Court says TSA engaged in unlawful search. (Fofana)
Jun 22, 2009, 8:47 pm
#31
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,524
Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner.
It is only a District Court case, and TSA will likely want to appeal. If I was DHS OGC, I'd counsel against an appeal, because if they lose, it will have broader impact. That said, the timing couldn't be better, as DHS has to deal with the ACLU lawsuit as well.
Also, as another poster has noted, it does signal this court's "unwillingness to accept TSA's "anything for security" rationale for its unconstitutional acts."
I'm hoping they do appeal, and we get chance to get a decision contrary to the Davis case from the Ninth Circuit. Ready made for the SC....
It is only a District Court case, and TSA will likely want to appeal. If I was DHS OGC, I'd counsel against an appeal, because if they lose, it will have broader impact. That said, the timing couldn't be better, as DHS has to deal with the ACLU lawsuit as well.
Also, as another poster has noted, it does signal this court's "unwillingness to accept TSA's "anything for security" rationale for its unconstitutional acts."
I'm hoping they do appeal, and we get chance to get a decision contrary to the Davis case from the Ninth Circuit. Ready made for the SC....
Jun 22, 2009, 8:59 pm
#32
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
As pointed out before, no TSO is going to receive a written reprimand or worse for failing to report a non-aviation item to an LEO. For the same reason that the TSA is not giving rewards for finding these type of items, the TSA is not able to discipline TSO's for failing to find and report them.
TSO's should really consider disregarding those items in the future so they are not faced with this type of situation. I don't envision negative repercussions ignoring them.
Jun 23, 2009, 12:09 am
#33
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,766
Very good news indeed.
I haven't read the whole ruling, just PTravel's excerpts (thanks!), but I think the most significant line is the final one:
^^^
I'm tucking that one away as the answer to the TSA's insistent claim of "by entering the checkpoint you've agreed to submit to anything we feel like doing."
In other words, the need for heightened security does not render every conceivable checkpoint search procedure constitutionally reasonable.
I'm tucking that one away as the answer to the TSA's insistent claim of "by entering the checkpoint you've agreed to submit to anything we feel like doing."
Jun 23, 2009, 2:32 am
#35
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
It stems from this post by Francine on the TSA blog. http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2008/08/furt...ue-on-ids.html
Jun 23, 2009, 5:24 am
#36
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,524
Very good news indeed.
I haven't read the whole ruling, just PTravel's excerpts (thanks!), but I think the most significant line is the final one:
^^^
I'm tucking that one away as the answer to the TSA's insistent claim of "by entering the checkpoint you've agreed to submit to anything we feel like doing."
I haven't read the whole ruling, just PTravel's excerpts (thanks!), but I think the most significant line is the final one:
^^^
I'm tucking that one away as the answer to the TSA's insistent claim of "by entering the checkpoint you've agreed to submit to anything we feel like doing."
Anyone who would like a copy of the decision, PM me.
Jun 23, 2009, 6:01 am
#38
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,524
I do know that this case and the ACLU case have raised eyebrows at DHS HQ at the way TSA is running their shop.
Jun 23, 2009, 7:23 am
#40
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Upstate NY or FL or inbetween
Programs: US former CP Looking for a new airline to love me
Posts: 1,674
Jun 23, 2009, 8:09 am
#41
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,524
Oh right, no-one at the parent agency, DHS, knew that TSA, being given the right to perform unlimited administrative searches, clearly and continuously, as a matter of policy even, transformed these administrative searches into criminal ones. (Of course I don't doubt DHS are rehearsing that position, to leave TSA twisting in the wind.) Whether the upcoming smackdown gets TSA only, or spreads to DHS as well, doesn't matter. Either way, its satisfying and very enjoyable to watch.
In the case of DHS and TSA, remember that TSA predates DHS - it was created as an agency of DOT almost a year prior to the creation of DHS. Thus, TSA's regulations were largely already in place once they transferred over to DHS. Given the inherent problems associated with the creation of an entirely new Deaprtment, it wouldn't surprise me in the least bit that DHS OGC wasn't in a position for some time to exercise direct supervision of TSA operations.
However, DHS OGC is fully staffed (almost), and I know for a fact these two legal actions have focused their attention on TSA operations.
Jun 23, 2009, 8:21 am
#42
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: HSV
Posts: 876
Originally Posted by AngryMiller
I'm rather surprised that none of the shills for TSA have dropped by to say anything about this decision since it will effect the screening process.
Originally Posted by halls120
Good question. Perhaps TSA has put a gag order out.
No, I just don't write anything unless I have something to say.
Jun 23, 2009, 8:25 am
#43
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,083
Surely someone is hearing the drum beat of discontent from people who may well impact the next election.
Jun 23, 2009, 8:44 am
#45
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: HSV
Posts: 876
Originally Posted by halls120
Wow, Dean, I guess your missed my
missed my And I'll see your
and raise you a 