Flyer at SAN says no to grope, escorted from checkpoint by LEO, threatened with suit
Nov 16, 2010, 10:01 am
#271
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Somewhere near BWI
Programs: DL DM, HH Dia, SPG Gold, MR Plat, Hertz PC
Posts: 3,654
I agree with this and, further, view it as simply the fact that TSA does not care what they look like, as long as they can vilify the passengers that refuse to blindly comply.
Nov 16, 2010, 10:02 am
#272
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Nashville, TN - BNA
Programs: Hilton Gold, WN RR
Posts: 1,818
WOW. Do they really want to do this? Here's another article, from the Chicago Tribune, in which the SAN field director claims they can conduct these searches under the 4th Amendment:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,2174559.story
Seriously, this is going to do nothing but galvanize the anti-TSA forces. That eleven thousand dollars will be raised online in a matter of minutes. I know I'd personally donate. There's already a Facebook page although only a few members...http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-Supp...0775348?v=wall
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,2174559.story
Man faces $11K fine for refusing TSA screening
SAN DIEGO — An Oceanside man who blogged about a confrontation with security officials at the San Diego airport could be slapped with a civil penalty of up to $11,000 for violating federal law, a Transportation Security Administration official said Monday.
"What he's done, he's violated federal law and federal regulations which states once you enter and start the process you have to complete it," said Michael Aguilar...."Once a passenger has entered into that screening process, he cannot opt out of it,'' Aguilar said. "We conduct our screenings under the auspices of the 4th amendment...constitution of the 4th amendment that allows us to do administrative screenings and searches."
SAN DIEGO — An Oceanside man who blogged about a confrontation with security officials at the San Diego airport could be slapped with a civil penalty of up to $11,000 for violating federal law, a Transportation Security Administration official said Monday.
"What he's done, he's violated federal law and federal regulations which states once you enter and start the process you have to complete it," said Michael Aguilar...."Once a passenger has entered into that screening process, he cannot opt out of it,'' Aguilar said. "We conduct our screenings under the auspices of the 4th amendment...constitution of the 4th amendment that allows us to do administrative screenings and searches."
Last edited by divemistressofthedark; Nov 16, 2010 at 10:08 am
Nov 16, 2010, 10:04 am
#273
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: DTW
Programs: DL 0.22 MM, AA 0.34 MM, PC Plat Amb, Hertz #1 GC 5*
Posts: 7,511
Also, they might try C.1.C., or "False Threats", if they thought they could get away with saying that stating you'd call an LEO a "threat". $1000-$2000.
One of the issues that I have with the whole "point of no return" concept is how can anyone validly give consent to something without knowing, in advance, what actual action(s) it is that they are consenting to?
If I pass a certain line, with the understanding that my passing said line evidences consent to X, Y, Z, and only X, Y, and Z occurs, then that's (possibly) fine.
But when the other party adds action(s) A, B, and/or C to what occurs upon my passing said line, and without advising me that such actions would, in fact, occur, then I think that you've got a consent problem.
Simply advising me that actions A/B/C could occur is not enough; I think that you have to advise me that actions A/B/C will occur.
Furthermore, what if I consent only to the occurrence of action Z, and not to any of the other actions?
The whole concept of a fine* for not consenting to, or for revising/amending one's consent during, the security process is ridiculous. That the TSA apparently feels that it has the authority to change the rules of the game midway through the process, but that I do not, speaks volumes about its mindset.
* Particularly to a fine that has an undefined, or ill-defined, value.
If I pass a certain line, with the understanding that my passing said line evidences consent to X, Y, Z, and only X, Y, and Z occurs, then that's (possibly) fine.
But when the other party adds action(s) A, B, and/or C to what occurs upon my passing said line, and without advising me that such actions would, in fact, occur, then I think that you've got a consent problem.
Simply advising me that actions A/B/C could occur is not enough; I think that you have to advise me that actions A/B/C will occur.
Furthermore, what if I consent only to the occurrence of action Z, and not to any of the other actions?
The whole concept of a fine* for not consenting to, or for revising/amending one's consent during, the security process is ridiculous. That the TSA apparently feels that it has the authority to change the rules of the game midway through the process, but that I do not, speaks volumes about its mindset.
* Particularly to a fine that has an undefined, or ill-defined, value.
Last edited by sbagdon; Nov 16, 2010 at 10:10 am
Nov 16, 2010, 10:07 am
#274
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Houston
Programs: CO Platinum
Posts: 283
The law is listed below. The vagueness is that applicability is "in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access to that are." But nowhere can this law supercede the Fourth Amendment.
In other words, the fine is not supported in actual codified law, but in procedures (which are not public). In other words, this implies that TSA can make authority via procedure, which in itself is likely a violation of civil rights.
1540.107 Submission to screening and inspection.
No individual may enter a sterile area or board an aircraft without submitting to the screening and inspection of his or her person and accessible property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access to that area or aircraft under this subchapter.
In other words, the fine is not supported in actual codified law, but in procedures (which are not public). In other words, this implies that TSA can make authority via procedure, which in itself is likely a violation of civil rights.
1540.107 Submission to screening and inspection.
No individual may enter a sterile area or board an aircraft without submitting to the screening and inspection of his or her person and accessible property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access to that area or aircraft under this subchapter.
Nov 16, 2010, 10:07 am
#275
Join Date: Jun 2007
Programs: M&M, AA GLD, FB
Posts: 233
Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Nov 16, 2010, 10:35 am
#276
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Sunshine State
Programs: Deltaworst Peon Level, TSA "Layer 21 Club", NW WP RIP
Posts: 11,370
This story is up at the Huffington Post: Man Confronts TSA Screeners Over Pat-Downs: 'If You Touch My Junk' I'll Have You Arrested John Tyner Video Tapes Refusal Of X-Ray At San Diego Airport, Civil Suit Pending with direct links to the videos. ^
Over 5000 comments (heavy traffic). Mostly FT type "Why does TSA shred the Constitution yet not screen all the cargo?" Yet still what appear to be serious non tro!! surrender monkeys "I'll take the xray and a fiber optic up my colin IF IT WILL KEEP MY PLANE FROM BLOWING OUT OF THE SKY" Sigh.
Over 5000 comments (heavy traffic). Mostly FT type "Why does TSA shred the Constitution yet not screen all the cargo?" Yet still what appear to be serious non tro!! surrender monkeys "I'll take the xray and a fiber optic up my colin IF IT WILL KEEP MY PLANE FROM BLOWING OUT OF THE SKY" Sigh.
Nov 16, 2010, 10:39 am
#277
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: San Diego
Programs: Delta Gold Medallion | SPG Gold
Posts: 259
the guy started the whole problem when he said "if you touch my junk i'll have you arrested". It's his own damn fault that a supervisor was called over. Even where I work if we are threatened with a lawsuit the manager is brought in and the person is escorted from the store. The guys made a stupid comment and tries to make it sound like it's not his fault. Stop making stupid comments and there wouldn't be such a problem.
Nov 16, 2010, 10:40 am
#278
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NY Metro Area
Programs: AA 2MM Yay!, UA MM, Costco General Member
Posts: 49,121
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)
Well, the TSA can do whatever they want to my colin too, provided Colin doesn't object 
Originally Posted by Flaflyer
This story is up at the Huffington Post: Man Confronts TSA Screeners Over Pat-Downs: 'If You Touch My Junk' I'll Have You Arrested John Tyner Video Tapes Refusal Of X-Ray At San Diego Airport, Civil Suit Pending with direct links to the videos. ^
Over 5000 comments (heavy traffic). Mostly FT type "Why does TSA shred the Constitution yet not screen all the cargo?" Yet still what appear to be serious non tro!! surrender monkeys "I'll take the xray and a fiber optic up my colin IF IT WILL KEEP MY PLANE FROM BLOWING OUT OF THE SKY" Sigh.
Over 5000 comments (heavy traffic). Mostly FT type "Why does TSA shred the Constitution yet not screen all the cargo?" Yet still what appear to be serious non tro!! surrender monkeys "I'll take the xray and a fiber optic up my colin IF IT WILL KEEP MY PLANE FROM BLOWING OUT OF THE SKY" Sigh.
Nov 16, 2010, 10:42 am
#279
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: LAX
Posts: 6,769
People are not objects. You don't own Colin!
Nov 16, 2010, 10:43 am
#280
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Nashville, TN - BNA
Programs: Hilton Gold, WN RR
Posts: 1,818
The issue isn't "the guy made a stupid comment." It's that our government is using ham-handed tactics to threaten a man exercising his rights under the Constitution, and virtually daring we civil libertarians to do something about it.
Nov 16, 2010, 10:47 am
#281
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 10,037
the guy started the whole problem when he said "if you touch my junk i'll have you arrested". It's his own damn fault that a supervisor was called over. Even where I work if we are threatened with a lawsuit the manager is brought in and the person is escorted from the store. The guys made a stupid comment and tries to make it sound like it's not his fault. Stop making stupid comments and there wouldn't be such a problem.
How is what he said different than what the TSA is saying? He threatened arrest, TSA constantly threatens with lawsuits and/or fines.
If there's a set of rules about this kind of stuff displayed at airports (and don't refer to the "no jokes" signs), then please point them out.
Nov 16, 2010, 10:52 am
#282
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5
This is in the category of:
As long as you are not saying anything you aren't supposed to say, why do you care if the government is listening?
I had no idea what they were going to do to me when I was subjected to the "enhanced and more invasive" pat down (their term) after being randomly selected at Dulles. Had I known I might have made a stupid comment.
I am planning my stupid comments for the next time this happens. I want them to be as uncomfortable with their jobs as possible.
Thankfully some are willing to make stupid comments.
As long as you are not saying anything you aren't supposed to say, why do you care if the government is listening?
I had no idea what they were going to do to me when I was subjected to the "enhanced and more invasive" pat down (their term) after being randomly selected at Dulles. Had I known I might have made a stupid comment.
I am planning my stupid comments for the next time this happens. I want them to be as uncomfortable with their jobs as possible.
Thankfully some are willing to make stupid comments.
Nov 16, 2010, 10:53 am
#283
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: TPA,DTW
Posts: 254
the guy started the whole problem when he said "if you touch my junk i'll have you arrested". It's his own damn fault that a supervisor was called over. Even where I work if we are threatened with a lawsuit the manager is brought in and the person is escorted from the store. The guys made a stupid comment and tries to make it sound like it's not his fault. Stop making stupid comments and there wouldn't be such a problem.
Nov 16, 2010, 10:54 am
#284
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: YOW
Programs: Aero-something
Posts: 125
I know the TSA falls under Federal regs, but don't the airlines have at least some say when a thrid party (i.e the Govt) is harassing it's paying customers?
Nov 16, 2010, 11:04 am
#285
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DCA / WAS
Programs: DL 2+ million/PM, YX, Marriott Plt, *wood gold, HHonors, CO Plt, UA, AA EXP, WN, AGR
Posts: 9,388