![]() |
I'm not sure you'll find a lawyer willing to take the case. :o
|
Originally Posted by saizai
(Post 26071666)
BTW, when was the liquid ban started? The oldest policy document I have is dated Sept. 2006, but it says it's reiterating / clarifying a previous policy.
|
Originally Posted by saizai
(Post 26071666)
BTW, when was the liquid ban started? The oldest policy document I have is dated Sept. 2006, but it says it's reiterating / clarifying a previous policy. |
Originally Posted by Ari
(Post 26072335)
I'm not sure you'll find a lawyer willing to take the case. :o
Originally Posted by Himeno
(Post 26072361)
10 Aug 06.
|
We announced 3-1-1 on September 26, 2006 and that allowed travelers to go on overnight trips without having to check a bag. That is the trade-off: if 3-1-1 is too complicated, you can always just check your bag http://www.budgettravel.com/blog/the...ds-rules,9653/ |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 26074840)
Archive.org has 'em: https://web.archive.org/web/20111011...been-many.html https://web.archive.org/web/20120609...do-things.html This is one of the many reasons why making regulations by blog post is illegal. Fortunately, that is a thing that I can bring in my extant litigation. |
Originally Posted by saizai
(Post 26074493)
Source?
The UK arrests that led to the whole thing were carried out on the night of 9 August 2006. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_t..._aircraft_plot |
Tilting. Windmills. And IAAL.
|
Shouldn't the first question to be asked and answered is if TSA has the authority to limit items that are not WEI? If TSA can limit anything for any reason then this action is a non-starter.
|
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 26077380)
Shouldn't the first question to be asked and answered is if TSA has the authority to limit items that are not WEI? If TSA can limit anything for any reason then this action is a non-starter.
US v. Davis, 482 F. 2d 893, 913 (9th Cir. 1973) "a screening of passengers and of the articles that will be accessible to them in flight does not exceed constitutional limitations provided that the screening process is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives, that it is confined in good faith to that purpose, and that potential passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly." Agreed with by every court to consider it, and reflected in current TSA policy statements. Juice is obviously not dangerous, whether in 2oz, 50oz, or 5 gallons. TSA is quite capable of distinguishing juice from WEI. QED. To put it more simply, there are two basic questions IMO: 1. Should TSA be allowed to refuse to screen liquids that are properly presented for screening, and within TSA's capability to screen, unless TSA first makes a medical determination of necessity? 2. Should TSA be allowed to refuse travel to someone on the basis of items that have been screened and cleared as not WEI? Remember, I'm not objecting to them screening it. They're welcome to screen my liquids, so long as they don't damage them in the process, which their current screening policies do not risk. To the contrary, I insist that they screen it — and that I be allowed to travel with things that have passed screening, without interrogation or medical determinations made by people who have no business doing so. |
Originally Posted by Djlawman
(Post 26076706)
Tilting. Windmills. And IAAL.
3. Do you think that the suit that I won against TSA was also tilting at windmills? 3. What kind of law do you do? |
TSA CCTV policy
Here is TSA's standard MOU re. CCTV at airport checkpoints — including what must be covered, how long it's kept, etc.
I submitted it as evidence of TSA's spoliation of BOS video to support the motion for an evidence preservation order filed today. Obtained as part of my FOIA litigation. Interestingly, Massport (BOS) refused to confirm or deny the existence of video of me @ BOS, as they claimed that the mere existence of video is SSI. TSA released some of that video to me, 615 days after I requested it (vs 20 days allowed by law). Apparently they just deleted all video other than the secondary screening, despite it being part of an ongoing Rehabilitation Act investigation. (I still need to get around to editing the video I got of BOS and putting it up, together w/ the full version. Haven't been able to yet. :-/) |
Originally Posted by saizai
(Post 26080382)
They don't have authority for non-WEI.
US v. Davis, 482 F. 2d 893, 913 (9th Cir. 1973) "a screening of passengers and of the articles that will be accessible to them in flight does not exceed constitutional limitations provided that the screening process is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives, that it is confined in good faith to that purpose, and that potential passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly." Agreed with by every court to consider it, and reflected in current TSA policy statements. Juice is obviously not dangerous, whether in 2oz, 50oz, or 5 gallons. TSA is quite capable of distinguishing juice from WEI. QED. To put it more simply, there are two basic questions IMO: 1. Should TSA be allowed to refuse to screen liquids that are properly presented for screening, and within TSA's capability to screen, unless TSA first makes a medical determination of necessity? 2. Should TSA be allowed to refuse travel to someone on the basis of items that have been screened and cleared as not WEI? Remember, I'm not objecting to them screening it. They're welcome to screen my liquids, so long as they don't damage them in the process, which their current screening policies do not risk. To the contrary, I insist that they screen it — and that I be allowed to travel with things that have passed screening, without interrogation or medical determinations made by people who have no business doing so. |
What is the correlation between screening liquids and forced groping of a parent?
|
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 26083128)
What is the correlation between screening liquids and forced groping of a parent?
That said, I could speculate and say TSA is looking for signs of explosives on the parents, not realizing of course that if someone is intent on getting explosives on a plane in baby food, one is going to create their explosive while wearing gloves, rub down with alcohol afterwards and change one's clothes, down to one's underwear. But as Kip Hawley once said, the TSA is only going to catch the dumb terrorist, not the smart one. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 8:50 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.