Anything short of a complete bow to the authority of the TSA results in secondary screening. Failure to answer questions, either deliberately or because you don’t speak English, would most likely result in a retaliatory search with a side of ball rubbing.

In other words, speaking English is now a requirement to travel freely (e.g., without unreasonable searches) in the US. All hail the providers of security theater at all costs.

I would like to add to #1, and IANAL. There is no "Constitutional" administrative search. It was carved out by the courts in the 1960's for totally unrelated reasons and has been expanded and applied far beyond the courts original intention. Subsequent opinions have added to the scope and breadth of the administrative search to the point that TSA feels everything it does applies under various interpretations and the 4th amendment is inoperative at their CP. The phrase "Administrative Search" is used to effectively silence its critics.

Good point.

Same as refusing to answer, you get the enhanced security, either AIT or patdown, etc.

I was still directed to the AIT anyway and opted out.

Where I 'm going is fair game - it's on the ticket. What and how long I'm going to be there isn't, and if any TSA clerk thinks he/she is getting that infomation from me, they are in for a rude awakening.

The last time I was at IAD, the clerk played that game with a teenager who was traveling with his mother. I was standing right behind them, and visibly registered my disgust. I think the clerk was going to play the same game with me, but thought better of it.

The same here, amazing when you are getting "pat-down" anyway why answer any of their questions. I read more of his facial micro-expressions than he saw of mine.

^^^^^^^
Administrative search contradicts the black and white language of the 4th Amendment. You don't need to be a lawyer to understand what that Amendment means--it is uncommonly clear. If people want to get rid of it, fine, get rid of it by amending it out. That requires a vote.

There are good solutions and bad solutions and allowing this violation of a basic right guarantees a bad solution that results in granny strip searches. If the limits of the 4th are respected, you will only get good solutions that everyone can live with.

(After cleaning off the spittle from my computer monitor...)

Outstanding answer. "Where are you going," will get, "I'm going to XYZ, as it says on my boarding pass. Why, can you recommend a good restaurant?," unless I'm going to Las Vegas, in which case the answer will be, "Pahrump. I want to check out the buffets."

Mike

No, it isn't because of the word "unreasonable". It says that searches are permitted unless they're "unreasonable". That can mean a lot of things, including "doesn't have a reason". So you most certainly do need to understand a lot of cases to understand what the 4th Amendment means!

At SFO Intl terminal I was amongst Japanese, Koreans and Germans who 'did not understand the question' (or frankly did not understand the strong regional US accent) when the TDC wanted to play the name game.

I was shouted at many times in English (because, you know, shouting English louder makes someone who doesn't speak the language suddenly understand) The TDC finally gave up on me and began to shriek at and bully the Japanese and the Koreans behind me. :rolleyes:

Nice final departure memory of their US trip, I am certain...

Richard, we have discussed this before. The reasonableness is defined in the amendment.

A reasonable search is one that is due to a Warrant, the warrant having been obtained by probable cause by an oath or affirmation stating the place of the search and what they are looking for.

Everything after the semi-colon defines what makes it reasonable.

But, that is my opinion and since IANAL, my opinion is of little or no value.

It has never been understood to mean "lacks a reason". Of course there is always some reason. This clause refers to what a normal person would consider reasonable. Mostly, it refers to causes justifying the issuance of a warrant. Under exigencies (ie, an LEO in a crack house wanting to search a homie with a revolver sized bulge in his shirt) the reasonable clause could be used as well NOT in conjunction with obtaining a warrant.

No sane person in our country could possibly conclude that it is reasonable to require people to take off their clothes (with or without aid of machines) or require them to allow agents to feel their sexual organs and private parts, to conduct those types of searches on people who have not occasioned such a search other than by the fact that they are transiting onto some mode of transportation.

You cannot get around the fact that such searches are offensive and unreasonable to passengers. The TSA's "reasons" for wanting this does not replace the standard by which the people affected are judging this.
Clearly, we think it is unreasonable.

I suppose the inability to understand English earns you the same thing as a speech block, and that is an enhanced grope and additional paws in all of your stuff, with a special trip to a private room should the magic swab machine throw up a false positive.

But I could be wrong, maybe one of the resident TSOs can answer -- What happens if the passenger either doesn't understand English, or is unable to respond verbally to questions due to a disability?

Clearly this is not an issue, because the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the SPOT program have included funds for speakers of dozens of languages, who are standing by at a moment's notice to help interrogate passengers flying out of Boston and Detroit.

;)