Court says TSA engaged in unlawful search. (Fofana)
Jun 22, 2009, 4:47 pm
#16
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Jun 22, 2009, 5:02 pm
#17
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
Jun 22, 2009, 5:22 pm
#18
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
If travelers have a
I wonder if this could be extended to a "privacy interest in their bodies" as a means for preventing the MMW from becoming the primary method of screening. Seems to me one's body is more "private" than the contents of one's luggage.
privacy interest in the contents of their luggage
Jun 22, 2009, 5:33 pm
#19
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 10,037
I think that "privacy" is defined as being in force when it's out of the TSA's scope of a search for threats to aviation security. Thus, the strip search would be fair game.
Jun 22, 2009, 5:42 pm
#20
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
the Judge is NOT saying the TSO cannot report suspicious discoveries to an LEO (just like an ordinary citizen would)...but rather, as part of the procedure, if the goal of airport screening is to prevent weapons, etc from making on the airplane, once the TSO determines an item is NOT a weapon or a threat to safety, they cannot expand the search to "make sure" or by looking for contraband. (Because, contraband is not a weapon and while it MIGHT be illegal, it's not a threat to flight safety).
I should clarify, the order doesn't really say the TSA CAN'T search for contraband, but the results of that search aren't going to be acceptable for evidence in a charge for something else (in this case, fake passports). So they might as well just not do it.
I should clarify, the order doesn't really say the TSA CAN'T search for contraband, but the results of that search aren't going to be acceptable for evidence in a charge for something else (in this case, fake passports). So they might as well just not do it.
(Cue law enforcement types who can't see past the fact that the defendant was likely guilty of something, and who don't understand the risk of allowing any evidence regardless of how it was collected.)
Jun 22, 2009, 5:47 pm
#21
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
The Aukai test:
(1) the search is “no more extensive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives;”
(2) the search “is confined in good faith to that purpose;” and
(3) a potential passenger may avoid the search by choosing not to fly.
Aukai, 497 F.3d at 962.
Jun 22, 2009, 6:14 pm
#22
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marriott or Hilton hot tub with a big drink <glub> Beverage: To-Go Bag™ DYKWIA: SSSS /rolleyes ☈ Date Night: Costco
Programs: Sea Shell Lounge Platinum, TSA Pre✓ Refusnik Diamond, PWP Gold, FT subset of the subset
Posts: 12,509
Thanks for posting this, Trollkiller!
Jun 22, 2009, 6:26 pm
#23
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,878
i say it's one for us ^ and about bloody time ^
yup
not me. not one bit. every employee has the right to question something if they don't think it is right. the "i was just following orders" as noted by AngryMiller below, doesn't cut it with me
yup.
ya think? 
Jun 22, 2009, 7:11 pm
#24
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 71
If this is an accurate summary of the ruling, this is really exciting news!
(Cue law enforcement types who can't see past the fact that the defendant was likely guilty of something, and who don't understand the risk of allowing any evidence regardless of how it was collected.)
(Cue law enforcement types who can't see past the fact that the defendant was likely guilty of something, and who don't understand the risk of allowing any evidence regardless of how it was collected.)
That is, if you're providing security at an airport, you can only search for items that affect flight safety--in MY interpretation, that means if they find a bottle of vodka and I were under 21, the TSA MAY report my possession of the vodka, but the cops can't use the vodka as evidence to give me an underage possession ticket.
Jun 22, 2009, 7:19 pm
#25
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: FrostByte Falls, Mn
Programs: Holiday Inn Plat NW gold AA gold
Posts: 2,157
That is, if you're providing security at an airport, you can only search for items that affect flight safety--in MY interpretation, that means if they find a bottle of vodka and I were under 21, the TSA MAY report my possession of the vodka, but the cops can't use the vodka as evidence to give me an underage possession ticket.
This might be enough of a PITA to herald an end to the war on liquids.
Jun 22, 2009, 7:20 pm
#26
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: DFW
Programs: UA Pleb, HH Gold, PWP General Secretary
Posts: 23,199
I hate to be Cpt. BuzzKill. But ruling is essentially useless. Hand checks weren't outlawed, just an intent to be an LEO.
No TSA is every going to admited to wanting to be a LEO ever again, but they'll still continue to do it.
No TSA is every going to admited to wanting to be a LEO ever again, but they'll still continue to do it.
Jun 22, 2009, 7:25 pm
#27
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: FrostByte Falls, Mn
Programs: Holiday Inn Plat NW gold AA gold
Posts: 2,157
Possibly, but this might have a chilling effect on the way TSA routinely tramples the rights of passengers. Since Congress has done nothing to reign in the out of control agency it is up to the courts to do so. This is the first case that I can remember where they've gotten anything close to a slap down.
Jun 22, 2009, 7:27 pm
#28
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Sounds like the moral of the story is if you don't want TSA snooping thru anything that isn't germaine to the search of weapons, explosives, or incendiaries, stick it in an envelope.
I think the pot heads now know how to get weed thru the airport.
I think the pot heads now know how to get weed thru the airport.
Jun 22, 2009, 7:29 pm
#29
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Possibly, but this might have a chilling effect on the way TSA routinely tramples the rights of passengers. Since Congress has done nothing to reign in the out of control agency it is up to the courts to do so. This is the first case that I can remember where they've gotten anything close to a slap down.
Saw that case talked about on CNN today and they weren't toeing the "anything for security" line. ^
Jun 22, 2009, 8:39 pm
#30
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 71
If the bottle is in plain sight and you're obviously under age then they can report you to a LEO for action. If the bottle is well wrapped and passes the ETD then they can't unwrap the bottle (in checked baggage) to see what it is for LEO intervention. If it is undeclared liquids in hand carried luggage, wrapped up, they can't unwrap them then call a LEO over. They've got to accept your voluntary 'surrender' of said liquids.
This might be enough of a PITA to herald an end to the war on liquids.
This might be enough of a PITA to herald an end to the war on liquids.