New Arrests in San Diego

[Fredd]

Originally Posted by Ari

Already being discussed:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...o-tactics.html

Thanks. Sorry I missed that one. There's a lot of info floating around and that's why I'm trying to make the title of any thread I start as descriptive as possible.

The mods may wish to merge these.

[Ari]

Originally Posted by Fredd

Thanks. Sorry I missed that one. There's a lot of info floating around and that's why I'm trying to make the title of any thread I start as descriptive as possible.

I can't imagine how you missed the other thread.

[flyr16]

Outstanding.

We need more clever approaches such as this to demonstrate the utter idiocy and of these pat downs.

[Fredd]

Originally Posted by Ari

I can't imagine how you missed the other thread.

I try to avoid Godwin's Law. In this instance I also noted in the thread title "new arrests at San Diego Airport" along with the Calvins and the photos.

Again, I'm sorry I missed it and I myself am very pleased at the flood of information that is finally making its way into the consciousness of the general public, even if we end up with the odd duplication here.

Edited to add: Thanks for merging them mods!

[Ari]

Originally Posted by Fredd

I try to avoid Godwin's Law. In this instance I also noted in the thread title "new arrests at San Diego Airport" along with the Calvins and the photos.

Again, I'm sorry I missed it and I myself am very pleased at the flood of information that is finally making its way into the consciousness of the general public, even if we end up with the odd duplication here.

Edited to add: Thanks for merging them mods!

I for one am GLAD you missed it since I might not have clicked on the other thread.

[PTravel]

Originally Posted by RichardKenner

Airport rule. The article says the charges were local, not Federal. Likely not constitutional, either.

I've found the Rule, I think. this is section 7.01(b):

No person shall enter upon the sterile, restricted or limited access areas at the Facilities, or any Security Identification Display Area at the Facilities, except a person in compliance with one or more of the following provisions:
(1) If the Facility is an airport, then such person shall complete successfully all portions of the airline passenger pre-boarding inspection process to the satisfaction of the appropriate controlling authority and shall afterwards remain only in authorized locations maintained for passenger embarkation and debarkation.

This is a dead loser -- Mr. Personality didn't enter upon the sterile, restricted or limited access areas.

Here is Rule 7.14:

(a) No person shall take still, motion or sound motion pictures or voice recordings on the facilities and airports under the jurisdiction of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (the “Authority”) without written permission from the Authority’s Executive Director or his or her designee.
(b) Filming of X-ray equipment located on the facilities and airports under the jurisdiction of the Authority is strictly prohibited. Any person(s) caught filming such X-ray equipment may have their film confiscated.

In my opinion, this Rule violates both the 1st and 5th Amendments.

[Ari]

Originally Posted by PTravel

I've found the Rule, I think. this is section 7.01(b):

This is a dead loser -- Mr. Personality didn't enter upon the sterile, restricted or limited access areas.

Here is Rule 7.14:



In my opinion, this Rule violates both the 1st and 5th Amendments.

Where did you find them?

[sbagdon]

Originally Posted by sbagdon

Wolanyk said he knew what was coming and took off his pants and shirt, leaving him in Calvin Klein bike undergarments.

I figure that they're referring to something such as this:
http://www.freshpair.com/Calvin-Klei...LAID=596238028

Keeping this on topic... is there an operational reason that someone wearing this item wouldn't be permitted to be searched? Would they be sent to private screening, and told to remove the item? And if so, why?

If the TSO refused to do the pat-down until they wore more clothes? Oh my word. Let the drama begin.

New challenge... how little can you wear when going through TSA?

If the TSO had a reasonable reason to refuse this... what was it?

Someone get this over to Fox and CNN!

Thought about this. The only TSA reg that I could imagine exists is that when the individual enters the WTMD/ATI, they must have empty hands except for a boarding pass. So pat-down may not occur if either anything is on the floor, or in their hands.

So if this were to work, all clothing removed would have to be put through the carry-on xray, so that when pat-down occurred, nothing was on the floor, or in their hands (such as pants or a shirt).

Outside of that, I can only imagine that any dress-code would have to be airport or local regs.

Having images of one of those Hollywood/commercial outer layers, where you'd pull the front of the pants/shirt, and the entire outfit would come off (velcro seams in the back?). That would be too funny.

[AUS2008]

Originally Posted by N965VJ

“It was obvious that my underwear left nothing to the imagination,” he explained. “But that wasn’t enough for the TSA supervisor who was called to the scene and asked me to put my clothes on so I could be properly patted down.”

Wouldn't not being encumbered with extra clothes make it easier to to a pat down? What if someone was wearing beach attire or bicycle shorts?

Hmmm...maybe that should be my strategy at LAX next Sunday. Too bad I'm not in as good a shape as I used to be. (not obese, but not buff). Bike shorts and a jog bra.

Also...for T4 at LAX (AA), are all the lines equipped with NOS?
So far this month, I've avoided NOS airports, except MCO, where they weren't using it much. (just the usual bad attitude guy at xray, though the other agent was really nice)

[PTravel]

Originally Posted by Ari

Where did you find them?

Google search took me to the airport website. Searching the site got me got me to these specific rules. I couldn't find a link that took me to the rules directly on the site, nor could I find a link that listed all the rules together.

[bpshell]

Originally Posted by PTravel

Google search took me to the airport website.

http://www.san.org/sdcraa/about_us/codes_policies.aspx

for the complete set (chopped up into itty bitty PDF pages).

[Cass314]

Though I have absolutely no sympathy for the TSA at this point...searching him in his underwear would have been just as big a PR disaster, except the headline would have been "TSA Strip Searches Man Down to Underwear in Public Terminal". Obviously they completely overreacted by arresting the guy when he refused to put his pants back on, and obviously someone there was power-tripping like crazy (and even more obviously, this isn't about safety anymore, but rather about trying to control the current PR disaster so the power grab can continue), but this guy knew what he was doing; no matter how they reacted, he could get a story out of it. But again, it's the TSA's own fault that their "options" are so ridiculous and draconian that no matter what a traveler does, they can get a story out of it.

[mikemey]

I don't get why they needed him to put his clothes back on in order to do a proper pat down.

They could still grope him in his underwear.

If I were on a jury for his trial, his acquittal would be that much closer.

[Fredd]

Originally Posted by mikemey

I don't get why they needed him to put his clothes back on in order to do a proper pat down.

They could still grope him in his underwear.

If I were on a jury for his trial, his acquittal would be that much closer.

As I said up-thread, it was the TSA that refused to search him. It seems to me that the employees refusing to search should be the ones arrested for “failing to complete the security process; violation code 7.01."

[eyecue]

" A visual inspection is not allowed." Never has been. If he showed bare skin by dropping clothes that is one thing but he probably told them that they could not touch him after he stripped to his Lycra shorts.