My experiences with the TSA/FAA have lead me to believe that their enabler is the local law enforcement. Perhaps it is time for citizens to urge their local elected (or running-for-office representatives) to pass legislation forbidding local law enforcement from cooperating with TSA/FAA when they search people without valid warrants? If just a few jurisdictions with major airports forbid law enforcement from cooperating with the TSA/FAA, I think it would comprise the whole system and eventually bring about an end to the this awful, never-ending state of security madness.

The ACLU has had a very successful campaign to encourage legislation against the (un)PATRIOT Act; and, one Wyoming county forbids federal authorities from entering the county without approval of the county sheriff. I am proud that my state, Montana, passed legislation that forbid cooperation with federal law enforcement actions under the (un)PATRIOT Act that violated state or federal Constitutional rights, http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2005/BillHtml/SJ0019.htm

News source on Wyoming...

"Bighorn County Sheriff Dave Mattis spoke at a press conference following a recent U.S. District Court decision (Case No. 2:96-cv-099-J (2006)) and announced that all federal officials are forbidden to enter his county without his prior approval ��"

Now that's funny, especially when considering the fact Sheriff Mattis has NO authority whatsoever to restrict Federal officers from entering his county...and the sheriff knows it. He made this statement to please certain elements within his constituency and get some free press.

TB

Until an action is brought before the Court that determines that the current screening methodology falls beyond what was intended under administrative searches, TSA is FULLY in compliance with the law as it stands NOW. Being that it is an administrative search, the 4th Amendment does not apply and warrants aren't needed as long as the search is limited to the stated intent to prevent WIE.

The idea that LE isn't going to cooperate is, well, ridiculous. Most of these airport PDs absolutely drool over the overtime dollars that now seriously augment their salaries courtesy of Uncle Sugar and the TSA. Furthermore, passing legislation forbidding the locals to cooperate will only serve to hasten the establishment of a uniformed TSA LEO division, which most on TS&S are very much against.

TB

TerminalBliss,

My state of Montana had similar language to that of the Big Horn County, Wyoming, but sadly, the bill never reached a vote. I personally talked to the co-leader of the Montana House/Senate to bring the bill up in 2007, but no action was taken.

" ...PROVIDING THAT FEDERAL EMPLOYEES MUST OBTAIN THE COUNTY SHERIFF'S PERMISSION TO ARREST, SEARCH, AND SEIZE;.."

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2005/billhtml/HB0284.htm

It simply doesn't matter what the States pass...Federal law trumps state law. As long as the Agents are conducting an arrest, investigation, warrant search, etc., that falls within their Federal jurisdiction, then there is absolutely nothing the locals or state officials can realistically do to limit that authority...that takes the US Congress.

TB

Maybe, but local law enforcement still can refuse to cooperate. I have yet to see the TSA put handcuffs on anyone and I don't expect that the TSA clerks are going to hold me until the FBI comes.

interesting concept. However, local law enforcement has more authority than TSA does and only serves to compliment them and deal with potential breaches of the airport and the peace and to investigate and prosecute crimes that are happening in the airport.

Apparently the case is USA vs. Castenada, for which I have not yet found any specific discussion. I did, however, find an article about Castenada vs. USA. WARNING: This link is not for the squeamish & those with full stomachs.

Now back to looking for USA vs. Castenada ....

The position you hint at can be dangerous in that it can be used to defend almost any disgusting practice not yet covered by a court. In other words, the defense that one is "FULLY in compliance with the law as it stands NOW" could apply to a whole host of things ruled illegal, sone in cases that involved massive abuses. The truth is that the TSA doesn't realy know as of yet (and neither do we) if all the things they are doing are legal or not-- they are in unchartered waters in many cases and it is impossible to know what a court will rule.

When you say "FULLY in compliance with the law as it stands NOW", that can also be taken to mean sufficiently within the same galaxy of the law such that if a court at a later time ruled a practice illegal, the TSA would be protected by qualified immunity. I might also comment that it is hard to say what constitutes full compliance with the law when there is very little caselaw either way on several issues being litigated right now-- it is easy to 'comply' with the law when no law yet exists.

Just so you know, the Supremen Court reversed the 9th Circuit in this case and left the FTCA as the only remedy.

I don't care, it was just an interesting but macabre diversion.

It turns out that the subject of this thread is bogus, just another urban legend bouncing around the internet:
Both cases were entitled "Castaneda v. USA", but the one relevant to this thread apparently was dismissed by the district ct. in 1997 with no such precendent establish (district courts decisions don't establish precedent anyway), and the sheriff made no such wild claims.

Which explains why Google search didn't turn up anything on legal sites relevant to the Wyoming story ....

I know; its just that I followed the case and the result is that it places the medical righs of immigrant detainees below those of people in jail/prison.

That settles that.

.... and almost any action where the perpetrator of the action has not had his/her action deemed a violation of the law by a court -- that includes actions which may be considered criminal.

With regard to states/local officials trying to put the squeeze on the TSA, one way of doing that is to hike up the rents and/or not give in to the TSA's demands for more space. At some of the airports in the country, the TSA is even pushing for build-outs and more borrowing of money in order to do build-outs to serve the TSA's ever demanding increase for space at airports.

My husband has no qualms about walking through the NOS. He has no qualms about me walking through the NOS. He has no qualms about anything, except me ranting against the TSA.

As my friend once said, "You do need to check him from time to time for a pulse, don't you?"

Opposites attract, and all that.

My husband is also an attorney with 30 years experience and a background in constitutional law. He calls himself an old workhorse litigator, and one of a dying breed. These days, everyone likes to "settle" and litigators are becoming more and more rare.

When I rant about the unmitigated evils of the TSA, Mr. Husband says, "You are never going to find a court in this land that will agree with you that the TSA is conducting unlawful searches and/or violating 4th amendment rights. It's just never going to happen."

I hope and pray that he's wrong, but I fear he may be right.

As I understand it, they are given their floor space gratis.

Perhaps after a critical mass of free citizens are manually strip searched and/or have had their body cavities searched as a result of TSA chasing "alarms", then perhaps things will change for the better. The only question is how many more victims will the government create before the pendulum swings and swings hard enough against the TSA and those who support it.

The TSA underpaying in any form sounds like all the more reason for airports not to borrow more money to do build-outs that meet the ever growing space demands of the TSA.

Are they given electricity for free too?

I have read many original documents on the 4th amendment and I cannot find where it reads the way the courts say it reads. I would love to have a constructive debate on what it says. I will be happy to provide documents supporting my conclusion. I have read notes from the state ratifying meetings, the 13-ratifying State Constitutions, and from notes of those who attended the Federal convention.

For instance, the Constitution of Vermont - July 8, 1777 , http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/vt01.asp

XI. That the people have a right to hold themselves, their houses, papers and possessions free from search or seizure; and therefore warrants without oaths or affirmations first made, affording a sufficient foundation for them, and whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded or required to search suspected places, or to seize any person or persons, his, her or their property, not particularly described, are contrary to that right, and ought not to be granted.

Certainly the language of the 4th-amendment came out of the state Constitutions, each worded slightly differently, but still about the same declaration regarding the 4th-amendment.