|
TSA and the Law
I have questioned several people here about their belief's that the TSA has no authority to do the job that we do. That we violate an individuals constitutional rights by doing the screening that we do and in the way that we do it.
Not intending to start a fight here, I though this might be a good discussion thread that could provide a great deal of information to the flying public as well as the various forms of TSO that may be posting or reading here. So, in furtherance of this, I’d like to start by posting the legal reference that makes TSA an organization, and the link to that information so that those interested can read it for themselves. And that’s what I would like to see from the other participants, a statement with a supporting link for their belief’s or position. I would also like to keep this one friendly, a means of education for any who might be interested. We have at least one individual here who claims to be a lawyer, I feel that we could use their knowledge to flesh this thread out so that it serves all of us. 49 USC - US Code - Title 49: Transportation (January 2003) |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 11664898)
I have questioned several people here about their belief's that the TSA has no authority to do the job that we do.
|
You all ready got your answers at the TSA blog here courtesy of Trollkiller. Asking the same question at this forum is not going to change them
|
Originally Posted by magellan315
(Post 11665353)
You all ready got your answers at the TSA blog[url=https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2336044328955501444&postID=513472 8456495616567] here[/ur] courtesy of Trollkiller. Asking the same question at this forum is not going to change them
^^^^ |
Is mission creep still open as a nickname?:rolleyes::rolleyes: IF NOT, THEN
There should be a monthly award for the poster that does the most to advance the cause of mission creep, IMHO. |
Originally Posted by magellan315
(Post 11665353)
You all ready got your answers at the TSA blog here courtesy of Trollkiller. Asking the same question at this forum is not going to change them
Magellen, I am not trying to be combative here. I am genuinely interested in how people are thinking about their rights when dealing with the TSA. Both here and in the EOS blog posters continuously post about how the TSA is violating their rights in one way or another, and I have actually heard these complaints on the checkpoint. I am a bit curious about where people get these belief’s and if they are factual. If factual, where can support for these facts be found? I’m not going to ask you to participate, you may if you choose or not. Feel free either way. The posters here have put forth a great deal of effort trying to convince me and a few others that the TSA is fundamentally doing something wrong. Seems to me that this stems from the posters understanding of their rights under the constitution, but I don’t see it the same way that they do. So, one of us has it wrong, maybe we can come to an accommodation by discussion here. |
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. We may get there eventually, but not right now.
TSO Ron said 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. Trollkiller Said Okay dokey TSORon, I will accept the challenge. To help those following at home I will make a seperate post detailing each violation. 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. Because the TSA search is an administrative search the governing statute defines the limitations. 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. Because the forced ID verification as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area falls outside the limitations set forth in the governing statute, the forced ID verification as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area is an unreasonable search within the confines of the 4th amendment. Therefore the forced ID verification as a criterion for granting access to the sterile area violates the 4th amendment protections. April 28, 2009 8:52 PM Anonymous Trollkiller said... TSORon said... 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. Round 2: The common area of an airport has been deemed a public space by the Supreme court. Placing the SPO-7 or ANY screening device in the public space of an airport to conduct an administrative search falls outside the limitations set forth in the governing statute. Screenings are to take place in screening locations for the purpose of granting access to the sterile or other restricted areas as defined by the statute. 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. Therefore the use of the SPO-7 or ANY screening device in this manner violates the 4th amendment protections. April 28, 2009 9:22 PM Anonymous Trollkiller said... TSORon said... 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. Round 3: The SPO-7 uses technology that can "peer" beneath clothing and create a threat assessment. Based on either reflected MMW or emitted MMW. (not sure, don't care to look right now and it does not change the argument) Because the technology can detect both illegal and private legal activity its usage constitutes a search within the 4th amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that without a warrant this type of search is unreasonable and violates the 4th amendment. Any use of the information gained by the SPO-7 located in a public area to generate an immediate "probable cause" search, a warrant search or a secondary at the legitimate screening location would violate not only the unreasonable search clause of the 4th amendment but also the unreasonable seizure clause of the 4th. April 28, 2009 10:19 PM |
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. We may get there eventually, but not right now.
|
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 11664898)
I have questioned several people here about their belief's that the TSA has no authority to do the job that we do. That we violate an individuals constitutional rights by doing the screening that we do and in the way that we do it.
Not intending to start a fight here, I though this might be a good discussion thread that could provide a great deal of information to the flying public as well as the various forms of TSO that may be posting or reading here. So, in furtherance of this, I’d like to start by posting the legal reference that makes TSA an organization, and the link to that information so that those interested can read it for themselves. And that’s what I would like to see from the other participants, a statement with a supporting link for their belief’s or position. I would also like to keep this one friendly, a means of education for any who might be interested. We have at least one individual here who claims to be a lawyer, I feel that we could use their knowledge to flesh this thread out so that it serves all of us. 49 USC - US Code - Title 49: Transportation (January 2003) No one here will argue that you have a legal (codified) right to screen airline passengers and others entering a nonpublic area of an airport for weapons, explosives or incendiaries. In the future when citing law please link to, or cite with specific statute numbers the particular part you are referencing. Telling us 49 USC - US Code - Title 49 is not very useful if the part you are referring to is down in the 1500s. It would be like me arguing something is unconstitutional and then pointing to the whole Constitution. |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 11664898)
I’d like to start by posting the legal reference that makes TSA an organization, and the link to that information so that those interested can read it for themselves.
49 USC - US Code - Title 49: Transportation (January 2003) But, trying to be positive here, I must commend you for listing 49 USC - US Code - Title 49: Transportation as your organizational papers. Sooo many FTers have wasted countless hours searching for the TSA creation papers in more logical first choices to search, ususally in the pages of Mein Kampf or The Communist Manifesto. :p |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 11664898)
I would also like to keep this one friendly, a means of education for any who might be interested.
49 USC - US Code - Title 49: Transportation (January 2003) Part of the official federal job description requires TSO's " to communicate with the public, giving directions and responding to inquiries in a professional and courteous manner". Vacancy notice:BB6-F09-P002 No where in the job description does it indicate that a TSO is a "law enforcement officer"(LEO). By Office of Management (OPM) standards they are clerical personnel who enforce specific laws without seizure or arrest authority. That is why you voluntarily surrender items without receiving any type of receipt. Unfortunately the fact that they have some sort of badge on the uniform seems to encourage an officious behavior by many TSO's. I suggest that before and attempt is made to "educate" us that TSO management is educated in the basics of professionalism, courtesy and respect and then correctly train TSO's and INSIST that these principals be carried out. The TSO"s MUST be made fully aware of what limited authority they have and be fully knowledgeable of the laws they are enforcing. When the Government Accounting Office (GAO) conducts security tests at the TSO check points one of the prevailing concepts in their reports is the lack of professionalism, courtesy and respect exhibited by the line TSO's. I do not hold the line officers completely responsible for their officious attitudes as management seems to have the same attitude and appears to be unwilling to properly train the work force and weed-out those that cannot or will not be trained. I believe the solution is in part with US. We have to inform our senators and congressman. Enough letters will eventually get the attention of TSA and TSO management. PS: Maybe I should change my screen name to "longwinded";) |
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. |
Originally Posted by magellan315
(Post 11665684)
As usual you are trying to redirect away from an answer you don't like, 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.
But thanks for providing TK’s comments, I obviously didn’t look far enough down the thread. Anyway, Roberts cite was an interesting read, I would recommend it for anyone who has questions in that area. 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. TK Said: Because the TSA search is an administrative search the governing statute defines the limitations. 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. TK said: The common area of an airport has been deemed a public space by the Supreme court. Placing the SPO-7 or ANY screening device in the public space of an airport to conduct an administrative search falls outside the limitations set forth in the governing statute. TK said: Screenings are to take place in screening locations for the purpose of granting access to the sterile or other restricted areas as defined by the statute. TK said: 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. Therefore the use of the SPO-7 or ANY screening device in this manner violates the 4th amendment protections. TK said: The SPO-7 uses technology that can "peer" beneath clothing and create a threat assessment. Based on either reflected MMW or emitted MMW. (not sure, don't care to look right now and it does not change the argument) TK said: Because the technology can detect both illegal and private legal activity its usage constitutes a search within the 4th amendment. 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. |
Originally Posted by OnTheAsile
(Post 11665779)
I suggest that before and attempt is made to "educate" us that TSO management is educated in the basics of professionalism, courtesy and respect and then correctly train TSO's and INSIST that these principals be carried out.
The TSO"s MUST be made fully aware of what limited authority they have and be fully knowledgeable of the laws they are enforcing. When the Government Accounting Office (GAO) conducts security tests at the TSO check points one of the prevailing concepts in their reports is the lack of professionalism, courtesy and respect exhibited by the line TSO's. I do not hold the line officers completely responsible for their officious attitudes as management seems to have the same attitude and appears to be unwilling to properly train the work force and weed-out those that cannot or will not be trained. |
TSA thinks they are above the law. They routinely stopped passengers on the GA side of the field in Melbourne and Nashville, searched their persons and automobiles without warrants. Clearly this is unconstitutional and beyond the scope of TSA. Forcing their way into private hangars borders on assault. Should that happen to me, I will call a "real" LEO and file assault charges. These little tin badges mean nothing.
To get respect, you first must earn it. Just Google TSA goons and you will see multiple stories of stolen goods, drug dealing, stalking former girlfriends, and the occasional pedophile. TSA conducts ‘inappropriate’ screenings at FBOs By Tom Norton · February 4, 2009 Transportation Security Administration officials conducted unauthorized screening of passengers and flight crew at FBOs at Nashville International Airport in December and January, and at Melbourne, Florida in January, according to NBAA and a letter received by GeneralAviationNews.com. The screenings included checking “a number of pilots and passengers with wands and actual baggage searches,” NBAA vice president of safety, security and regulation Doug Carr stated in a Feb. 3 e-mail message to members. More: http://www.generalaviationnews.com/?p=5469 |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 7:15 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.