SATTSO

Yes, a TSO does have to make some advisements, ask if their are painful areas, explain where they are going to touch. And they should be talking to the passengers front, no sneaking up from behind.

However, consent is not needed, as handed down by an appellate court decision I post some time back in another thread. Specifically, in that decision, the passenger withdrew consent to be touched, and the TSO (violating SOP) patted down the passenger anyways (reached into the mans pants pocket to pull something out). The court ruled that at this point, as screening had already begun, no consent was needed, the pat-down had to and was going to happen.

But to note, this does NOT follow SOP. It's just that the court approved of the TSOs actions.

So advisements are required, consent is not needed. I think it is therefor a stretch to say if a TSO touches you without consent it's assault.

bluenotesro

I've never been 'groped' or mishandled at airports in China or Vietnam, two 'communist' countries like I have in the US, a 'free' country....only wanded or a quick pat but never groped.

Absolutley amazing to be treated with respect in a 'communist' country but treated as a criminal in a 'free' country.....I don't get it

Spiff

Touching is one thing. Grabbing from behind is quite another.

SATTSO

So then you agree, if the TSO gives the proper advisements, under our current system of law consent is not needed to touch? Note: I'm not saying/asking if you morally agree, just if you agree that is how our laws current, uh, work, for lack of a better term.

And yes, if someone were to do as described by the OP, I can certainly see a reflex action like elbowing the TSO gut or face. And I don't think the passenger would be charged with assault in this case; nor do I think the TSO would either.

But a complaint to TSA should be filed regarding the TSOs behavior.

Spiff

I've not read the appellate court ruling you cited, but it would seem that a passenger who has begun the screening process cannot withdraw (implied) consent.

The question becomes, what is permitted by law for physical screening? Obviously, physical screening is not unlimited, so the question is where is the line?

SATTSO

I agree, physical screening is not unlimited. However, I think a pat-down even without consent is certainly acceptable.

Spiff

But even then, where is the line? Is "patting" (grabbing) someone's breasts/genitals ok? I'd like to think that such an action is not acceptable.

baliktad

I wouldn't be so sure about that. On the path we're going, physical screening is not limited by any sort of sane, written law, due process, or consent of the people, so I'm not sure what exactly limits the TSA from ANY sort of physical search. And that includes the latex-finger-from-behind type.

SATTSO

There is no TSA procedure of grabbing anyones breast or genitalia. There has been in place a procedure to clear the breast area of women who alarm the WTMD for 8 years. That procedure has NOT changed; but now because of opt outs many women who never experienced this before now do experience it; but it hasn't changed, even with the enhanced pat-down (it has been noted by people on this site that "flesh" can beat the WTMD - and this is true. Many people cover their belt buckle with their hand, and this prevents an alarm. The procedure for clearing breast, depending on the bust size, does require sliding the back of the hand under the breast. And it has nothing to do with the WBI, opt out or enhanced pat-down. It's 8 years old).

And NO TSA procedure cups anyones genital area. The hand slides over the entire body, including that area. Not really a pat-down, actually. And this pat-down is not given to opt outs. It is only used for reason.

Scubatooth

Your right its not assault... It's battery. Consent is still needed as there is no such thing as broadscale implied consent cept in the case of emergency medical treatment as pertains to treatment of persons by lay and professional medical providers.

TSA HQ mgmt is going to have a steep uphill battle defending a policy that advocates criminal activity in court. It will be a loosing battle and the a casualties will be TSA and a few smurfs that got there just desserts for blindsiding some one. Its like riding a motorcycle, it's not if but when the wreck happens.

N965VJ

Noted for future reference.

wutdhec

Thank you for the clarification.

doober

Yet again, you have contradicted yourself. Is it or is it not a pat down?

You also seem to have apparently failed to hear what others have written about being subjected to the very procedure that you say doesn't happen to opt outs.

I want clean gloves on the screener before I am patted down. If I am not given the opportunity to do that, then consent has not been given.

SATTSO

lmao talk about splitting hairs...

There are procedures where we slide our hands on the body. Those procedures are called pat-downs.

So if you really think I have contradicted myself once again, more power to ya..

I agree about clean gloves. But even so that does not mean consent has not been given, even if you don't like it.

ScatterX

I believe TSA is wrong on the basic question of doing this at all. IMO, it's not acceptable to touch and "rub" anyone/everyone or rub them anywhere they please, WITHOUT CAUSE, in order to travel. We have rights, including "to be secure in one's person" and "against unreasonable searches" and "to move freely" and "to enjoy privacy in all matters in which the rights of others are not violated" (among others). The excessive use of "and" is intentional. This is not pick-a-rights day; we get them all. Without reasonable suspicion, invasive searches of people, for no other reason than they want to move around, is a gross overreach.

Great news. But before I get all weepy, please tell me in a constitutional/legal sense, what is the limit*, who gets to decide the limit, and who oversees them?

* - Since the limit seems to change every week, where does it end?

You are not only suggesting that everyone must submit to any search TSA dreams up simply to travel, but that they don't need to consent. Legally speaking, how is this different than strip searching and "rubber-gloving" everyone who happens to drive over a bridge to New York? []Of course, once you're on the bridge, it's too late to go back. You must be guilty of something. Doesn't matter, you have already consented, by choosing to be a traveling American, to whatever search we deem necessary for security.[/]

At a minimum, proper detailed warnings, consent, and an alternative* is necessary. Something like "If you want to get through security, I need to pat you down; because the metal detector went off; please raise your arms. Do you understand and agree." would be a good start. I would give you that consent is implied if the person raised his/her arms after hearing this. This is all very different than "I started rubbing you because you walked into an airport".

* - it's not really consent if you don't have the choice to leave (e.g., be searched or be arrested), is it?

Unless there is sufficient cause for a LEO to detain* someone (or situation such as paramedics would face), searching without consent is NOT acceptable. An airport is not some magic land where the constitution doesn't apply.

* - LEOs can do this, TSOs cannot. There's a reason. It has something to do with the law. The law has something to do with the Constitution. It's kinda cool how this is SUPPOSED to work.

Now please pardon me while I do a double back-flip-McTwisty off my soap box.

I call BS. Many people, myself included on numerous occasions, have been subjected to a whatever-you-want-call-it full body rub for OPTING OUT. There was no REASON, reasonable suspicion, etc. for this. It was specifically because I opted out.

There's no procedure for wasting tax dollars. Therefore, that never happens, huh?

Play semantics with "cup" all you want. This "non-SOP" is happening on a trial basis in some locations and just happens in others. People are having their GENITALS cupped, fondled, caressed, squeezed, or rubbed when no reasonable suspicion of anything exists.