Help with TSA litigation [consolidated thread]
Jan 24, 2016 | 2:48 pm
#78
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: ONT/FRA
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 878
August 10, 2006. I remember it well. I was at RDU, needing to fly back to BNA, when it was announced. It started out as a total ban, but was later relaxed to allow "limited quantities," i.e. the current/continuing situation.
Jan 24, 2016 | 7:44 pm
#80
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 30,985
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/
Jan 24, 2016 | 9:58 pm
#81
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
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.
Jan 24, 2016 | 10:49 pm
#82
Join Date: Jul 2007
Programs: QFF
Posts: 5,304
I was in DC when it happened with a flight to FL the next morning. Had to repack my bags and move the "liquids" from my carry on to my checked bag. I remember the crew on the flight complaining about it.
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
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
Jan 25, 2016 | 5:56 pm
#85
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
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.
Jan 25, 2016 | 6:02 pm
#86
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
1. How do you think my argument is flawed?
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?
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?
Jan 25, 2016 | 10:26 pm
#87
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
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. :-/)
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. :-/)
Jan 26, 2016 | 7:01 am
#88
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
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.
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.
Jan 26, 2016 | 8:24 am
#90
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
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.