When I travel in winter, I wear my coat. It would take up an entire checked bag or carry on if I packed it. It is an extra item allowed in addition to a carry on. In the good old days I could go for a week with only a carry on and wearing my coat. And boots. Which look real out of place in a Florida airport. I have never been secondaried as a result, but am ready with a polite but sassy reply "It may be 85 here, but that aluminum tube out there will take me 1200 miles in two hours and where I get off it is 30 degrees and snowing. Duh."

People say "check it, you won't need it till your destination." Wrong. It replaces the now eliminated airline blanket. The best use was mid segment. Late arrive, last flight of the day out of ATL mechanical cancel, motel voucher. Had to stand 20 minutes outside waiting for motel shuttle. 35 degrees, windy misting rain. Other pax freezing, I'm in Goretex heaven. ^

First the disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

My understanding is that the justification for all the security searches, and certainly for any type of a lie-detector type machine when entering an airport is that you are submitting to such searches voluntarily. No one in the government is forcing you to go to the airport and go through the security checkpoint. If you don't like what they do, you don't have to enter the checkpoint -- just leave.

On the other hand ther was recently a case where someone had entered the checkpiont, the screeing process started, and then the person decided he didn't want to continue with the screening and wanted to leave. The TSA wouldn't let the person leave, and a judge upheld that decision saying that once you've started, there's no going back.

So, if you intend to "not fly" because you don't like some screening procedure, you had better do it before you enter the security checkpoint, because there may not be going back.

sxpsxpsxp,

I see your point and I know about the "point of no return" case.

The question is whether or not this is "reasonable." Likewise, the "implied consent" of entering the checkpoint may not hold up because there is no explanation of what will happen to the passenger. In other words, it's not "informed" consent.

I would be eager to hear a lawyer's opinoin.

You are correct; however, this recent test if Knoxville was "only a test" and pax apparently could refuse to participate. I'm certain if the TSA ever introduced it as a screening mechanism, no one would be able to refuse.

It would be, unfortunately, interesting. TSA's mandate at airport screening is to look for prohibited items. So the mandate would have to expand to include this (and it may have already with the STOP program). I don't have to show ID to fly domestically, so why should I have to answer questions to fly? In addition, if a passenger invokes his rights against self-incrimination, then would you still be permitted to fly?

As it should. It is despicable.

Mine, too. Personally, my first reaction would probably rhyme with "Firetruck off!" (well, without the first syllable) -- it would probably take me a moment or two to gather my composure enough to respond in a civilized manner as you say. I applaud you on your ability to maintain a level blood pressure while contemplating this; you are a better person than I.

One would hope that they would permit folks to at least go through a SSSS selectee-style alternative screening.

Personally, I would welcome having the TSA deny me boarding for refusing to take a polygraph. I suspect I could get on the local TV news for that. That would be worth missing an important business meeting over.

(If this happens to you, make sure to document the names of the folks you interact with, and escalate it up the chain while you're there at the security checkpoint -- preferably, you want to be denied boarding by someone high up, like the ground security coordinator, not a random front-line TSA screener.)

No kidding.

Yes, I think that may well be the legal justification that the government lawyers would try to use.

That just shows how morally bankrupt and unAmerican this "implied consent" / "you submitted voluntarily" line of reasoning is.

Any legal argument that can countenance mandatory lie detector tests for everyone going through an airport security checkpoint is completely nuts. But then, sometimes "the law is an ...". I wouldn't put it past the Supremes to roll over and let the TSA get away even something as egregiously authoritarian as this.

A very interesting point! That's chilling. You point out a disturbing consequence of that prior decision, but I don't see any flaw in your logic. Distressing.

Why? There's nothing to be gained by the farce that the powers that be are putting us through by anyone but them, and then only by the fear it generates in the general public.

Why should you try to accomodate a group of people who have consistently shown a complete unwillingness to implement useful security measures that don't infringe on our rights and convenience and yet make our travels safer, but are more than happy to throw up some window dressing that, if anything, makes the skies more dangerous?

Just to find out what the response would be, I asked my supervisor if I were to get seated in one of these and I refused, would the company be sore with me for missing the flight after a "do you want to fly today?" confrontation. He considers it entirely reasonable to refuse to answer an interrogation without an attorney present and said that the company would not penalize me for missing a flgiht for such a reason. Thus, "Do you want to fly today?" isn't a problem for me. I realize that not everyone works for a company that defends its employees' rights as mine does, but that's one corporation's view.

--PP