He is right. You make a contract with the carrier. To pass a point in the airport to fly you must be screened.

You buy a ticket to a concert you are subject to a search.

You go to a sporting event, you are subject to a search.

I don't think that some of you have gotten my drift yet.

If the sterile area is an area in which you can't refuse to cooperate with a search, then what's to stop overzealous cops from demanding that you strip? Or submit to a cavity search? If you aren't allowed to consider the method of search before you decide whether to submit to it, then that's pretty scary.

How does this work with checked baggage? At all US arrival points I've used, you do passport->bag claim->customs and then either exit or bag-recheck->TSA screening->sterile area. You are supposed to (have to) have your checked bags in your possesion when you go through customs. Do they make you claim your check bags and then re-check them to an external baggage claim before proceeding to the sterile area at these airports? Checked bags are allowed to have prohibited items in them (i.e., knives, even guns), so you can't parade thorough the sterile area with them.

On the "reverse screening" issue, I've been led to believe previously that if you refuse reverse screening at your final destination, then a LEO will escort you from the sterile area (probably after pressuring you to accept the screening and cooperate and subjecting you to delay as a form of pressure). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think LEOs in these sorts of situation can pat down your body for weapons for their own protection, but I don't think they're allowed to search your bags. So you wouldn't be consenting to endless searches just by being in the sterile area.

That's called a "Terry frisk," and Officer Friendly must have "reasonable, articulable suspicion" that you are "armed and dangerous" to do it.

Hold your horses, you aren't always subject to a search. You're sounding a little zealous there.
:rolleyes:

And people wonder why we don't trust the TSA.

I don't think anyone has said that you couldn't refuse to cooperate. Only that if you do discontinue the screening process after it has begun, you will get a visit from law enforcement.

I've avoided cavity searches for all of my life by not doing anything to make anyone suspicious that I might be hiding something. Never had to strip either. And I've crossed a lot of security checkpoints in my time.

I actually think this debate is bigger than the airport and TSA. Frankly, what's to stop an overzealous cop from demanding that you strip or submit to a cavity search if you are at the bank? I suspect a whole smattering of laws and regulations that govern probable cause? And I suspect those laws and regs apply at the airport....at least to a point?

Perhaps I've been watching too much Dr. Phil or something, because I just don't lay awake at night thinking about this.

Yes, this is very very important. Law-enforcement officers know what these "magic words" mean and they cannot disregard them. The other "magic" rule is to answer questions (beyond the usual, "What's your name?") with, "I would really like to answer your questions, officer, but I just can't without my lawyer present." That puts a total stop to any questioning and may actually prevent you from getting arrested because it virtually eliminates the possibility of probable cause.

Bruce

Correct, but not being held prisoner without due process of law is a right.

To put this into context, if I want to get on an airplane but don't want to pay the airfare, I can (and will) be refused by the airline.

On the other hand, if I am in an airport and change my mind about flying, nobody has the right to force me onto the plane.

When I arrive in Atlanta -- assuming that it is my final destination -- I do not want to fly. I am not asking to be allowed onto an airplane. If I have flown in from overseas, I will go through Passport Control and through Customs. At that point, I have the absolute right to leave the airport unless an LEO has reasonable cause to suspect that I am violating the law.

Not wanting to stand in another long line and be searched is not reasonable cause.

If the TSA wants to be certain that I am not going to take a weapon on an airline, it has the obligation to put its checkpoint at some place between where I can exit the airport and where I can get on the plane.

This might require another exit being built from the international arrivals terminal (as it is, say, at MXP.) It might require the checkpoints to be right in front of the gates (as it is at CDG).

I believe that if a court case is ever brought charging the TSA with kidnappping for refusing to allow a person to leave ATL without being searched, the courts will find in favor of the passenger.

Hi flyastrojets,

I've never done anything to make anyone suspicious that I might be hiding something. Unless you want to count buying an airline ticket as suspicious?

Still, I've been (apparently unintentionally) touched on my genitals, and also have repeatedly had my breasts handled by overzealous TSA agents, male and female. This is unconscionable.

I'm really disturbed that I wouldn't have the right, say, to try to pass security without having my private parts touched, but then change my mind about flying when I realize the bad guys intend to touch me there.



When my university Institutional Review Board approves experiments with human subjects, there is a requirement that people give informed consent. Informed consent always follows three key rules:
1) No coercion may be applied in order to gain consent
2) The person must know exactly what he or she is consenting to
3) The person must be allowed to change his or her mind at any time and decide to withhold consent

It would seem to me that airline passengers should have protections similar to these, but according to some of the TSA officials here we may not enjoy those rights. One could argue that an informed passenger knows that a TSA search may include touching the passenger's breasts, and that on entering the checkpoint passenger has consented to that. I can see the logic of that argument. However, I want to know what the limits are to what LEOs or TSA can do to me once I enter an airport, without further consent.


Dovster, you make an excellent point about kidnapping charges. I would love to see a test case where someone refuses to be re-screened at his destination. Anyone ever tried refusing?

Unfortunately, that's not entirely correct. If I'm understanding your posts correctly, you deliberately wear profiled shoes and refuse to send them through the x-ray. That's reason right there for secondary search. As far as getting your breasts touched during screening, that's easily avoidable by wearing a bra without underwire. No underwire = no beeping = no touching.

A passenger can certainly refuse the type of search done and I have done that on numerous occasions at JFK, LGA and PWM. Other airports haven't requested such detailed searches of my person.

Some of the security folks wanted to use their hands to touch my body and I said no to their methods. What I would accept is the back of their hands and only if a woman does it. And they comply. It's that simple.

As female passengers are only supposed to be secondary screened by female TSA employees, I'm a little surprised that a male TSA employee would be handling your breasts. However, I wasn't there, and you were.

I have experienced some screeners get a bit overzealous with the wand on me... but that is a training problem, not a problem of an evil and insidious government trying to steal away my rights.

Anyways...maybe I'm still missing your whole point?! :)

You very much articulated why I feel that there would be a successful challenge to a post-flight search. The govt would have to put up a damned good reason to justify doing this and I dont think they have one. If your purpose is to protect the plane then its unreasonable to conduct a search post flight. However, I think there is a reasonable (yet bad) argument to be made in that the search is not actually a security search for weapons but rather for people. I think it would ultimately fail for a lot of reasons but I do think that the argument could be made and the courts would (and will) tell the TSA to knock it off.

Kidnapping I think is a bit extreme since IIRC it requires an additional element of moving or intending to move with the intent to conceal. I could be wrong, though, since its been a couple of years now since I have touched anything having to do with crim law and I was probably sleeping anyway. However, I dont think this is out of the realm of both false imprisonment and unreasonable search and seizure.

GG, there is something called implied consent. For example, when you drive your car from your home into a neighboring state, you give implied consent to be subject to that states jurisdiction and to be governed by that states laws. Your consent is given by merely performing an action which is entering the state. If you dont want to be subject to that jurisdiction then you just dont drive there. When you fly, its the same thing. You consent to the jurisdiction of the federal government in the form of the TSA (which includes a security search) by the act of entering security on the way to going to get on the plane. If you dont want to consent to the search then you just dont fly since the TSA is empowered to make the search. Your University Review Board doesnt get this luxury. However, as others have said, you are still protected by parts of the Constitution that limit what can happen when you are in this jurisdiction. Just because you enter the secure area doesnt mean they can have their way with you. Is it unreasonable for a man to check your breasts by squeezing them for hidden contraband? Yes. Is it unreasonable for the TSA to stick a probe in your backside merely because you set off the metal detector? I imagine, yes. Is it unreasonable for them to frisk you when you set the detector off? Depends on the circumstances. Can you withdraw your consent to the search? Sure, you then leave the secure area and dont fly since part of of the contract of carriage is that you need to successfully pass the security checks in order to be allowed on the plane. Can you be arrested for refusing? I think it depends on the level of probable cause, the requirement for which is considerably higher for arrests than it is for searches under Due Process. Look at it as a balancing scale. The more PC, the more power the law enforcement agency has. However that scale is still subject to the limits of the Constitution.

I will just make a personal suggestion. Either play by the rules or be prepared to fight them in the appropriate manner. But causing trouble for yourself (as was inferred by another poster) and then not following through is silly, imo.

Yes you can refuse screening at any time. But you will not be allowed into the sterile area. Your carry-on will be screened if the process was started and returned back to you. The law enforcement officer will be informed that you refused screening along with the airline that you are flying on.I'm pretty sure the airlines are not going to allow you on their planes without you being searched. You will be escorted out of the area and I am sure the officer will question you and maybe run a check on you.I think they can hold you for questioning without arresting you. I think by refusing screening that is enough to question you. It is up to the airlines if they let you fly. No matter when you fly you will still have to go thru the screening process, unless you hire a private carrier, or go greyhound.Tsa management will be informed and a report will be done. As for reverse screening, this is directed by the airlines,TSA or another agency because there was a breach or incident that required it. I think if you refuse screening the law enforcement officer and other agencies will question you as to the reason. Sometimes it may be only one person that requires the screening or the whole aircraft. If you have nothing to hide it is no big deal. If you do have something to hide it will be a big deal. Most reverse screening can be done in 30 minutes or less. Some people love to buck the system. They think they can get rich quick with that popular phase "I'll sue." Yes the system is not perfect but neither was the private screening. Most screeners are nice and do a great job. It the bad ones you read about that give the rest of us a bad name. No matter how long the company has been in business it takes time to work thing out. You will always have the butt holes that make it tough for the rest of us. Let us not forget the ones that make the rules have more than likely never worked on a checkpoint.Most of them could not fine a pair of scissors on the x-ray screen much less and IED. The first thing TSA needs to do is revise the prohibited item list. It is better now than what is was.

As a point of clarification:

There is "reverse screening" and then there is the "redundant screening" post-arrival.

Reverse screening as I understand it relates to a perceived problem with the flight or with a passenger.

The situation that strikes me as most easily challenged (legally) is the redundant screening post-international-arrival at certain airports. Once the passenger has arrived and cleared customs, etc., he is required to be screened again because there is no other way out of the airport except through a "sterile" zone. However, it should be noted that it is not the intent of TSA or anyone else to subject these post-arrival passengers to screening, it is caused by the design of certain airports.