in pre-flight screening when he was directed toward one of those special imaging machines that can see through clothing. Tobey paused to strip off his T-shirt and sweatpants. On his torso he had written: "Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated." ...

Tobey claims his arrest was unjustified and unconstitutional, and the blame for it falls in part on Napolitano and Pistole, who put in place the policies that permitted it. ... the feds (say that) U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson should dismiss Tobey's lawsuit.

If the name sounds familiar, that's because it is. Hudson is the first judge to have ruled against ObamaCare's individual mandate—the provision that says Washington not only can tax your income but tell you how to spend what's left by forcing you to enter into a contract with a private insurance company. Hudson struck down the mandate Dec. 13, 2010—just two weeks and change before Tobey made his shirtless statement at RIC.

Hudson said he would rule on whether Tobey's suit can proceed within two weeks. That was last week. So the decision in the Rumsfeld case could not come at a better time. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Rumsfeld enjoys no immunity: "Plaintiffs [Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel] have alleged sufficient facts to show that Secretary Rumsfeld personally established the relevant policies that caused the alleged violations of their constitutional rights during detention."

As in Tobey's case, the federal government has argued that Rumsfeld enjoys immunity. The 7th Circuit says: No, he doesn't. That doesn't mean it has ruled in the plaintiffs' favor or found Rumsfeld personally culpable for the torture they claim to have endured. It merely means the case can go forward—just as it ought to.

Americans have cheered when foreign dictators in Romania, Egypt, and elsewhere have been made to answer for grinding citizens under their boots. It would be curious indeed if American officials were harder to hold accountable. Vance and Ertel will get their day in court. So should Aaron Tobey.

 

[Comte DeLoach]

The punk will lose .

 

[HMFIC]

For what was he arrested?

 

[dru]

Is it wrong that I lasciviously await the Pistole's/Napolitano's/Rumsefelds getting their asses handed to them on this? Oh well, I can dream I guess

 

[natgas]

Surely he wasn't arrested for something written on his body?????

 

[Werewolf]

The punk will lose .

Say what?

A guy demanding that his 4th Amendment rights be respected is a punk?

What are you? A TSA agent?

 

[Glocktogo]

The arrest was stupid, but I've seen stupid at the airport before. It usually occurs when employees assume authority for things they find objectionable, rather than things they're expressly authorized to perform.

 

[HMFIC]

I looked up the news articles to find out what the charges were. With all the hype around it, it was difficult to even figure if he was actually arrested or just detained.

Anyway... here's more details:

Tobey was handcuffed and briefly held on charges of disorderly conduct. A federal civil rights lawsuit was filed on his behalf, claiming Tobey's First and Fourth Amendment rights were violated.

Now, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson will rule in two weeks on whether or not to dismiss the lawsuit, reports the Associated Press. He also set a tentative trial date for January 18.

Carlotta Wells, an attorney for the federal defendants, said all the TSA did was call for police assistance when Tobey refused the body scan and began stripping and placing his clothes on the X-ray conveyor belt.

"What he was doing was unusual, unexpected and out of the ordinary," she told the AP.

But, all Tobey did was obey the officers' commands, asserts Anand Agneshwar, Tobey's lawyer, according to The Richmond Times-Dispatch. He adds that the TSA and airport police went beyond what was necessary to ensure that his client wasn't a threat.

He went there knowing he would not do the advanced imaging and do that pat-down instead," Tobey's attorney, James Knicely, tells Wired.com. "He was making it easy for them and in the process he wanted to communicate his objection for doing so."

The federal civil rights lawsuit that was filed on Tobey's behalf by the Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties group, claims Tobey's First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights were breached when the student was handcuffed and held for roughly 90 minutes after being detained on charges of disorderly conduct.​

 

[Dale00]

Apparently he was arrested for "being suspicious"

If you think that is ok, then you are way out of line.

 

[deja]

Get back in line, peon.