Originally Posted by mizzou65201
The other important factor in your particular incident, GradGirl, is intent. If you think you can prove that the screener <i>intended</i> to touch you in that area with the wand, then you would perhaps have a case. But, if the touching was accidental, you would not have met the requisite intent.
you are absolutely correct, mizzou, and I believe the touching was accidental. I did not pursue criminal prosecution, but I feel the TSA is negligent for placing passengers at risk of being touched in this way. It was no less disturbing for being lawful behavior.
Originally Posted by mizzou65201
But the previous poster is also correct. Implied consent (or explicit consent for that matter) has limits. If the TSA asks you to take your pants off, it is reasonable to conclude that this is beyond the reach of the implied consent. The legal question then becomes less one of whether TSA can make you take your pants off, but one of whether TSA can deny your right to fly for not granting that consent. That's where we get into the sticky "right to travel" issues I'm researching.
Shouldn't consent include a description of the search consented to? Why don't passengers have the right to halt a search at any time because it has gone beyond the bounds of what they wish to consent to? The TSA indeed asks people to take off parts of clothing without which they feel indecently exposed - doesn't this count as beyond the reach of implied consent?