tanja

You are so 100 % correct.

Like I said somewere in this forum. The people promote and are all for this naked-groping hysteria at USA's airports. They most have to little of that in their own lifes. So they get their "what ever" satisfied by doing it to innocent travelling people.

raehl311

On that point I completely agree. And I completely agree that that is a totally legitimate objection to their use. I also agree that the only alternative to objecting to being exposed to radiation being submitting to "very thorough" manual inspection also being unsuitable.

And while I agree that they are not the TSA's business, no one seems to be able to explain what the problem with having an image of such incidental to the search is.

The TSA agent sees your johnson/hoo-ha. And then... what? Why does it matter?


The radiation might give you cancer. An image of your johnson doesn't do anything.

Do you have a specific ruling to cite there?

It may not involve physical contact, but I would still qualify it as a physical search. It's also far different from a non-identifiable image on a monitor.

MikeMpls

With some people, that's all that matters. Privacy & modelsty are important to them, and it's neither your place nor the government's place to violate that.

Boggie Dog

Both are unreasonable!

raehl311

That's ridiculous.

No one gets to single-handedly decide what their inviolable rights are, and society absolutely gets to place limits on the extent of people's rights, and society usually does that through government. (Less advanced societies do it by stoning.)

You have the right to property, but not so much that you can't be required to pay taxes.

You have the right to freedom of movement, but not so much that you can trespass on someone else's property.

You have the right to freedom of expression, but not so much that you can walk down the street naked. (Although, I'm not a big fan of that limit either.)

You have the right to privacy, but maybe not so much that you can board a commercial airline without someone looking at a non-identifiable image of your body on a monitor.


"I have the right to whatever I want regardless of anyone else's rights" is not a right that exists.

essxjay

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, raehl311. Nevertheless, your opinion has no bearing on fact or compelling force on others.

Speaking only for yourself, of course.

PTravel

Sorry, but you're incorrect. Per the courts (and a long history of decisions), administrative searches are not violative of the 4th Amendment, and refusal to allow you to fly on commercial aircraft does not implicate your right to travel.

Again, no. That's not what the 10th Amendment means, nor is it in anyway relevant to the issue of TSA searches exceeding the powers granted the government.

There's no such thing as an, "incorporation clause." You're probably referring to the doctrine of selective incorporation, by which specific elements of the Bill of Rights are incorporated through the 14th Amendment to apply to state government. All of the Bill of Rights, with the exception of parts of the 8th Amendment and, arguably, the 2nd Amendment have been selectively incorporated.

Which power? The right to refuse access to commercial aircraft? You need to read the court decisions.

I suppose it may be said, but it is still wrong. You don't waive rights by virtue of having bought an airline ticket.

It's not. However, even if it was, it would have absolutely nothing to do with constitutional rights or their waiver.

No, that's not the question. If an airline required that you be strip searched before boarding, the Constitution wouldn't be implicated in any way.

It can't.

It can't.

They don't.

Your conclusion is correct. Your analysis, however, is not.

PoliceStateSurvivor

Here is a rather definitve authority on this subject

http://openjurist.org/324/f2d/450/york-v-story

Note Paragraph 21, which says:

We cannot conceive of a more basic subject of privacy than the naked body. The desire to shield one's unclothed figured from view of strangers, and particularly strangers of the opposite sex, is impelled by elementary self-respect and personal dignity.

Any questions?

raehl311

Why didn't you quote the full paragraph?

We cannot conceive of a more basic subject of privacy than the naked body. The desire to shield one's unclothed figured from view of strangers, and particularly strangers of the opposite sex, is impelled by elementary self-respect and personal dignity. A search of one's home has been established to be an invasion of one's privacy against intrusion by the police, which, if 'unreasonable,' is arbitrary and therefore banned under the Fourth Amendment.11 We do not see how it can be argued that the searching of one's home deprives him of privacy, but the photographing of one's nude body, and the distribution of such photographs to strangers does not.


In the opinion you are citing (from 1963), the identifiable photos were taken for no legitimate purpose and distributed to members of the opposite sex.

The opinion doesn't address non-identifiable photos, photos taken for a legitimate purpose, photos not distributed, and photos not seen by the opposing gender.


We're talking about a picture no one can even tell is you.

PoliceStateSurvivor

I quoted the part of the paragraph that specifically addresses the question we are discussing - privacy of the naked body.

The opinion does not say that it is OK to take nude pictures as long as they are not identifiable, does it? On the contrary, it asserts a very broad right to privacy in one's own body.

BTW, IANAL. Do any of the resident lawyers here know if this opinion has been overturned?

PTravel

The opinion has not been reversed, though it has been distinguished. Also, a key element of the decision was the fact that the photographs at issue in Story were not taken for any legitimate police purpose. The question at issue is addressed somewhat in Grummett v. Rushen, 779 F.2d 491 (9th Cir. 1985), which establishes the standard for infringement of the bodily privacy right in this context (the case involved female corrections officers viewing male inmates nude and partially nude), which is a compelling state interest. In that case, the 9th Circuit determined that the circumstances justified a sufficient state interest.

I think it may be possible to frame a constitutional argument for WBI, though not necessarily the way it is presently conducted (and please note that I am not saying WBI passes constitutional muster). There is no constitutional argument that I can think of that would justify subjecting passengers to potentially-dangerous x-ray radiation, particularly in the context in which it is done at airports.

MikeMpls

More generally, the government cannot require you to give up one right so as to exercise another. In the wording of the framers, your rights are "inalienable".

InkUnderNails

Well that is good to know.

I will accept your corrections to the rest. I am not a constitutional expert. I just try to understand it it layman's terms. So, help me out a bit.

How is it that administrative searches are allowed constitutionally?

I think I understand that the constitution is not applicable between parties in a contract, such as the contract of carriage between me and the airline. Is this correct?

Then where does the TSA get its authority? Please, not the doctrinal thesis version the Sunday comics one.

This is what I really do not understand. The TSA is a government agency with a pseudo-law enforcement appearance. Why are they not subject to the same restrictions as other government agencies?

Thanks.

PTravel

It's been a while since I've looked at this, but my recollection was the test was, "important state purpose," and, "minimally intrusive."

Yes, that's correct.

TSA comes under the Executive Branch. The authorization is found in Article II, Section 1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America

TSA is not a law enforcement agency.

They are subject to the same constitutional restrictions as every state actor, including other government agencies.

tom911

And you feel this way about 6 year old boys and girls being screened, too? I don't want the TSA screeners looking at any naked children, more so than adults. Looks like the U.K. has already addressed this by banning children from the new equipment.