|
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 |
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. |
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.
|
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. |
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.
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: 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. 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. 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. 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: But thanks for providing TK’s comments, I obviously didn’t look far enough down the thread. |
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.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0848t.pdf :D |
Originally Posted by doober
(Post 11666403)
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.
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.
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. 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. |
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.
Summary Full Report This took me all of one minute to find on the GAO website by searching "TSA test" |
Originally Posted by magellan315
(Post 11666582)
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" By the way, I am glad to see those GAO investigators still know how to stick it in (politely) when they want to: 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. |
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 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. |
Originally Posted by Lumpy
(Post 11666627)
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. |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 11666015)
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. Screening function means the inspection of individuals and property for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries. |
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. |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 11666015)
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. 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. |
deleted by poster
|
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. |
Originally Posted by Trollkiller
(Post 11666870)
then you may argue where you think I am in error or where you think the Supremes are in error.
|
Originally Posted by gofast
(Post 11667489)
No thanks,...that would be a masturbatory exercise at best.
Seriously, there is value in it. If both sides are making an honest attempt to understand the other person's viewpoint. You never know, you may find something that causes a light to turn on and give me an "ah... ok ... now I get it" moment. Even if you can not convince me as to your point of view, a public debate gives you the opportunity to give others that "ah... ok ... now I get it" moment. |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 11666015)
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. KATZ V. UNITED STATES, 389 U. S. 347 (1967) For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. See Lewis v. United States, 385 U. S. 206, 385 U. S. 210; United States v. Lee, 274 U. S. 559, 274 U. S. 563. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected. ... If the SPO-7 worked in the manner you think it does it would just be a camera and we would not be having this discussion. The SPO-7 is no more a "plain view" camera than the thermo camera in the Kyllo case. KYLLO v. UNITED STATES 533 U.S. 27 Held: Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment "search," and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. Pp. 31-41. (a) The question whether a warrantless search of a home is reasonable and hence constitutional must be answered no in most instances, but the antecedent question whether a Fourth Amendment "search" has occurred is not so simple. This Court has approved warrantless visual surveillance of a home, see California v. Ciraolo, 476 U. S. 207, 213, ruling that visual observation is no "search" at all, see Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U. S. 227, 234-235, 239. In assessing when a search is not a search, the Court has adapted a principle first enunciated in Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 361: A "search" does not occur-even when its object is a house explicitly protected by the Fourth Amendment-unless the individual manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the searched object, and society is willing to recognize that expectation as reasonable, see, e. g., California v. Ciraolo, supra, at 211. Pp. 31-33. ... One might think that the new validating rationale would be that examining the portion of a house that is in plain public view, while it is a "search" 1 despite the absence of trespass, is not an "unreasonable" one under the Fourth Amendment. See Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U. S. 83, 104 (1998) (BREYER, J., concurring in judgment). But in fact we have held that visual observation is no "search" at all perhaps in order to preserve somewhat more intact our doctrine that warrantless searches are presumptively unconstitutional. See Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U. S. 227, 234-235, 239 (1986). In assessing when a search is not a search, we have applied somewhat in reverse the principle first enunciated in Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967). Katz involved eavesdropping by means of an electronic listening device placed on the outside of a telephone booth-a location not within the catalog ("persons, houses, papers, and effects") that the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches. We held that the Fourth Amendment nonetheless protected Katz from the warrantless eavesdropping because he "justifiably relied" upon the privacy of the telephone booth. Id., at 353. As Justice Harlan's oft-quoted concurrence described it, a Fourth Amendment search occurs when the government violates a subjective expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable. See id., at 361 |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 11666015)
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. Title 49 § 1540.1 Applicability of this subchapter and this part. This subchapter and this part apply to persons engaged in aviation-related activities § 1540.5 Terms used in this subchapter Sterile area means a portion of an airport defined in the airport security program that provides passengers access to boarding aircraft and to which the access generally is controlled by TSA, or by an aircraft operator under part 1544 of this chapter or a foreign air carrier under part 1546 of this chapter, through the screening of persons and property. § 1540.107 Submission to screening and inspection. (a) No individual may enter a sterile area or board an aircraft without submitting to the screening and inspection of his or her person and accessible property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access to that area or aircraft under this subchapter. § 1540.105 Security responsibilities of employees and other persons. (a) No person may: (2) Enter, or be present within, a secured area, AOA, SIDA or sterile area without complying with the systems, measures, or procedures being applied to control access to, or presence or movement in, such areas. This does not change the argument that screenings are for the purpose of granting access to the sterile area. |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 11666015)
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. No one is arguing video cameras, that is not what the SPO-7 is. |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 11666015)
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) The frequency range it does density readings on are out of the visible spectrum. Therefore it does peer beneath clothing. Ask yourself this. If cameras are allowed because of the plain sight concept, why is the TSA spending a butt load of cash on a visible light spectrum camera and why are they attempting to by pass the Constitution with “implied consent” signage when they are not needed? |
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. |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 11666015)
TK said: Because the technology can detect both illegal and private legal activity its usage constitutes a search within the 4th amendment. You are lacking on your understanding of "plain sight". Please read Katz. You are also lacking on your understanding of the technology used by the SPO-7. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 1:56 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.