Airport Scanners, `Enhanced' Patdowns Bring Suit by Harvard Law Students
Dec 1, 2010, 9:13 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 449
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.”
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.”
Dec 1, 2010, 9:18 pm
#2
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northeast Kansas | Colorado Native
Programs: Amex Gold/Plat, UA *G, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott LT Gold, NEXUS, TSA Disparager Unobtanium
Posts: 21,603
Thanks for posting. It will be interesting to see if they get somewhere..
Dec 1, 2010, 9:54 pm
#5
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: LGA - JFK
Programs: UA, AA, DL, B6, CX, KE, Latitude, VIFP, Crown & Anchor, etc.
Posts: 2,589
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)
Civil Disobedience - America's proud tradition (.... nonviolence for change)
Dec 2, 2010, 1:23 am
#10
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Denton County, TX
Programs: AA Executive Platinum, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 737
*Except elected congress officials apparently.
Dec 2, 2010, 1:52 am
#11
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,051
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.
Dec 2, 2010, 6:32 am
#12
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: PIT
Programs: Marriott Silver, Priority Club Platinum, Hilton Gold, Airline Peon (United, Delta, Southwest)
Posts: 335
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
IANAL but it seems like these machines do not detect any weapons or explosives. They are imaging machines.
Is there something specific in the law somewhere that I missed allowing for the imaging of passengers?
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.
`(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?
Dec 2, 2010, 7:24 am
#13
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Dec 2, 2010, 7:28 am
#14
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: PIT
Programs: Marriott Silver, Priority Club Platinum, Hilton Gold, Airline Peon (United, Delta, Southwest)
Posts: 335
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.
Last edited by myadvice; Dec 2, 2010 at 7:39 am
Dec 2, 2010, 8:21 am
#15
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: DTW
Programs: DL 0.22 MM, AA 0.34 MM, PC Plat Amb, Hertz #1 GC 5*
Posts: 7,511
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.
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.