Originally Posted by
SgtScott31
Last I checked, walking into the checkpoint IS consenting to adhere to screening procedures to board an aircraft. Call it what you want, but no one is twisting your arm to have you and your belongings searched. It seems that the US Justices agree on this as well. I guess they're just supporting "hogwash."
Although the Aukai ruling occurred under TSA's time, I think the outcome would have been the same would it have been contract security who discovered the drugs in Aukai's pocket(s). Whether TSA or contract doing the screening, it is TSA/DHS policies that the screeners must adhere to. The contract companies do not make up seperate (non-governmental) policies to enforce at federally-mandated checkpoints.
...
Well, you are correct, currently, under the highest court ruling such a challenge has ever reached, IIRC. Good luck keeping the courts aligned with you, going forward, as you keep reciting the mantra that all who enter the sanctity of an airport check-point "implicitly consented" to your "probable cause" conclusions simply because eg, one is carrying > $10,000 in cash, took photographs of your sanctified little area, or otherwise disrupted the happy-faced, facile dragnet you seem to have constructed at BNA. And now you feel qualified to conclude what a court ruling would have been in a different time with different evidence? When earlier in the post, referring to a circuit court decision, you use such loose, impenetrable terms as "US justices?",
You are one simple, but very dangerous person, and nothing you wrote since you first appeared here makes me want to do anything save give BNA as wide of a berth as feasible. We're probably both a lot happier that way.
