Legality of CDC flu screening
 

"More than 100 staffers from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are being deployed to three US airports to check passengers arriving from Wuhan, China, for fever and other symptoms of a mysterious new virus that's killed two and infected dozens in China, the CDC announced Friday."
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/17/healt...-bn/index.html

So what happens if passengers refuse screening? From my understanding as American citizen I can't be forced to undergo screening unless it can be established that i am danger to myself or others.

The legal authority is 42 U.S. Code § 264.

It's been used in the past to screen arriving international passengers for SARS and Ebola.

Not sure what happens if someone refuses. Quarantine?

Quarantine would be the logical next step.... As far as "establishing you are a danger "...what are the requirements there? It may be as simple as establishing that you came from an infected area.....(I have no idea.... but may I ask WHAT the objection to screening is anyway?... Ive read far too much about the historical spread of infectious diseases to want to even take a chance.....)

I was under impression that was challenged when states tried to do Ebola quarantine and there was changes.

I refuse to follow government directions. Regarding quarantine, i was under impression that there was settlement/changes after the lawsuit as result of Ebola quarantine. Also I would challenge quarantine under habeas corpus petition. It would be up to government to provide evidence i am danger to the public and coming from area in itself i would think is not sufficient to hold someone against their will

If you're referring to the Kaci Hickox case against the state of New Jersey, according to her lawyer, the outcome was "Under the settlement, anyone quarantined in New Jersey can contest the order and has the rights to have legal counsel, to be given prior notice of any hearings and to send and receive communications. It also guarantees a person the right to privacy so long as it does not interfere with vital public health needs."

That doesn't mean the CDC can't forcibly quarantine anyone they believe to "to be infected witha communicable disease in aqualifying stage."

CBP and CDC could delay admitting the person and wait to cherry pick on something as a potential symptom of some public health threat and then latch on to that to mandate testing to see if quarantine/isolation is necessary or not:

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2014/10/08/...elers-airports

Some would perhaps call the result a quarantine/isolation anyway.

Check this out too about “Federal and State Quarantine and Isolation Authority”:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL33201.pdf

It’s about more than just quarantine and isolation authority, but it covers that too.

Very interesting reading, thanks for the link. I guess the main question is what evidence does CDC needs to quanrantine someone? Going even further let says they do quarantine someone and that person refuses to be tested, what happens when habeas corpus petition is filed. CDC needs to present evidence that person is danger to others. They can't just say he refuse to be tested, so we going to quarantine . That would violates us constitution.

I do not believe you can be forced to undergo testing. Yes they can quarantine you but then we than get in to habeas corpus petition and what evidence gets presented to the judge? I am betting ACLU would take this type of case. At the end of day, judge will make final determination and i am having hard time believing that judge will approve quarantine just because someone refused to undergo testing to satisfy CDC.

I would be very surprised if the average American judge would deny a “quarantine or mandatory testing” quandary for a target when CDC says the target was coming from an area hit by a serious public health danger (of a communicable disease sort) and exhibiting some symptoms of the communicable disease being seen as a serious public health danger at the time. At a federal appeals court level or higher, I would expect near-certain defeat for those complaining about being stopped by CDC when found to be uncooperative with even testing of a rather non-invasive sort during a public health emergency.

I am having very hard time believing that a judge would let us citizen be quarantine just because that person came from a region with potential virus and is refusing to submit to government testing. Now if the person is actually showing sign of symptoms that is different but from my understanding CDC is testing everyone.

I am having a hard time believing that a US citizen would be willing to potentially start a public health epidemic by refusing a simple test.

You're talking about someone trying to force their way in to the USA with a poorly-understood and potentially-lethal virus. And you think a judge or jury would have a hard time labeling you a "public health threat"? Don't be ridiculous.

Nevermind there is clearly some benefit to the traveler to know whether (s)he is infected.

how do you get through the airport? do you pay taxes? drive on roads?

If a person had just come from an area hit by a serious public health danger (of a communicable disease sort) and has been observed exhibiting some symptoms (of the communicable disease that is seen as a serious public health danger at the time) and is non-cooperative in terms of being tested, then I wouldn’t be surprised if even a panel of judges would agree that such person could be subject to a quarantine or other hold for observation absent an agreement to be tested and further cooperate.

Mandatory invasive testing of persons not exhibiting any symptoms for the disease is one thing. Mandatory non-invasive testing of persons not exhibiting any symptoms but having had just come from staying in the disease-affected area is another thing. I would be surprised if they were viewed the same way by most.

I assure you that if I am ever the Captain of the flight you are on, I will have you removed simply for this statement since the vast majority of airplane rules are issued by the FAA or the relevant countries regulatory authority. So you wouldn't have to worry about avoiding the CDC screening because you could stay in Wuhan or whereever you happen to be.... Good grief, grow up would you....

<deleted by moderator>

There is an unknown form of pneumonia that has developed in China and so far has migrated to Japan. Treatment options seem limited. This isn't just a China problem but could have a worldwide impact. A non US citizen exhibiting possible symptoms who won't cooperate could be turned away although that presents medical risks to others. A citizen who displays symptoms and won't cooperate would likely be held given authorities time to determine if the person is infected.

I see nothing wrong with a quarantine until a determination is made. Doesn't take that long to determine if a person is a carrier of a given strain of a virus.

Airports in Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and South Korea use thermal imaging surveillance with scanners, such as the ones shown in the photos below, to screen passengers arriving from Wuhan for fever.

I suspect that the CDC will use similar equipment; I'm not sure how you can refuse such screening.

I travel to see or return to see people whom I wish to see have a healthy and happy life up to their natural end too. The government screening me for a fever using non-invasive means may not do a whole lot of good, but if I have a fever and they want to do a swab test of my nose, I would welcome the chance to cooperate on condition that they stick to the material being used only for public health purposes and such collected material being destroyed upon ruling out exposure to the mutated coronavirus of serious concern.

I understand that some would feel differently than I do about this, but I think it is irresponsible to not consider the potential consequences (for others at least) that may arise from an observed, potential symptom-shower refusing to cooperate when such observed person has recently been in an area with a heightened risk of exposure to the mutated coronavirus of concern.

If I don’t have a fever and don’t report about being in an exposed area or exposed to others with symptoms of concern, then I may not even notice the thermal image production and capture underway. The fever-detecting effort and a verbal or written/entered declaration is how non-invasive the screening can be and generally has been for even Ebola at US and European airports. Without travelers’ honest cooperation in these circumstances,, public health security measures become way less effective and they increase the risk of public health problems (especially for those whose health is more vulnerable than average).

I agree with you in that it is reasonable and appropriate to quarantine a sick person arriving by air until a determination is made as to what is causing their illness and what risk they pose to the general public. However as I was reading this thread I was listening a radio piece on the CDC and this new virus. As of today (1/18/2020), the CDC is still working to develop a test to identify the specific virus that appears to have emerged in Wuhan. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/summary.html gives the most current update on this situation and precautions being taken.

No currently available fast test but identification is possible. I still believe quarantine is a reasonable precaution in suspected cases.

Key word is symptoms. However what happens if you have no symptoms and refuse to talk to cdc and also refuse any non invasive testing? Like I said if someone got symptoms that is totally different

I'm not sure what more you expect to get from this thread. You have made an unusual accomplishment to unite FT (almost completely) to reject your position.

Non citizen refusal to admit, citizen involuntary hold. The public's safety overrides the individuals.

So you are saying that public safety overrides constitutional liberty?

A key role of government is to protect citizens from threats. I think the rights of all others out weight the rights of the individual under these particular circumstances. A short hold is a minor inconvenience to prevent spread of a potentially deadly disease.

I could be wrong but bet the majority of people would agree with me in this particular case.

If there are no obvious symptoms, then maybe all they want is a written form or note completed giving contact information, recent travel history, upcoming stay plan, and questions about recent presence of some symptoms and to give you a flyer about what to do if you come down with certain symptoms and about why the government is doing what it is doing.

I flew a lot even when concerns about Ebola, MERS, SARS, swine flu and bird flu were peaking for some of my long-haul flights back to the US and so my flights’ passengers got special treatment in some form or another because of screening needs. Unless there were symptoms showing, it worked out almost normally.

Are you trolling at this point? Excuse me while I go walk my pet hippo, I can only do it when dark because of those oppressive laws restricting my freedom to own the pet of my choice.

I got problem with that, specially I feel it's none of their business

No I am not trolling, I am shocked that people are willing to give up their liberty because government says it's for your own good. I feel that less government there is in my life the better

Moderator's Note: Keep Political Arguments out of the TSS Policy Debate Forum!
 

Folks,

There is a very fine line between border security discussion and political debate. It has just been crossed; please do not go there!

Political discussions belong in OMNI/PR (access to OMNI is restricted to members who have been on FlyerTalk for 180 days and have posted 180 contributive messages).

Future posts of a political nature will be summarily deleted without further notice. Repeat offenders will be subject to discipline.

TWA884
Travel Safety/Security co-moderator

According to the British papers the experts are saying it's useless to screen passengers by this way as they don't know what they are even looking for. They don't even know if anyone infected with this is even going to have a fever.

Do you have a link? That is very interesting news

It's always helpful to know at least a few facts before going off the deep end.

The testing is momentary and non-invasive and involves the use of an infrared thermometer. That is a hand-held device which "infers" body temperature by being pointed at an individual, but not making contact.

I suppose that if one turned away from the CDC staffer, a CBP Officer would physically restrain you for the 15-20 seconds necessary and that would be it (presuming that you are not running a fever).

If there are no symptoms, off you go. If there are, then there is more than enough to quarantine an individual if that is what it takes and there is no federal judge (or appellate court) who is going to interfere in that.

Well SCOTUS famously ruled that the freedom speech guaranteed by the 1st Amendment does not allow anyone to shout “Fire” in a crowded theater when there isn’t one.

I'm curious what constitutional liberty you believe I would be sacrifing? Unreasonable search? Because that's the closest I can come up with but don't believe a temperature check is unreasonable.

Of course you are allowed to protest and face the consequences of doing so. I don't think anyone here knows what those potential consequences would be. Please report back once you're released on bond.

to keep this legal and not political, from my understanding in order to be detained an officer needs to have R. A. S. In this case they would need to have RAS that I am threat to general public. It's hard for them to provide that just because I decided to exercise my 4th and 5th amendment right. I have before refused to answer custom questions and even use kiosk /fill out declaration form. I would argue legally this is no different. One is not required to help government with their investigation

If you attempt to refuse non-invasive testing and to answer questions, then I believe you would be detained/quarantined until it is established that you are not a threat. There comes a point when a selfish refusal to participate in the general good of society, i.e. protect the public health from a serious threat, can, under law, get you held against your will. You are not the only person who matters on Planet Earth: WHO stats on SARS, a virus of the family as the current threat, making it the closest parallel, were 8437 sickened, 813 DEAD, est. cost of dealing with SARS worldwide $54 billion. And that majority of that was due to one person who chose to travel when he knew he was sick.

Just to focus on the legality of the CDC screening at airports and what is allowed by law -- there were several legal articles after the Ebola screenings. Here is a quotation from one and a link.

"Generally, federal regulations authorizing the apprehension, detention, examination, or conditional release of individuals are applicable only to individuals coming into a state or possession from a foreign country or possession.16 But Section 361 of the PHS Act also authorizes the apprehension and examination of any individual reasonably believed to be infected with a communicable disease in a qualifying stage17 and (A) to be moving or about to move from a State to another State; or (B) to be a probable source of infection to individuals who, while infected with such disease in a qualifying stage, will be moving from a State to another State. 18 If found to be infected, such individuals may be detained for such time and in such manner as may be reasonably necessary.19 Regulations promulgated pursuant to quarantine authority under the PHS Act may be found in Parts 70 and 71 of Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Part 70 applies to interstate travel, Part 71 to foreign arrivals.20In addition, the Director of the CDC is also authorized to take measures as may be necessary to prevent the spread of a communicable disease from one state or possession to any other state or possession if he determines that measures taken by local health authorities are inadequate to prevent the spread of the disease.21 To prevent the spread of diseases between states, the regulations prohibit infected persons from traveling from one state to another without a permit from the health officer of the state, possession, or locality of destination, if such a permit is required under the law applicable to the place of destination"

https://library.law.uiowa.edu/sites/...les/R43829.pdf

Yes.

And what legal investigation do you think you're (not) helping? This isn't a self-incrimination issue because the test isn't to establish criminal activity. If the CDC finds you're sick, you aren't thrown in prison.

You can post whatever justifications that you want. As you can see from the responses above, you are wrong for taking this position.

The reason that few are actually quarantined is that those who are picked up in the initial screen, e.g., infrared thermometer and visual inspection (no right to privacy in what you look like) lose a lot of the false bravado when the simple alternatives are presented.

It is also unlikely that any treatment or invasive procedure would be forced during the quarantine period. One would simply be quarantined for however long it is and, if asymptomatic, then released. If symptoms appear, it would be a judgment call as to whether an emergency guardianship procedure to force treatment is necessary.

The reason that few are quarantined is because it’s not good policy to quarantine people for no good reason. Level of cooperation by itself is neither a good reason or bad reason for someone to be under quarantine or not, but it’s a factor for consideration when it comes to people who should be under quarantine for health reasons.

I am not saying that, and I wouldn’t say that. That would border on giving even more of a carte blanche to CBP, CDC and other government actors than already given.

I think that proportionality and other nuances are relevant to whether or not I would say a public health safety measure is appropriate or not in that way or other ways.

I don’t find the government sticking a temp measuring device against a forehead or ear to be the same thing as banishing a person to an underground cell in a remote Alaskan holding camp for 24/7 monitoring and invasive testing just because the arriving person had a pimple on the cheek.