Former TSA security director: No one likes Fourth Amendment violations, but we’re going to have to do it

posted at 7:41 pm on November 16, 2010 by Allahpundit

Via Left Coast Rebel, skip ahead to 2:30 for the money line. I’ll say this for the guy: He’s not one for sugar-coating. If he has to break a few constitutional eggs to make a security omelette, not only is he going to do it, he’s going to tell you that he’s doing it. Bend over — this Fourth Amendment violation won’t hurt a bit. I wonder what that’ll do to the poll numbers: As of yesterday, fully 81 percent of the public supports the use of full-body scanners at the airport, but as Nate Silver notes, that may be because relatively few people have had to endure them yet. Poll it again in a month, after “don’t touch my junk” fee-vah has had term to percolate culturally, and who knows where it’ll be.

Speaking of which, Gizmodo’s touting the fact that it’s obtained 100 images from a full-body scanner used at a courthouse in Florida showing photos of people side-by-side with their (fuzzy) X-rayed selves. Which isn’t supposed to happen, of course, per the endless assurances from the feds that the machines don’t save images they record. Two things, though. One: We already knew about this incident. That doesn’t diminish the privacy breach, but strictly from the standpoint of public awareness, everyone should already know that these things are indeed capable of exporting images. (Which makes sense: They’d want that as evidence afterwards if a suspect is apprehended.) As for the side-by-side real-life/X-ray comparisons, if you believe Napolitano — a very big if, I know — that wouldn’t happen at the airport. She’s sworn up and down that images from the full-body scanner are viewed at a remote location in the airport so that the screener observing them doesn’t see the actual passenger. In theory, at least in airports, side-by-side comparisons that identify people shouldn’t be possible. But then, in theory, the machines aren’t saving images either. Go figure.

Update: Elsewhere, Greenroomer Howard Portnoy explores the claims about dangerous radiation. Are these things really firing off damaging rays? Well … maybe, yeah.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

The more I think about this, the more uncomfortable I get. I don’t really want naked pictures of myself floating around, and I don’t like the idea of being felt up either. I could deal with both of those things, barely, but the idea that naked pictures of my children might find their way into circulation is enough to make me swear off flying until this situation is resolved.

Israel has the right idea.

Vera on November 16, 2010 at 7:46 PM

“rabid jackass fool”, as my friend’s grandma used to say

OmahaConservative on November 16, 2010 at 7:46 PM

Don’t touch my junk.

OmahaConservative on November 16, 2010 at 7:46 PM

the government is always a balance between liberty and tyranny. The tyranny side is weighing awfully heavy these days. People are now willing to throttle back on this to reestablish liberty to not have their trunk junk checked.

ted c on November 16, 2010 at 7:47 PM

EVERYONE read these testimonies.

It’s HORRIFYING

TSA workers moaning over “hot” girls getting scanned, forcing insulin pumps to go through the scanners (which killed the pump), patting down rape victims, stealing money , separating old people apart

http://views.washingtonpost.com/post-user-polls/2010/11/have-you-ever-been-subjected-to-an-airport-security-pat-down.html?hpid=talkbox1

WHAT THE HECK IS WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY?????

Over under on this policy getting scrapped : 3 weeks

Over under on El Al screening: Palins inauguration

picklesgap on November 16, 2010 at 7:47 PM

Constitution? What Constitution? We don need no steenking Constitution

davidk on November 16, 2010 at 7:47 PM

As Bruno Napalitano says:

“It’s all about security,” Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said. “It’s all about everybody recognizing their role.”

So PROLES, just mind your place! Don’t be getting uppity!

GarandFan on November 16, 2010 at 7:48 PM

PS what if I have a gay TSA patter?

This is INSANITY

picklesgap on November 16, 2010 at 7:48 PM

They hate us. This is the same government going after the state of Arizona for trying to protect themselves from illegal trespassers over the border. But a three-year old girl trying to board an airplane? Strip search her!

PatMac on November 16, 2010 at 7:48 PM

next time I fly, I’m going to float an atomic air biscuit after eating a whole big ass bowl of chili. We’ll have a little olfactory check on the TSA.

ted c on November 16, 2010 at 7:48 PM

“Now please lift up your Pen!s”.

“Now the testicles.”

“Now bend over, and with both hands spread your buttocks.”

“You may now dress and enter terminal 3.”

portlandon on November 16, 2010 at 7:48 PM

NOance Mo!

ontherocks on November 16, 2010 at 7:49 PM

next up are junk check waivers. Junk check waivers for muslims. Maybe we can just all claim “muslim” when we check in. Freedom of religion, right.?

ted c on November 16, 2010 at 7:50 PM

The sudden implementation of the new screening standards have created a quandary for our family. Next month, our son will be traveling on his own to Houston, to meet up with a group of teens that will go on to Washington DC together. He’s traveled on his own for several years. He knows the drill on how to pack his bags, empty his pockets, behave respectfully and consider his words.

Here are the questions that I find myself pondering today:

1. How do you even discuss the possibility of his being touched inappropriately by the TSA agents? How do you make sure he knows his rights and how to assert them without escalating the situation?

2. He is a minor and at last check heterosexual…. How will he react if he is groped by a male TSA agent without a parent present to know what’s going on? and if the agent demands to place his hands inside his clothing?

3. What is the role/liability of the chaperone’s who have a legal (in the contract) responsibility of due diligence to keep these students safe from things like being molested?

This issue has really begun to bother me, because we raised our children to feel safe and secure in their persons, that no one has the right to touch or molest them and that they have the right to say no to anyone intruding their physical boundaries. And I’m really glad, I don’t have to think about a minor daughter being on this trip at this point in time.

and on a side note, none of the parents had an issue completing the Secret Service forms that were required for visiting certain venues.

2nd Ammendment Mother on November 16, 2010 at 7:51 PM

Racial profiling, we need racial profiling.
Seriously…

OmahaConservative on November 16, 2010 at 7:51 PM

Do you think that US intelligence has picked up on some intel that has them freaked out?

This seems awful evasive, even for the Government.

portlandon on November 16, 2010 at 7:52 PM

Krauthammer said it perfectly on Fox, “They are looking for an object, when they should be looking for a person.”

Which is exactly the point, rather that searching *everyone* there should be a reason other than ‘random’ to search someone. The deterrence effect is the same if you are a terrorist knowing you could be pulled out of line at any moment, especially when you know your own background, and presume the intelligence agencies also know your background.

Skandia Recluse on November 16, 2010 at 7:52 PM

I can’t believe that idiot actually said that!

No one likes Fourth Amendment violations, but we’re going to have to do it

Now let’s just play a few little word games here.

No one likes First Amendment violations, but we’re going to have to do it

No one likes second Amendment violations, but we’re going to have to do it

After all it’s just the Constitution and we violate that all the time. We’re the government and we’re going to protect you even if we have to strip you of all your rights and freedoms and shove our protection down your throats. What is wrong with these people…Better yet what’s wrong with us that we allow this sort of thing to happen?

Oldnuke on November 16, 2010 at 7:52 PM

2 questions Allah

1) are Muslim women SERIOUSLY exempt?

2) are they SERIOUSLY going to make you open your underwear now??

(both from Drudge)

picklesgap on November 16, 2010 at 7:53 PM

What violation of the Fourth Amendment is being committed here? I’m not a fan of these searches, but I don’t see them running afoul of the Fourth Amendment.

Mark1971 on November 16, 2010 at 7:53 PM

2nd Ammendment Mother on November 16, 2010 at 7:51 PM

I feel for you mother, I really do.
No pun intended.
Kyrie Elieson!

OmahaConservative on November 16, 2010 at 7:53 PM

As of yesterday, fully 81 percent of the public supports the use of full-body scanners at the airport…

I think a CBS poll is about as reliable as me asking myself 100 times how I feel about something.

NotCoach on November 16, 2010 at 7:53 PM

If the 4th goes…so goes the entire constitution, the country and our entire future.

We’re going to have to stop this assault. And more importantly, the attitude that our rights, really aren’t rights at all!!

katy on November 16, 2010 at 7:53 PM

That CBS poll that claims 81% of Americans support those scans is very questionable. Their own online poll, running at the same time, was over 80% against. Non scientific, but I suspect CBS is engaging in administration-supporting narrative building.

The security procedures Obama and Napolitano have put into place are ineffective and unnecessarily intrusive. They are security theater, designed to convince people something is being done eve as those responsible avoid doing the things that have been proven to work. I just don’t buy the scaling objection, the problem is a lack of will to adapt the proven Israeli methods.

Scanning and groping won’t stop a determined terrorist, so why are we subjecting people to these gross indignities at random?

novaculus on November 16, 2010 at 7:55 PM

So are these TSA agents getting their junk checked before going on the job? Could this be a loophole for getting something dangerous on-board while you are being felt in places that you can’t see? You become the carrier.

Electrongod on November 16, 2010 at 7:56 PM

The flying public should just threaten to boycott travel for one month. That would put the airlines out of business. Within two days of empty airliners, the airlines would put so much pressure on the government, this would be called off.

keep the change on November 16, 2010 at 7:57 PM

What violation of the Fourth Amendment is being committed here? I’m not a fan of these searches, but I don’t see them running afoul of the Fourth Amendment.

Mark1971 on November 16, 2010 at 7:53 PM

Probably cause. It’s the whole point behind the unreasonable search. The redcoats can’t just come to your farm and tear up your haystack looking for rebels, burn you barn because you object, and take your cattle to feed their troops.

Skandia Recluse on November 16, 2010 at 7:57 PM

this will not stand.

this is purposeful.

If they were so concerned about terrorists, they would’ve taken down MAJ Hassan, they didn’t. They are now concerned about insulting, demeaning and dehumanizing the American public. That is their intent, they are eroding your will to fight. It is steady, it is “for your own good”…is that what they will tell you when they march you into the community shower and turn on the green gas?

ted c on November 16, 2010 at 7:57 PM

I suggest all women go out and buy a burka. They are not patting down muslim women. Maybe everyone should buy one and zip right through security without any problems.

milwife88 on November 16, 2010 at 7:58 PM

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Mark how far are you willing to let it go? When you get on a bus? Go to a ball game?

CWforFreedom on November 16, 2010 at 7:58 PM

Keep Big Brother and Sister
out of your shorts Campaign!

canopfor on November 16, 2010 at 7:58 PM

Skandia Recluse on November 16, 2010 at 7:57 PM

I’m assuming you meant probable cause instead of probably cause. The Fourth Amendment does not require probable cause to conduct a search.

Mark1971 on November 16, 2010 at 7:59 PM

And what of a terrorist who inserts explosives into his rectum, or her woo-hoo? Are we going to have our orifices inspected then? Obviously not. So that proves that this approach to security is fundamentally flawed and needs to be reexamined.

keep the change on November 16, 2010 at 7:59 PM

next time I fly, I’m going to float an atomic air biscuit after eating a whole big ass bowl of chili. We’ll have a little olfactory check on the TSA.

ted c on November 16, 2010 at 7:48 PM

Add a box of Triscuits and a couple of beers to that bill of fare and you’ve got yourself a plan.

txleadfoot00 on November 16, 2010 at 7:59 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190604,00.html

Authorities said Doyle also sent non-sexual photos of himself. They included one of him in Homeland Security headquarters, wearing an agency pin on his lapel and a lanyard that says “TSA,” which stands for the Transportation Security Administration, a branch of the department for which he once worked.

Homeland Security also oversees an Operation Predator unit, which investigates child predators and pornographers.

William Amos on November 16, 2010 at 8:00 PM

What violation of the Fourth Amendment is being committed here? I’m not a fan of these searches, but I don’t see them running afoul of the Fourth Amendment.
Mark1971 on November 16, 2010 at 7:53 PM

Government searches as required for mobility?

Or perhaps you can get from Hawaii to Iraq (or Hawaii to Maine) on your own ?

picklesgap on November 16, 2010 at 8:00 PM

Former TSA security director: No one likes Fourth Amendment violations, but we’re going to have to do it

BS…What did Franklin say…
This guy is a stool that won’t pass.

jerrytbg on November 16, 2010 at 8:00 PM

I suggest all women go out and buy a burka. They are not patting down muslim women. Maybe everyone should buy one and zip right through security without any problems.

milwife88 on November 16, 2010 at 7:58 PM

I’m thinking about setting up a little business selling disposable burkas in the airport parking lot. Just buy one slip into it for a couple of hours then throw it away. There’s a buck to be made here!

Oldnuke on November 16, 2010 at 8:00 PM

“They are looking for an object, when they should be looking for a person.”…

Skandia Recluse on November 16, 2010 at 7:52 PM

In a nutshell, that is the big difference between el Al style security and Napolitano TSA security. We can do it, if we want to.

novaculus on November 16, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Don’t fly. If you don’t want do this stuff, just don’t fly. If enough people feel that way it will eventually put enough financial pressure on the airlines that they make back off some of these measures.

I know people think profiling is the answer and since I am an old white lady and as such am not in the target group..it is no sweat off my behind. But there will be plenty of people who are not terrorists who will be subject to this kind of profiling and no doubt they will be just as upset as John Tyner was. I do think that a lot of these people who we want profiled are already showing up on watch lists. That does not mean you should not do it, but they will feel that their rights are being violated too.

Hell if I know what the answer is.

Terrye on November 16, 2010 at 8:02 PM

The Fourth Amendment does not require probable cause to conduct a search.

Mark1971 on November 16, 2010 at 7:59 PM

One moment please…

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

txleadfoot00 on November 16, 2010 at 8:02 PM

Well you better jolly well do the same to the rop type gals/guys! The rop type, cair, will sue you and I just hope we all do the same. This whole thing has a stink factor here, what is REALLY going on? All of a sudden we get this? My, I don’t trust the gov. is in full mode.
L

letget on November 16, 2010 at 8:02 PM

I think I will now travel in a thong, tank top and Tevas

darwin-t on November 16, 2010 at 8:02 PM

OmahaConservative on November 16, 2010 at 7:51 PM

No, we need religious profiling. Stop treating Islam as a religion like any other, when it is a complete, totalitarian political system. But if that means stripping the “rights” of other religions to impose religious courts, run religious schools etc etc — so be it.

Fortunata on November 16, 2010 at 8:03 PM

2nd Ammendment Mother on November 16, 2010 at 7:51 PM

I do have daughters under 16 years old and we are traveling this xmas season and this new security screening is bothering me.

How do you tell them after their groped by authorities that no one in authority (school teachers etc) should grope you? And won’t that be fantastic when some pervert uses a line along the lines that he/she isn’t doing anything wrong because other government personnel do the same thing?

What if my kids don’t handle it well? Will they be willing to fly again? Will they turn down opportunities like your son has because it means having to fly?

Bomb sniffing dogs and the new bomb sniffing technology that someone posted in another thread about the TSA.

journeyintothewhirlwind on November 16, 2010 at 8:03 PM

No one likes Fourth Amendment violations, but we’re going to have to do it

And that’s why we have the second.

pedestrian on November 16, 2010 at 8:03 PM

Should point out story is from 2006

William Amos on November 16, 2010 at 8:03 PM

So by explicitly mentioning the 4th Amendment… the former director is stating the searches are “unreasonable”?

malclave on November 16, 2010 at 8:03 PM

oops

jerrytbg on November 16, 2010 at 8:04 PM

What violation of the Fourth Amendment is being committed here? I’m not a fan of these searches, but I don’t see them running afoul of the Fourth Amendment.

Mark1971 on November 16, 2010 at 7:53 PM

Hm. Well this is what I remember from reading a few cases on the topic last year…

Federal Circuit courts (although not SCOTUS…yet) have upheld these type of airport searches as valid “administrative searches.” Administrative searches are searches conducted in heavily regulated industries (like airlines, trains, subways etc) which are necessary for special governmental needs (in this case, to prevent the carrying of guns and bombs on planes and to prevent hijackings). Because it’s a closely regulated industry people have a lower expectation of privacy and the RAS or warrant requirements are deemed to have a lessened application.

Really the only limit on the searches then is that they need to be “reasonable.” In this context this means that they can be no more intrusive than is necessary to accomplish the government’s special purpose. The argument that these searches are 4th amendment violations, would seem to be that the privacy intrusion is vastly disproportionate to the government’s need to advance its interest in preventing hijackings. That is, they don’t need to do a freaky-deaky virtual strip-search of you to ensure you’re not a terrorist.

crr6 on November 16, 2010 at 8:04 PM

The Fourth Amendment does not require probable cause to conduct a search.

Mark1971 on November 16, 2010 at 7:59 PM

Which version of the US Constitution are you using for reference?

Skandia Recluse on November 16, 2010 at 8:04 PM

In a nutshell, that is the big difference between el Al style security and Napolitano TSA security. We can do it, if we want to.

novaculus on November 16, 2010 at 8:01 PM

I am not sure that their methods would be considered all that constitutional and I am not sure that they could be carried out in this country. We have a lot more airports and fliers. And we have a lot of different kind of people in this country too.

Terrye on November 16, 2010 at 8:04 PM

Can’t wait for the law suits to start flying.

THIS MUST BE STOPPED. WE THE PEOPLE did NOTHING wrong and we are being treated like criminals.

This will be the end of our liberty.

stenwin77 on November 16, 2010 at 8:05 PM

So by explicitly mentioning the 4th Amendment… the former director is stating the searches are “unreasonable”?

malclave on November 16, 2010 at 8:03 PM

Yeah, what he’s doing is admitting that they’re willfully and knowingly violating the Constitution. But it’s for our own good.

Oldnuke on November 16, 2010 at 8:06 PM

txleadfoot00 on November 16, 2010 at 8:02 PM

The Fourth Amendment says that there must be probable cause in order to issue a warrant. It doesn’t even require that a warrant be issued to conduct a search. The only requirement for a search is reasonableness. In most cases, probable cause is going to be necessary to conduct a reasonable search, but it is not a requirement. For instance, a border search can be done without probable cause.

Mark1971 on November 16, 2010 at 8:06 PM

This could become a Slipper Slope!

canopfor on November 16, 2010 at 8:06 PM

malclave on November 16, 2010 at 8:03 PM

Yes, they know it’s wrong and it doesn’t work. They also think were stupid sheep.

dogsoldier on November 16, 2010 at 8:07 PM

Ugh,that should read,a Slippery Slope!

canopfor on November 16, 2010 at 8:07 PM

The Fourth Amendment does not require probable cause to conduct a search.

Mark1971 on November 16, 2010 at 7:59 PM

In most the vast majority of cases, yes you absolutely need probable cause or at least some higher level of individualized suspicion to search someone. Never forget that.

Unfortunately, courts have said there are a few exceptions to this, one of which is an administrative search. The searches at airports are generally classified as valid administrative searches.

crr6 on November 16, 2010 at 8:07 PM

He’s not one for sugar-coating. If he has to break a few constitutional eggs to make a security omelette, not only is he going to do it, he’s going to tell you that he’s doing it.

Sounds like an ad for Law and Order SVU.

MeatHeadinCA on November 16, 2010 at 8:08 PM

journeyintothewhirlwind on November 16, 2010 at 8:03 PM

What are you going to say when the scanners are at the front door of their school…
I have great empathy for those who have children …

jerrytbg on November 16, 2010 at 8:08 PM

Ugh,that should read,a Slippery Slope!

canopfor on November 16, 2010 at 8:07 PM

Hey, I thought you were going for Slip-n-Slide… yeah, TSA needs one of those for their lunch break.

MeatHeadinCA on November 16, 2010 at 8:09 PM

In most the vast majority of cases, yes you absolutely need probable cause or at least some higher level of individualized suspicion to search someone. Never forget that.

Yes, in most cases you do need probable cause, but the Fourth Amendment does not require it in every case.

Mark1971 on November 16, 2010 at 8:09 PM

Mark1971 on November 16, 2010 at 7:59 PM

Probable cause is required for the issuance of a warrant. Some searches without warrants are permitted, but the circumstances are quite limited.

The question is whether these random and highly intrusive searches are “unreasonable”. Given the nature of the intrusion, the government will likely be required to show a direct and effective relationship between the searches and the goal of preventing an attack, and also that less intrusive methods are unavailable or insufficient. That is a steep hill to climb, and I don’t think these random scans and gropes are going to pass judicial scrutiny.

novaculus on November 16, 2010 at 8:09 PM

canopfor,
So how is airport screening done in Canada?

Electrongod on November 16, 2010 at 8:09 PM

Unfortunately, courts have said there are a few exceptions to this, one of which is an administrative search. The searches at airports are generally classified as valid administrative searches.

crr6 on November 16, 2010 at 8:07 PM

What if you change your mind and decide not to board the airplane?

Oldnuke on November 16, 2010 at 8:10 PM

The Transportation Secretary should get this idea and make sure each of us is searched for a cellphone before driving!

That will make it so very much safer, no?

ajacksonian on November 16, 2010 at 8:10 PM

PS what if I have a gay TSA patter?

This is INSANITY

picklesgap on November 16, 2010 at 7:48 PM

If I’m correct, I believe JetBoy was on here last night and he’s all pro-grope. After all, according to JetBoy, he’s always getting groped – no big deal.

Does this help?

MeatHeadinCA on November 16, 2010 at 8:10 PM

The Fourth Amendment says that there must be probable cause in order to issue a warrant. It doesn’t even require that a warrant be issued to conduct a search.
Mark1971 on November 16, 2010 at 8:06 PM

Why, then, is it necessary to get a search warrant which requires probably cause, before the authorities can search your home?

Skandia Recluse on November 16, 2010 at 8:11 PM

Ugh,why do I think that if some of these fired TSA
workers,will somehow become Kindergarten Teachers,
with the Jocylin Elders Doctrine!(snark)

canopfor on November 16, 2010 at 8:11 PM

If the 4th goes…so goes the entire constitution, the country and our entire future.

We’re going to have to stop this assault. And more importantly, the attitude that our rights, really aren’t rights at all!!

katy on November 16, 2010 at 7:53 PM

Hey, check in. I got a vid for you… bleh…

MeatHeadinCA on November 16, 2010 at 8:12 PM

The searches at airports are generally classified as valid administrative searches.

crr6 on November 16, 2010 at 8:07 PM

YOU LIE !!!
YOU KNOW THIS IS FLAGRENT VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT…PERIOD!

jerrytbg on November 16, 2010 at 8:13 PM

4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

INC on November 16, 2010 at 8:14 PM

Update: Elsewhere, Greenroomer Howard Portnoy explores the claims about dangerous radiation. Are these things really firing off damaging rays? Well … maybe, yeah.

*pft

If that’s the case, perhaps we should offer a dangerous-radiation-airline!

Is the /s tag needed?

MeatHeadinCA on November 16, 2010 at 8:14 PM

Welcome to your very own,

Shawshank Redemption(Sarc).

canopfor on November 16, 2010 at 8:14 PM

A

jerrytbg on November 16, 2010 at 8:14 PM

Don’t fly. If you don’t want do this stuff, just don’t fly. If enough people feel that way it will eventually put enough financial pressure on the airlines that they make back off some of these measures.

Some of us don’t have a choice, we work in Puerto Rico but our home is in Texas. I think Israel has it right, we should profile, follow their example!

tinkerthinker on November 16, 2010 at 8:15 PM

novaculus on November 16, 2010 at 8:09 PM

You presented the proper question that has to be answered. I’m really not sure where a court would come down on that.

Mark1971 on November 16, 2010 at 8:16 PM

Radiation Exposure During Commercial Airline Flights

http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflights.html

canopfor on November 16, 2010 at 8:16 PM

YOU LIE !!!
YOU KNOW THIS IS FLAGRENT VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT…PERIOD!

jerrytbg on November 16, 2010 at 8:13 PM

Jerry, one thing you’ve got to understand about crr is that he/she/it doesn’t really care much for going back to first principles as much as relying on precedent and judicial opinion.

Now, this is somewhere in the neighborhood of taking on the attitude: “My hero Big Sis says it’s OK, so it is, damn it!”

MeatHeadinCA on November 16, 2010 at 8:16 PM

Yes, in most cases you do need probable cause, but the Fourth Amendment does not require it in every case.

Mark1971 on November 16, 2010 at 8:09 PM

Probable cause is required in ALL cases. However, there are exceptions to warrant requirements such as someone’s life being in imminent danger. But the imminent danger in that case is the probable cause.

NotCoach on November 16, 2010 at 8:17 PM

Hey JackAss! Any violation of the Constitution, in case you didn’t know, is the very definition of ILLEGAL.

ILLEGAL. As in AGAINST THE LAW.

~~~~~sigh~~~~~

hillbillyjim on November 16, 2010 at 8:17 PM

Yes, in most cases you do need probable cause, but the Fourth Amendment does not require it in every case.

Mark1971 on November 16, 2010 at 8:09 PM

yes, you need a warrant (which requires PC) or some level of individualized suspicion to search someone except in a small group of cases where Courts have carved out exceptions (administrative searches, obviously consent-based searches). The 4th amendment doesn’t just create a blanket requirement of “reasonableness” in searches and nothing more.

crr6 on November 16, 2010 at 8:17 PM

YOU LIE !!!
YOU KNOW THIS IS FLAGRENT VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT…PERIOD!

jerrytbg on November 16, 2010 at 8:13 PM

Yeah, I agree. I think the body-scans violate the 4th amendment. Relax.

crr6 on November 16, 2010 at 8:19 PM

crr6 on November 16, 2010 at 8:17 PM

Well, thanks for the enlightenment, Captain Obvious.

You really are a tiresome twit.

I’m outta here.

hillbillyjim on November 16, 2010 at 8:20 PM

Meanwhile….

was that a missle or NOT off of California?

golfmann on November 16, 2010 at 8:20 PM

Pressure the airports themselves:

Did you know that the nation’s airports are not required to have Transportation Security Administration screeners checking passengers at security checkpoints? The 2001 law creating the TSA gave airports the right to opt out of the TSA program in favor of private screeners after a two-year period. Now, with the TSA engulfed in controversy and hated by millions of weary and sometimes humiliated travelers, Rep. John Mica, the Republican who will soon be chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, is reminding airports that they have a choice.

That said, these machines are not going to be limited to airports. The government is putting them on the roads, at event venues, everywhere. This is just the beginning.

Rae on November 16, 2010 at 8:20 PM

INC, How timely a post…

jerrytbg on November 16, 2010 at 8:21 PM

Meanwhile….

was that a missle or NOT off of California?

golfmann on November 16, 2010 at 8:20 PM

Wasn’t that hysteria put to bed?

NotCoach on November 16, 2010 at 8:21 PM

Radiation Exposure During Commercial Airline Flights

canopfor on November 16, 2010 at 8:16 PM

There is a protocol in the nuclear industry called ALARA. It is definitely something that should be considered if you have to go through these scanners frequently. There is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation.

Oldnuke on November 16, 2010 at 8:23 PM

This will snowball in the next few weeks. We’re heading into Thanksgiving and Christmas travel. A lot of outraged Americans are going to be calling Congress. If nothing is done now, I think some things will start happening in January when the next Congress begins.

INC on November 16, 2010 at 8:23 PM

Have the Hooter girls do the searches. Problem solved. Hell Crr probably wouldn’t mind having her plaid flannel shirt ruffled a bit.

CWforFreedom on November 16, 2010 at 8:24 PM

Of course JetBoy wants a handsome TSA’er to pat him down grope him initiate some foreplay.

OmahaConservative on November 16, 2010 at 8:25 PM

What if you change your mind and decide not to board the airplane?

Oldnuke on November 16, 2010 at 8:10 PM

That’s a separate issue. Personally I think if you choose to buy a ticket and enter the security area, you shouldn’t be able to leave until you clear security. Otherwise terrorists with guns or bombs or whatever could just try over and over again to get through security until they’re finally able to pass through. Anytime they’re stopped and asked to empty their pockets or something, they could just leave, come back later, and try again until they’re successful.

crr6 on November 16, 2010 at 8:25 PM

jerrytbg on November 16, 2010 at 8:21 PM

I hope you’re not saying that with a /s tag. I just that it would be helpful to go back to the original source :) and quote exactly what it says.

INC on November 16, 2010 at 8:25 PM

so yet another right the 4th amendment that the gov is prepared to destroy for the “greater good”

Screw that.

I’m starting to think they want us to riot

unseen on November 16, 2010 at 8:25 PM

If you think these “enhanced” searches are out of line then call the airline and complain. then call your Representative and Senators and complain. Then write them all and complain. There is an exemption in the TSA legislation that allows any airport to opt out of TSA security. The federal government will pay the security cost regardless of who does it. So the airport can hire a contract service. The airport is not locked into the TSA.

OldNuc on November 16, 2010 at 8:26 PM

Probable cause is required in ALL cases. However, there are exceptions to warrant requirements such as someone’s life being in imminent danger. But the imminent danger in that case is the probable cause.

NotCoach on November 16, 2010 at 8:17 PM

No probable cause is not always required to conduct a search.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

Mark1971 on November 16, 2010 at 8:27 PM

Jerry, one thing you’ve got to understand about crr is that he/she/it doesn’t really care much for going back to first principles as much as relying on precedent and judicial opinion.

MeatHeadinCA on November 16, 2010 at 8:16 PM

In your view, how would “first principles” guide us here?

crr6 on November 16, 2010 at 8:27 PM

The Fourth Amendment does not require probable cause to conduct a search.
Mark1971 on November 16, 2010 at 7:59 PM

In most the vast majority of cases, yes you absolutely need probable cause or at least some higher level of individualized suspicion to search someone. Never forget that.
Unfortunately, courts have said there are a few exceptions to this, one of which is an administrative search. The searches at airports are generally classified as valid administrative searches.
crr6 on November 16, 2010 at 8:07 PM

jerrytbg on November 16, 2010 at 8:13 PM

Yeah, I agree. I think the body-scans violate the 4th amendment. Relax.
crr6 on November 16, 2010 at 8:19 PM

I gathered as much from the earlier posting, but thanks for clarifying.

Chip on November 16, 2010 at 8:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3