|
Airport Scanners, `Enhanced' Patdowns Bring Suit by Harvard Law Students
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-1...etts-pair.html
Two Harvard University law students sued the U.S. government over “nude body scanners” and “enhanced pat-downs” at airports, claiming they violate constitutional rights. Jeffrey Redfern, 27, and Anant Pradhan, 23, who are members of the law school’s class of 2012, said the security measures taken at airports are “intrusive” and violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, according to a complaint filed Nov. 29 in federal court in Boston. The students, who said they are regular travelers who use Boston’s Logan International Airport, seek a declaration that mandatory screening using the enhanced measures is unconstitutional and a ban on the techniques “without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.” |
Thanks for posting. It will be interesting to see if they get somewhere..
|
God Bless 'em! And this coming from a hotbed of unabashed liberalism:D
I wish them luck and I hope the courts have the common sense to see the light. |
All the best to them! Good practice for lawyers-to-be and maybe they'll hit a home run.
|
Bring it on, bring them on and file it - we aren't counting on the ACLU to be our pals, but there must be one high power DC-based pro bono law firm not on Chertoff's side, ready & willing to defend THE Constitution of the U.S. of A.
Civil Disobedience - America's proud tradition (.... nonviolence for change) |
Good project for law students. Anyone find it ironic that Obama is a former professor of constitutional law?
|
This will likely push further back any ACLU attempt at a lawsuit. They will likely sit back and watch this one and learn.
|
Godspeed.
|
Best wishes & what a great way to start legal careers!
^ |
Originally Posted by bluenotesro
(Post 15363490)
God Bless 'em! And this coming from a hotbed of unabashed liberalism:D
I wish them luck and I hope the courts have the common sense to see the light. *Except elected congress officials apparently. :rolleyes: |
Try to remember that Nixon never targeted the right. So liberals have far more experience with being the target of undercover campaigns to attack them. Some of them actually RECALL being the target. And don't wish to have it happen again.
|
While I agree that these are unconstitutional, I wonder if anyone has filed a suit yet dealing with the machines involved in the screening are not authorized by law.
Specifically from Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 Sec. 44925. Deployment and use of detection equipment at airport screening checkpoints `(a) WEAPONS AND EXPLOSIVES- The Secretary of Homeland Security shall give a high priority to developing, testing, improving, and deploying, at airport screening checkpoints, equipment that detects nonmetallic, chemical, biological, and radiological weapons, and explosives, in all forms, on individuals and in their personal property. The Secretary shall ensure that the equipment alone, or as part of an integrated system, can detect under realistic operating conditions the types of weapons and explosives that terrorists would likely try to smuggle aboard an air carrier aircraft. Is there something specific in the law somewhere that I missed allowing for the imaging of passengers? |
Originally Posted by myadvice
(Post 15365246)
IANAL but it seems like these machines do not detect any weapons or explosives. They are imaging machines.
|
Originally Posted by RichardKenner
(Post 15365552)
Yes, but one way you detect something hidden on something is by imaging. So I don't see your point.
A metal detector detects metal; it beeps. A smoke detector detects smoke; it beeps. Taking a picture does not detect anything. (edited to add) In a few years the MMW technology may be able to detect explosives through spectral analysis. IMHO If this happens, and the machine is used in a mode that automatically sets off an alarm of some sort (instead of showing the operator an image) then the machine would be considered a detector. |
Originally Posted by myadvice
(Post 15365587)
No, that is the way a person detects something; looking at an image.
A metal detector detects metal; it beeps. A smoke detector detects smoke; it beeps. Taking a picture does not detect anything. (edited to add) In a few years the MMW technology may be able to detect explosives through spectral analysis. IMHO If this happens, and the machine is used in a mode that automatically sets off an alarm of some sort (instead of showing the operator an image) then the machine would be considered a detector. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 6:38 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.