Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I've never claimed the TSA is incapable of wrong doing. But it would be extremely hard for an agent to sexually molest someone. They aren't exactly doing their work in secret. And any actual molestation would elicit a very loud and immediate vocal response.I imagine that is your confirmation bias speaking. Just like you keep "seeing" people being sexually molested by the TSA.
Could be, just like you continually see the TSA following procedures and never doing anything wrong. All you have on your side is that the government says it, while I have the fact that people are people and will sexually molest others whenever they have a chance.
Why do you trust the government despite all the evidence that people are abusive? Is in not possible that the occasional TSO does abuse their power? Isn't the fact that the TSA consistently denies it is happening evidence that they are part of a cover up?
To be honest, you remind me a lot of the apologists for the Catholic church when people accused priests of child abuse. Their attitude was that, if it is happening, it is extremely rare, and the church would take the necessary steps to make sure it did not happen again. My guess is that you did not believe that line coming from them, yet you believe it coming from the TSA because you want them to keep you safe.
Just something to think about.
"no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose "
A search confined in good faith for that purpose, is NOT sexual molestation.
Says the poster child for sheepleness:
"We have already noticed the intimate relation between the two amendments. They throw great light on each other. For the "unreasonable searches and seizures" condemned in the Fourth Amendment are almost always made for the purpose of compelling a man to give evidence against himself, which in criminal cases is condemned in the Fifth Amendment; and compelling a man "in a criminal case to be a witness against himself," which is condemned in the Fifth Amendment, throws light on the question as to what is an "unreasonable search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. And we have been unable to perceive that the seizure of a man's private books and papers to be used in evidence against him is substantially different from compelling him to be a witness against himself. We think it is within the clear intent and meaning of those terms. "
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746 (U.S. 02/01/1886)
.
I wonder if the xcited 1 will try to claim that you are being disingenuous for citing that 1886 precedent...?
FourthAmendment.com - Post details: Airport screening searches no longer considered a matter of implied consent; they are regulatory searches, and they are not without limitsCourts characterize the routine administrative search conducted at a security checkpoint as a warrantless search, subject to the reasonableness requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Such a warrantless search, also known as an administrative search, is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, " confined in good faith to that purpose," and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly. [See United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973)].
You realize that you just proved that your argument that people consent to these searches by flying is wrong, at least in the 9th Circuit, don't you?
Our case law, however, has erroneously suggested that the reasonableness of airport screening searches is dependent upon consent, either ongoing consent or irrevocable implied consent.
The constitutionality of an airport screening search, however, does not depend on consent, see Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315, and requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world. Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by "electing not to fly" on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found. This rule would also allow terrorists a low-cost method of detecting systematic vulnerabilities in airport security, knowledge that could be extremely valuable in planning future attacks. Likewise, given that consent is not required, it makes little sense to predicate the reasonableness of an administrative airport screening search on an irrevocable implied consent theory. Rather, where an airport screening search is otherwise reasonable and conducted pursuant to statutory authority, 49 U.S.C. § 44901, all that is required is the passenger's election to attempt entry into the secured area of an airport. See Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315; 49 C.F.R. § 1540.107. Under current TSA regulations and procedures, that election occurs when a prospective passenger walks through the magnetometer or places items on the conveyor belt of the x-ray machine.
Not at all, I just have this thing about drama queen liars
fear mongering the public into believing America is a police state...
I wonder if the xcited 1 will try to claim that you are being disingenuous for citing that 1886 precedent...?
FourthAmendment.com - Post details: Airport screening searches no longer considered a matter of implied consent; they are regulatory searches, and they are not without limits
You realize that you just proved that your argument that people consent to these searches by flying is wrong, at least in the 9th Circuit, don't you?
The court ruled that the constitutionality of an airport screening search does not depend upon consent...
Our case law, however, has erroneously suggested that the reasonableness of airport screening searches is dependent upon consent, either ongoing consent or irrevocable implied consent.
The constitutionality of an airport screening search, however, does not depend on consent, see Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315, and requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world. Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by "electing not to fly" on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found. This rule would also allow terrorists a low-cost method of detecting systematic vulnerabilities in airport security, knowledge that could be extremely valuable in planning future attacks. Likewise, given that consent is not required, it makes little sense to predicate the reasonableness of an administrative airport screening search on an irrevocable implied consent theory. Rather, where an airport screening search is otherwise reasonable and conducted pursuant to statutory authority, 49 U.S.C. § 44901, all that is required is the passenger's election to attempt entry into the secured area of an airport. See Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315; 49 C.F.R. § 1540.107. Under current TSA regulations and procedures, that election occurs when a prospective passenger walks through the magnetometer or places items on the conveyor belt of the x-ray machine.
You realize that you just proved that your argument that people consent to these searches by flying is wrong, at least in the 9th Circuit, don't you?
The court ruled that the constitutionality of an airport screening search does not depend upon consent...
Our case law, however, has erroneously suggested that the reasonableness of airport screening searches is dependent upon consent, either ongoing consent or irrevocable implied consent.
The constitutionality of an airport screening search, however, does not depend on consent, see Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315, and requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world. Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by "electing not to fly" on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found. This rule would also allow terrorists a low-cost method of detecting systematic vulnerabilities in airport security, knowledge that could be extremely valuable in planning future attacks. Likewise, given that consent is not required, it makes little sense to predicate the reasonableness of an administrative airport screening search on an irrevocable implied consent theory. Rather, where an airport screening search is otherwise reasonable and conducted pursuant to statutory authority, 49 U.S.C. § 44901, all that is required is the passenger's election to attempt entry into the secured area of an airport. See Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315; 49 C.F.R. § 1540.107. Under current TSA regulations and procedures, that election occurs when a prospective passenger walks through the magnetometer or places items on the conveyor belt of the x-ray machine.
Which invalidates your argument that people consent to the search by flying.
We're talking about airport security, not checkpoints and random searches,
and you keep deflecting and pretending the implementation of this airport security policy was political by repeating the word "leftist" as if repeating it will make it true...?
We have held that airport screening searches, like the one at issue here, 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." United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973); see also United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174, 178 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 111 (2006); Marquez, 410 F.3d at 616.
The court ruled that the constitutionality of an airport screening search does not depend upon consent...
A legal administrative search at the airport is not fascism and the TSA pat-downs have been implemented since 2002.
Says the poster child for sheepleness:
"We have already noticed the intimate relation between the two amendments. They throw great light on each other. For the "unreasonable searches and seizures" condemned in the Fourth Amendment are almost always made for the purpose of compelling a man to give evidence against himself, which in criminal cases is condemned in the Fifth Amendment; and compelling a man "in a criminal case to be a witness against himself," which is condemned in the Fifth Amendment, throws light on the question as to what is an "unreasonable search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. And we have been unable to perceive that the seizure of a man's private books and papers to be used in evidence against him is substantially different from compelling him to be a witness against himself. We think it is within the clear intent and meaning of those terms. "
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746 (U.S. 02/01/1886)
.
I wonder if the xcited 1 will try to claim that you are being disingenuous for citing that 1886 precedent...?
Courts characterize the routine administrative search conducted at a security checkpoint as a warrantless search, subject to the reasonableness requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Such a warrantless search, also known as an administrative search, is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, " confined in good faith to that purpose," and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly. [See United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973)].
FourthAmendment.com - Post details: Airport screening searches no longer considered a matter of implied consent; they are regulatory searches, and they are not without limits
Says the poster child for sheepleness:
"We have already noticed the intimate relation between the two amendments. They throw great light on each other. For the "unreasonable searches and seizures" condemned in the Fourth Amendment are almost always made for the purpose of compelling a man to give evidence against himself, which in criminal cases is condemned in the Fifth Amendment; and compelling a man "in a criminal case to be a witness against himself," which is condemned in the Fifth Amendment, throws light on the question as to what is an "unreasonable search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. And we have been unable to perceive that the seizure of a man's private books and papers to be used in evidence against him is substantially different from compelling him to be a witness against himself. We think it is within the clear intent and meaning of those terms. "
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746 (U.S. 02/01/1886)
.
I wonder if the xcited 1 will try to claim that you are being disingenuous for citing that 1886 precedent...?
Courts characterize the routine administrative search conducted at a security checkpoint as a warrantless search, subject to the reasonableness requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Such a warrantless search, also known as an administrative search, is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, " confined in good faith to that purpose," and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly. [See United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973)].
FourthAmendment.com - Post details: Airport screening searches no longer considered a matter of implied consent; they are regulatory searches, and they are not without limits
Just so you know , the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION was adopted in 1787 , so why is the age of the precedent relevant?!?!?!?!?!!?
.
I noticed you ignored the facts about when the procedure was implemented only to repeat your lie 15 posts later.
What are you buzzing about, drone? Do you even know?
BTW, now you're saying we shouldn't even need to show a passport or license either?
You mean just random checks? No, we should not.
I suspect that much of your hostility toward basic civil liberties is born of your complete lack of grasp of the concept of liberty.
I don't care whether an infringement causes direct and immediate harm. A free people are left unmolested in their daily lives. Checkpoints and random searches are features of a police state, not a free people.
I grew up in a free country - I support making this nation free again.
We're talking about airport security, not checkpoints and random searches, and you keep deflecting and pretending the implementation of this airport security policy was political by repeating the word "leftist" as if repeating it will make it true...?
We have held that airport screening searches, like the one at issue here, 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." United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973); see also United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174, 178 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 111 (2006); Marquez, 410 F.3d at 616.
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." Davis, 482 F.2d at 913.
FourthAmendment.com - Post details: Airport screening searches no longer considered a matter of implied consent; they are regulatory searches, and they are not without limits
What are you buzzing about, drone? Do you even know?
You mean just random checks? No, we should not.
I suspect that much of your hostility toward basic civil liberties is born of your complete lack of grasp of the concept of liberty.
I don't care whether an infringement causes direct and immediate harm. A free people are left unmolested in their daily lives. Checkpoints and random searches are features of a police state, not a free people.
I grew up in a free country - I support making this nation free again.
We're talking about airport security, not checkpoints and random searches, and you keep deflecting and pretending the implementation of this airport security policy was political by repeating the word "leftist" as if repeating it will make it true...?
We have held that airport screening searches, like the one at issue here, 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." United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973); see also United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174, 178 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 111 (2006); Marquez, 410 F.3d at 616.
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." Davis, 482 F.2d at 913.
FourthAmendment.com - Post details: Airport screening searches no longer considered a matter of implied consent; they are regulatory searches, and they are not without limits
Bullshit.
How can the search be reasonable if evidence that a passenger is carrying explosives or weapons can cause him to be prosecuted?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
The sheeple never cease to amaze me.
.
We're talking about airport security, not checkpoints and random searches, and you keep deflecting and pretending the implementation of this airport security policy was political by repeating the word "leftist" as if repeating it will make it true...?
We have held that airport screening searches, like the one at issue here, 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." United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973); see also United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174, 178 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 111 (2006); Marquez, 410 F.3d at 616.
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." Davis, 482 F.2d at 913.
FourthAmendment.com - Post details: Airport screening searches no longer considered a matter of implied consent; they are regulatory searches, and they are not without limits
Bullshit.
How can the search be reasonable if evidence that a passenger is carrying explosives or weapons can cause him to be prosecuted?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
The sheeple never cease to amaze me.
.
You think passengers who attempt to carry explosives onto airplanes shouldn't be prosecuted???
You think passengers who attempt to carry explosives onto airplanes shouldn't be prosecuted???
The court ruled that the constitutionality of an airport screening search does not depend upon consent...
Which invalidates your argument that people consent to the search by flying.
Where did I say that, first of all? Secondly, they do consent by flying but the court ruled the constitutionality of the search is not even dependent upon it.
We're talking about airport security, not checkpoints and random searches, and you keep deflecting and pretending the implementation of this airport security policy was political by repeating the word "leftist" as if repeating it will make it true...?
We have held that airport screening searches, like the one at issue here, 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." United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973); see also United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174, 178 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 111 (2006); Marquez, 410 F.3d at 616.
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." Davis, 482 F.2d at 913.
FourthAmendment.com - Post details: Airport screening searches no longer considered a matter of implied consent; they are regulatory searches, and they are not without limits
Bullshit.
How can the search be reasonable if evidence that a passenger is carrying explosives or weapons can cause him to be prosecuted?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
The sheeple never cease to amaze me.
.
You think passengers who attempt to carry explosives onto airplanes shouldn't be prosecuted???
Which invalidates your argument that people consent to the search by flying.
Where did I say that, first of all? Secondly, they do consent by flying but the court ruled the constitutionality of the search is not even dependent upon it.
If you consent by flying you can revoke that consent by deciding not to fly. That is how implied consent works in the real world, which is why police cannot force you to take an DUI test without a warrant. You have the option of revoking your consent by surrendering your license.
If you were not one of the ones that made that particular argument I apologize, it seems to be that everyone thinks that clinches the defense of the searches, and I cannot remember exactly who has said it when so many people do.
Defendant went into the security line at the Honolulu airport, but it was noted on his boarding pass that he presented "No ID" to get through security. He was accordingly selected for secondary screening, although he was protesting that his flight was about to leave, which it was. A handheld wand went off on a front pants pocket three times, and he protested that he had nothing in his pocket. The TSA officer used the back of his hand to feel what might be setting off the alarm on the wand, and something was in there but he could not tell what it was. Defendant at that point asked to leave the airport because he changed his mind about flying. The TSA officer told him to empty his pockets, and a meth pipe was found in the front pocket. A further search of his person revealed meth. The Ninth Circuit held that airport searches no longer are dependent upon implied consent; they are now administrative searches because flying on an airplane in a post-9/11 world is now the same as a "highly regulated industry." Any "implied consent," thus, cannot be revoked once the passenger elects to enter the secure area. Such searches, however, are not limitless; they are limited by their justification: screening for terrorists. This search was reasonable under the circumstances. United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc):
Yes, and some people have a hissy fit and wet their pants at the first sign of an authority figure in uniform... Meanwhile, the vast majority of us go through the x-ray screener and have a nice day.
How much is TSA paying per hour nowadays?
.
I hope I see you in an airport someday crying and moaning because you're scared of the big bad X ray machine and being subjected to the "sexual assault" of a pat down, so I can point and laugh as I breeze through the X Ray and go on my merry way. That would make me laugh.
