FlyerTalk Forums - TSA and the Law

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)

- Practical Travel Safety and Security Issues (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/practical-travel-safety-security-issues-686/)

- - TSA and the Law (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/practical-travel-safety-security-issues/948783-tsa-law.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by magellan315 (Post 11665684)

Therefore the forced ID verification as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area violates the 4th amendment protections...

Because the subjects of this search have not agreed to the search and because the search falls outside the limitations set forth in the governing statute, the use of the SPO-7 in the public space of the airport is an unreasonable search within the confines of the 4th amendment...

Because the technology can detect both illegal and private legal activity its usage constitutes a search within the 4th amendment...

Any use of the information ...would violate not only the unreasonable search clause of the 4th amendment but also the unreasonable seizure clause of the 4th.

Um, says who? Has SCOTUS ruled on this issue and I missed it? Or, perhaps, this is just the opinion of some guy on the internet?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 11666015)

Please note that all of the statements I attribute here to TK, or Trollkiller, may or may not have been made by him. I am taking the word of the individual who provided the quotes to me that they are an accurate representation of what TK has posted elsewhere.

You don't have to take my word regarding the accuracy of the quotes. You can find them in the two most recent threads at the TSA blog, I even gave you a link to one of them. You just didn't bother to find them and cherry picked someone elses comments instead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 11666015)

That is essential to the argument. The SPO-7 does not peer under anything. Before making such an argument I would suggest going to the link I provided to additional information on the system and reading. The concept of how it works is absolutely amazing.
...
So can my eyes, ears, and sense of smell. None of those are considered a search. They all reside clearly within the “plain sight” rule, as does the way that the SPO-7 system works.

I think the SPO-7's use of passive MMW differs significantly from "plain sight". If it were using only visible light it might be "plain sight", but using MMW-vision to augment and screen human-visible images isn't in the least bit "plain".

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 11665643)

Actually this was not the direction I was going. Interesting though TK’s comments (I assume from your statement that TK uses the name “Robert Johnson” when posting to the EOS blog) are, and the case he cites, it is not on target with the direction I was wanting to go with this thread.

TSORon, many posters here and on PV have done a lot of your work for you, listing cases, quotes from judge's decisions, etc.

I guess I thought you'd come here to do what you'd promised to do on PV, and didn't....namely, "Please, show us what you think your constitutional rights are. I'll be glad to show you where you are wrong. Be specific, what areas of the TSA process are violations of your rights."

Magellan315 had to do your work for you by guiding your computer mouse to the Trollkiller response on PV when you could not find it yourself:

Quote:

Magellen315 wrote: Trollkiller answered your question as Trollkiller, not Robert Johnson. Since you couldn't find them here they are. You should find your issues regarding TSA and constitutional rights addressed.

Trollkiller did your work for you, responding at length on the PV thread to your challenge, where you did not see fit over there to gladly show him where he was wrong (as promised). Over here, he has gone further in helping you out, by sending you a link which (as is customary) actually takes you to the linked information when you click on it:

Quote:

TSORon, please take the time to respond to my posts detailing the areas I believe violate the Constitution.

To aid in your research goto http://www.justia.com/courts/ you will be able to look up any cases cited.

heading to work now i will check back in a couple of hours. Happy hunting.

So, TSORon, just to review the bidding here. Magellan315 has guided you to the right place on the PV thread to find TK's response to your challenge, and he also reposted TK's response on PV here as well, since you confess you still have not troubled yourself to look for TK's post on PV:

Quote:

TSORon sez: Please note that all of the statements I attribute here to TK, or Trollkiller, may or may not have been made by him. I am taking the word of the individual who provided the quotes to me that they are an accurate representation of what TK has posted elsewhere.

TK has helpfully provided you a place to go to substitute real research in place of the bloviations in your immediate, off-the-cuff response. For just one example, it is not good enough for you to say, "SCOTUS upheld the right of the state to place surveillance cameras in public areas since no one can claim an expectation of privacy in those areas. They also have held that the state may place surveillance equipment on property under its control and therefore have the right to conduct such surveillance on those who willingly enter those areas." Case citing and pertinent quotations from the Supreme Court decision, please.

The clock is ticking. Better get to work. TK said he'd be back in a couple of hours, and an hour has already passed.

I guess I understand the level of your commitment to do real research work, as opposed to just flapping your jaws:

Quote:

But thanks for providing TK’s comments, I obviously didn’t look far enough down the thread.

I am hopeful that your next response will be more thoughtful and better researched, and therefore more deserving of comment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 11666090)

Last I heard, the GAO does not conduct these tests on the TSA. We have our own section that does a rather rude job of it without GAO assistance. Although I might be wrong, and if so I would appreciate you posting a link to the report you allude to.

This one's for you, Ronnie:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0848t.pdf :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by doober (Post 11666403)

This one's for you, Ronnie:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0848t.pdf :D

I'm sure TSORon didn't need your help, he's a "Security Professional" don't ya know!

"Administrative search"

People all over the Internets are knocking themselves out for you, TSORon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ND Sol (Post 11665931)

"Administrative search" is descriptive as it is the legal term for the basis of what you do each day at the screening checkpoint.

and

Quote:

Originally Posted by whitearrow (Post 11666137)

How about a legal definition?

An administrative search is an inspection or search carried out under a regulatory or statutory scheme, generally in public or commercial premises and usually to enforce compliance with regulations or laws pertaining to health, safety, or security.

The legal basis for administrative searches is the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement. "A search or seizure is ordinarily unreasonable in the absence of individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. While such suspicion is not an 'irreducible' component of reasonableness, [the Supreme Court has] recognized only limited circumstances in which the usual rule does not apply." (City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000) 531 U.S. 32, 37.) "[W]here the risk to public safety is substantial and real, blanket suspicionless searches calibrated to the risk may rank as 'reasonable'--for example, searches now routine at airports and at entrances to courts and other official buildings." (Chandler v. Miller (1997) 520 U.S. 305, 323.)

In the particular case of airports: "[A]irport screening searches...are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches because they are 'conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, namely, to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft, and thereby to prevent hijackings.' [Citation.]" (United States v. Aukai (9th Cir. 2007) 497 F.3d 955, 960.) "[T]he scope of such searches is not limitless. A particular airport security screening search is constitutionally reasonable provided that it 'is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives [ ] [and] that it is confined in good faith to that purpose.' [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 962.)

Two recent interesting law review comments on body-scan searches, both at least somewhat supportive:

Comment, The TSA's New X-Ray Vision: The Fourth Amendment Implications Of "Body-Scan" Searches At Domestic Airport Security Checkpoints, (2009) 49 Santa Clara L. Rev. 213.

Comment, Does the TSA Have Stage Fright? Then Why Are They Picturing You Naked? (2008) 73 J. Air L. & Com. 643.

So no more stalling, TSORon:

Quote:

TK Said:
Quote:
Because the TSA search is an administrative search the governing statute defines the limitations.

I am asking PTraveler about that one, the term “Administrative search” is a bit ambiguious.

What's the answer? Please be specific.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 11666090)

While we're at it appears that the GAO doesn't think to highly about how the TSA does its own testing of checkpoints:

Summary
Full Report

This took me all of one minute to find on the GAO website by searching "TSA test"

Quote:

Originally Posted by magellan315 (Post 11666582)

Thanks for taking that minute, Magellan315. Every minute counts!

By the way, I am glad to see those GAO investigators still know how to stick it in (politely) when they want to:

Quote:

From GAO Summary: Transportation Security Officers (TSOs), formerly known as screeners,

Nothing legal-eagle about it can excuse it. As an all-American grandpa, when I walked away from being frisked in public and made to feel like trash for the first time in my life, it was by the TSA who would not tell me a damn thing about why, before or after.

I don't need a lawyer to tell me when I've been slapped in the face by a bad guy or a bad agency for the wrong reasons. As even dumb old Bob Dylan told my generation, "You don't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows."

You can split legal hairs on this forum all day. The TSA is wrong as hell, there's nothing even a LITTLE American about it, and the most shameful part is that they know so.

So, please, don't let me slow you down. Do go on explaining the TSA entitlement to do the wrong thing to the right folks. Just don't ask me to smile while I wipe the spit off my face.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gofast (Post 11666169)

Um, says who? Has SCOTUS ruled on this issue and I missed it? Or, perhaps, this is just the opinion of some guy on the internet?

The Supremes have ruled on the use of technology that can detect private legal actions as well as illegal actions. The Supremes have also ruled that the common area of an airport is public the same as a street or sidewalk.

The Supremes have not ruled on this particular "case" but it has ruled on the elements. (use of technology, public space, etc)

Watch for my answer to TSORon, I will link to the relevant rulings so you may read them for yourself and then you may argue where you think I am in error or where you think the Supremes are in error.

This may take a while as I am at work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumpy (Post 11666627)

^^^

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 11666015)

Quote:

TK said:

Forced ID verification as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area falls outside the scope of a screening for weapons, explosives or incendiaries, as provide by law.

To this I would ask, which law? Which law limits the TSA in what they are to be searching for?

Title 49 § 1540.5 Terms used in this subchapter.
Screening function means the inspection of individuals and property for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trollkiller (Post 11667124)

Title 49 § 1540.5 Terms used in this subchapter.
Screening function means the inspection of individuals and property for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries.

That must be a typo. I didn't see bottle water on that list.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 11666015)

Quote:

TK said:

The TSA is out of bounds with the forced ID verification as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area and it is breaking the law when it requires its TSOs to perform them.

Huh? Oh, I get ya. Here is the fun part of that. If someone just plain does not have an acceptable ID, we don’t deny them access to the sterile area, as long as they have a valid boarding pass or gate pass. THAT pretty much turns that position into thin air, sorry. So if you don’t mind I’m going to skip the rest of the statements based up the mythical ID requirement.

Was there a change in SOP? When was the change made?

Does this change include airports that have not moved to Secure Flight yet?

What if someone just plain does not want to show it to you?

Does the TSA still attempt to verify someone's identity by calling a "control" center and asking the passenger questions like "what was the address of the house you lived in three years ago" or "what political party do you belong"

If the forced ID verification as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area has been discontinued, I will chalk that up as a victory for the good guys.