TSA patdown of 8 month old baby

[SPJ]

The TSA is defending the pat-down of an 8-month-old baby at the Kansans City International Airport, saying "officers followed protocol."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42978267/ns/travel-news/?gt1=43001

 

[Southern Wolf]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42978267/ns/travel-news/?gt1=43001

The Transportation Security Administration posted a response on its blog: "We reviewed the screening of this family, and found that the child’s stroller alarmed during explosives screening. Our officers followed proper current screening procedures by screening the family after the alarm, who by the way were very cooperative and were on the way to their gate in no time."

and if you believe anything the TSA says.... I got a ticket on the next moon trip I will sell you for half price

 

[Sushi Dragons]

Sadly, there are people who hide drugs in their children's diapers among other things. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth to say it, but there are times when children are exploited in such a way because they are less likely to draw attention.

 

[Dennis Hultman]

I really don't care what others do. There is a little thing called probable cause, not that it applies to the TSA. It doesn't, which is the whole crux of the issue. They need no reason. Probable cause is abused enough already.

This country down to its foundation was built upon the individual. The rights of the individual. Not the collective. Not because of what some do. I don't give up my rights because I need transportation.

Anyway, this post should be added to the long list of abuses by the TSA here

http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=212439

Stay out of my children diapers!

 

[Sushi Dragons]

I'm not going to argue with you on this, but I thought this blog quote on the subject was interesting. Here is the link : http://upgrd.com/matthew/why-the-tsa-violates-the-fourth-amendment.html

"A constant complaint from those opposed to the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) new ‘enhanced’ pat down searches is that these pat downs violate a traveler’s Fourth Amendment rights...

While the new TSA enhanced pat downs may violate the Fourth Amendment on the surface, what most people are not aware of is that the 9th Circuit Court of the United States ruled on the search of passengers in airports back in 1973, which effectively suspends limited aspects of the Fourth Amendment while undergoing airport security screening.

In 1973 the 9th Circuit Court rules on U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908, there are key pieces of wording that give the TSA its power to search essentially any way they choose to. The key wording in this ruling includes “noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.”

U.S. vs Davis goes onto to state “[an administrative search is allowed if] 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.

These laws give the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Transportation Security Administration significant legal latitude to perform the searches utilizing their current procedures without fear of violating the Fourth Amendment. Any attempt to oppose TSA searches citing the Fourth Amendment would be rebuffed unless done through the proper legal channels...

Presently the TSA has what appears to be a “blank check” in writing out what is “no more intrusive or intensive than necessary” and what is “confined in good faith to that purpose.” With the latitude the agency has been granted … not only does a legal precedent need to be set that challenges U.S. vs Davis, but further oversight of the TSA needs to be created by the House & Senate committees responsible for overseeing and funding the agency...

Misinformed yelling does nothing to help bring about the change that is necessary."

 

[Focal]

As much as I disagree with it and as pissed as I would be if it happened to me, I have to say it's a sick world we live in. If there were explosives on that baby the whole outcome of the situation would have been different and in this day and age, I wouldn't put it past some people.

 

[rcarichter]

Several years ago, but post-9/11, my 13 year old had a stick of solid white deodorant disintegrate in his carry-on. Whole bag was full of white powder. That went exactly as you would imagine. Poor kid thought he was in trouble for making a mess!

 

[Dennis Hultman]

I'm not going to argue with you on this, but I thought this blog quote on the subject was interesting. Here is the link : http://upgrd.com/matthew/why-the-tsa-violates-the-fourth-amendment.html

"A constant complaint from those opposed to the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) new ‘enhanced’ pat down searches is that these pat downs violate a traveler’s Fourth Amendment rights...

While the new TSA enhanced pat downs may violate the Fourth Amendment on the surface, what most people are not aware of is that the 9th Circuit Court of the United States ruled on the search of passengers in airports back in 1973, which effectively suspends limited aspects of the Fourth Amendment while undergoing airport security screening.

In 1973 the 9th Circuit Court rules on U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908, there are key pieces of wording that give the TSA its power to search essentially any way they choose to. The key wording in this ruling includes “noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.”

U.S. vs Davis goes onto to state “[an administrative search is allowed if] 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.

These laws give the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Transportation Security Administration significant legal latitude to perform the searches utilizing their current procedures without fear of violating the Fourth Amendment. Any attempt to oppose TSA searches citing the Fourth Amendment would be rebuffed unless done through the proper legal channels...

Presently the TSA has what appears to be a “blank check” in writing out what is “no more intrusive or intensive than necessary” and what is “confined in good faith to that purpose.” With the latitude the agency has been granted … not only does a legal precedent need to be set that challenges U.S. vs Davis, but further oversight of the TSA needs to be created by the House & Senate committees responsible for overseeing and funding the agency...

Misinformed yelling does nothing to help bring about the change that is necessary."

Who's arguing, Rachel?
I like the conversation on that Blog (A Web site on which an individual or group of users record opinions, information, etc. on a regular basis) and many others. I also agree with the majority of those who respond to such blogs .

Matthew.... IMO you're missing quite a lot about the 4th Amendment in your stated "review" {you merely posted the brief 4A text} with no comment at all about it specifically.

-

The 4A is part of the "Bill of Rights" and states a specific fundamental right: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches".

There are NO exceptions stated to this basic right... even for wartime or national emergency. There are NO exceptions for newly-invented "Administrative Searches" or "national security" !

4A does NOT guarantee a right of the federal government to conduct 'reasonable' searches, although it's commonly framed that way by most lawyers & judges these days.

The 4A continues briefly to state the criteria for a "Reasonable" search/seizure-- a judicial 'Warrant' based upon probable cause, supported by Oath/affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. If a 'reasonable' 4A search could legally be conducted without a warrant/probable-cause/specifics ... then there would be absolutely no need at all for the second part of the 4A -- but the Constitution's authors/endorsers put it there very intentionally.

Of course, the 4A has been endlessly debated & adjudicated. But somehow the government 'Search/Seizure' power has ALWAYS increased markedly over decades of court 4A interpretation... while the very specific 4A 'right' of the people has almost vanished from discussion and formal rulings. Federal judges always seem to find {invent} "compelling" government reasons to expand government search powers... while interpreting citizen rights in the most restrictive view possible.

Therefore, in view of an honest 4A reading -- there is no possible way that any TSA search procedures are legal under 4A. None !

It is even illegal for the TSA to briefly stop or redirect an air traveler for a simple metal detector scan. 'Stopping' a traveler is a 4A 'Seizure' ... and is illegal without probable cause, no matter how brief the encounter. Any search of person/baggage/property is likewise totally prohibited.

Mass searches of the traveling public are absolutely prohibited by 4A. Coercing a supposed 'voluntary consent' to illegal search/seizure {by threat of denied boarding to passengers) is a separate crime in itself. Freedom of movement & travel is a most basic civil liberty, guaranteed by 5th, 9th and 10th Amendments.

In reality of course, the Constitution & 4th Amendment are just ink-on-paper. If the courts will not enforce 4A {they won't}... and most lawyers, the MSM, and average citizens casually accept the current official trashing of 4A --- then the rapid loss of basic rights will continue here.

 

[Dennis Hultman]

As much as I disagree with it and as pissed as I would be if it happened to me, I have to say it's a sick world we live in. If there were explosives on that baby the whole outcome of the situation would have been different and in this day and age, I wouldn't put it past some people.

"if there were explosives on that baby"

If we would let all the "if's" become the rule of law with no need for probable cause, and we disregarded the Constitution (as we already do) in favor of case law and regulatory schemes (fitting term) then we would fall well below what we have always claimed to be.


Hypothetically your daughter.
Seems to me that would be the same as stating that your cute 14 year old daughter has something in her body cavities. I wouldn't put it past some people so I have a right to check anyone I see fit at random. You know, she really caught my eye. Last year I was working at the car wash making $7 bucks an hour and would have been arrested for doing this but now that I am making $14 and have this shinny little title, I can stick my hands in her panties if you want to travel. What are you going to do about it? Nothing...

From sea to shinning sea.....

 

[SPJ]

Our freedoms are being stripped away each day.
As long as complacent people allow this type of action to continue (and make excuses to justify it), it will just be a matter of time before this country becomes a total police state.
The TSA is out control, the government is out of control and too many people are just allowing it to happen.

 

[Dennis Hultman]

The congressman talks about how his fifteen year old daughter was taken away from his wife without notice or consent and subject to a private pat down in a private room.






Quote Andrew Manuse - New Hampshire State Rep.
"New Hampshire resident taken into the backroom and given a body cavity search." "They actual stuck fingers inside of her."

 

[Focal]

Flying is an option. I choose not to fly and haven't in a very long time due to being subjected to tortures I wish not to endure.

I'm not disagreeing with you on the matter. It's a double edged sword. Without "if's," we would be a gullable, naive nation constantly under attack. Every positive has two negatives.

 

[SPJ]

Flying is an option. I choose not to fly and haven't in a very long time due to being subjected to tortures I wish not to endure. .

It may be flying now, pretty soon it will be walking into a building, the DMV, the mall......Once you give an inch, the government will take a mile.

 

[Dennis Hultman]

Flying is an option.

You hear that a lot.
Once upon a time it was only the horse. Imagine if the early Americans were told you have a right to travel but a horse is a privilege and only a option. You could walk, you know.

 

[AbsoluteApril]

it will just be a matter of time before this country becomes a total police state.

sadly that's probably what it will take before people actually take action against it.

police state followed by rebellion/uprising followed by anarchy then we'll be beyond the thunderdome

 

[Focal]

Can you refuse a search and choose to leave the airport instead?

NVM, I guess you can be fined, hmm. Makes sense since most will play trial and error to get through.

 

[rcarichter]

Can you refuse a search and choose to leave the airport instead?

NVM, I guess you can be fined, hmm. Makes sense since most will play trial and error to get through.

You can refuse a search and leave. However, this will get you a free membership to the no-fly list. You can also be asked to be taken to a totally private area and be searched by a member of the same sex. This will take as long as they want it to.

 

[Dennis Hultman]

You can refuse a search and leave. However, this will get you a free membership to the no-fly list. You can also be asked to be taken to a totally private area and be searched by a member of the same sex. This will take as long as they want it to.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Originally Posted by Dennis Hultman View Post

Not only that but for those that don't understand what these new "pat downs" are and refuse both scanning or the enhanced pat downs, TSA has confirmed that if you arrive at the screening section and refuse both you will not be allowed to leave the area without submitting to one or the other. $11,000 penalty and arrest if you try to exit the airport without the screening.

 

[rcarichter]

This is a clarification published in November:

The new clarified policy for those who refuse pat downs by a TSA Transportation Security Officer (TSO), any pat down, is that the person who is refusing the pat down will be advised that they will be denied entry into the airport, and be escorted from the security screening area by TSA TSOs or police officers. If the person refuses the pat down again, they will be approached by a Supervisor TSO (STSO), who will again explain that a refusal of the pat down will result in the immediate removal from the security area by police officers. Following an escort out of the security area to the pre-security area the person will be informed that that they are being denied entry and that they may not attempt to reenter security.

If any person who has refused a pat down makes any attempt to go towards the gate area the TSA security checkpoint will be immediately shut down. The shutting down of a security checkpoint may result in a passenger evacuation of a terminal due to a security breach. Any evacuation of passengers would be based on a threat assessment at the discretion of the TSA and law enforcement at the terminal.

Once a Checkpoint has been shut down due to a person that has refused a pat down attempting to head towards the gate area, that person will then be deemed to be disruptive and interfering with airport screening and may be subject to both criminal and civil penalties.

TSA TSOs and STSOs are not required to collect the name and personal information of those escorted from a TSA screening area for refusal of a pat down, however law enforcement may determine if they need to collect the information if they are involved in the escorting of a person from the screening area.

So for those of you who intend to refuse a pat down and leave with no argument and peacefully … there will be no US$11,000 fine for your actions. This new policy may also give the TSA additional 4th Amendment wiggle room in allowing people to refuse the pat downs without legal consequences.

 

[Dennis Hultman]

TSA also told Congress that they weren't going to do invasive pat downs on children under 12.