“They’ve?” I think you mean “we’ve.”
So? Who works for whom, here?
TSA softens its approach. They’ve made themselves both a focus of popular outrage and a highly visible laughingstock. They’ve lost.
How about groups of people outside security chanting something along the lines of “Hey, hey, TSA, how many kids did you grope today?” or maybe ask when they’re changing their uniform shirts to brown.
People who have actually experienced the “opt-out” search or the “scanning problem” search have described this as much more than a “brief tap.” More like hands slid into the crotch and over the genitals from in front and again from behind.
And let’s don’t forget the rather creepy fingers stroking through the hair and, inexplicably, over the face.
No… trust me, there’s nothing more guaranteed to make you feel less “hot” than being sleazed at like that, particularly in that kind of situation where you’re very aware that these unprofessional idiots have power over you.
(and they tend to sleaze equally at the ones who wouldn’t be considered conventionally “hot” too, just with a few more sneers thrown in)
hermette.
How so? He’s free to continue groping while I moan and gasp. In fact, to erase any doubt, you can keep repeating in a breathless voice, “don’t stop…don’t stop…don’t stop…”
Everyone should follow the lead of Derek Smalls of Spinal Tap, and place a foil-wrapped zucchini in the front of their trousers.
Ahem.
The fine is for getting into security and then refusing to participate. You have every right to not fly. You don’t (according to the TSA) have the right to get into the security line, wait and see if you get chosen for extra security, and then decide you don’t want to be there.
The theory, as I’ve heard it, is that if you’re allowed to opt out at that point, you could just get back in line another day (or with another person) and hope you don’t get screened as tightly, so you could sneak contraband in. It’s a side effect of random sampling - it doesn’t work if the people being sampled control the randomness.
-D/A
Since Bricker hasn’t picked this up yet, I’ll go ahead and answer from three different perspectives.
-
Uber-legal. What the TSA does falls under the category of an Administrative Search. These are searches done to enforce compliance with specific regulations. As such, they need no probable cause to search you. The TSA can justify this since you are not obligated or compelled to travel in the airplanes. Consequently, by choosing to board , you also choose to accept the policies in place before boarding.
-
Quasi-legal/speculative: The Supreme Court has stated that the reasonableness of the administrative search can only be determined by balancing the need to search against the invasion which the search entails. My belief is that this type of searching (both the back scatter technology and the enhanced screening procedures) can be argued to both be too invasive to justify given the goals established by the administrative search. Further, the use of penalties up to $10,000 for failing to complete the search after having been selected for it really start to move this into the territory of a compulsory search and it’s my opinion that they should lose some of the protection established by the administrative search function because of that.
-
Personal: Seriously? This whole fucking thing is a goddamned joke. I don’t care that the TSA is “just doing his job” or “hates it as much as we all do.” The goal of a protest is to affect change and the way to do that is to get the attention (really get the attention) of those who have the ability to change the policy. Fuck this “minor inconvenience” bullshit. I don’t like giving up my liberties to perform a bit part in security theatre. Because I believe my liberties trump your need to feel up my nutsack even if you’re doing so under the guise of a so-called “administrative search.”
I’m sure Bricker will provide a more thorough explanation, but here’s what I was able to find in a few minutes of online legal research.
Let’s begin by considering two issues, and how they dovetail. First, is an airport search (of any type) of a traveller constitutional under the Fourth Amendment; and second, can the traveller refuse the search and simply leave the airport? The short answer to the first is yes; and to the second, no–but here’s where the dovetailing occurs: the answer to the second would also have been yes up until a few years ago.
We find the answer to the first issue in United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893 (9th Cir. 1973). This is a 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals decision; and it basically says that yes, such searches are allowed under the Fourth Amendment, “if, despite the absence of a warrant, they nonetheless ‘meet the Fourth Amendment’s standard of reasonableness.’” (Aukai, infra, quoting Davis, at 910.)
So what is “reasonable” under these circumstances? According to the Davis court (at 913), the reasonableness standard is satisfied if three conditions are fulfilled:
- [T]hat [the search] is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives;
- [T]hat it is confined in good faith to that purpose; and,
- [T]hat potential passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.
It is the third condition that presents the problem facing today’s travellers. The Davis court explained it by stating that as long as the traveller had the right to choose not to fly, thus avoiding the search, the search was constitutional: “In sum, airport screening searches of the persons and immediate possessions of potential passengers for weapons and explosives are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment provided each prospective passenger retains the right to leave rather than submit to the search.” (Davis, at 912.)
This is exactly what John Tyner (the “don’t touch my junk” guy) tried to do recently–once in the security process, he revoked his consent, chose not to fly, and tried to leave. Unfortunately for Mr. Tyner, things had changed, and they had changed as a result of United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2007). Briefly, Mr. Aukai tried to fly out of Honolulu, and during the search at the airport, changed his mind and wanted to leave. However, TSA officials had found drugs on him. Aukai was arrested and convicted on the drug charge. Among other arguments, Aukai disputed the drug charge on Fourth Amendment grounds: as per the third Davis condition above, he chose not to fly in an effort to avoid the search, no warrant was issued authorizing the search; therefore, the search he endured was unconstitutional.
Again, the 9th Circuit pondered this, and came up with the following in Aukai (apologies, but I cannot find a pinpoint cite):
Emphasis added. It would seem that the court acknowledged its earlier error in Davis and that the third condition no longer holds–once the traveller even so much as places items on the x-ray machine conveyor, he or she has indicated an intention to access the secure area and must complete the process, regardless of a change of mind once in the process (Issue 2, above). Further, as per the first two conditions of Davis, warrantless searches can be conducted to looks for weapons using current technology, and in good faith for that purpose (Issue 1, above). In short, this is a constitutionally-valid administrative search, and the only way the traveller can avoid it is by choosing not to fly well before he or she gets to the checkpoint.
Like I said, this is only what I was able to find and reason as a result of a quick bit of research, and I’m sure a more knowledgeable American legal Doper (like Bricker) can fill in more information and correct me where I’m wrong. But I hope it is somehow suitable. As for me, I’m not entirely sure I like the court’s decision in Aukai, but unless and until this matter reaches the US Supreme Court and is overturned or somehow modified by that body, I guess it’s the law.
Not a valid ahem. Many (most?) Dopers won’t follow a link if you don’t tell them what it is – especially when it goes to a video, so mbh gets credit for being the first in the thread to actually mention Spinal Tap.
(Note: I am not speaking as a moderator, just as a member of this board that hates links without explanations of what they are)
Amen to that. I hate unexplained links. Plus I’m here to read what you have to say, not to follow every link off-board to a YouTube video or whatever.
A slight hijack.
May I suggest an improvement in set up? It’s pretty stupid to have the security check and the baggage check in two different places. Why can’t the person who checks your ticket also check your bag, check your carry-on, check your passport and do any security search required? That way, the thing you’ve forgotten in your pocket can get put into the checked baggage.
I am not interested in the TSA employees whose mellow is being harshed by people getting pissed off at them. If the TSA’s point of view is, “If we don’t like it, we should choose another mode of travel- nobody HAS to fly,” then I say this to these poor verbally harassed TSA folks- “If you don’t like it, you should choose another line of work- nobody HAS to work for the TSA.” Only doing what you’re told? Fine. Take responsibility for it. You are pulling the trigger, no matter who gave you the gun and told you to point it.
Profiling MIGHT enhance safety and security- this stuff does not. I don’t personally believe in “the end justifies the means” anyway- there are no ends, only means.