Airport staff 'exposed woman's breasts, laughed'

[vz71]

For everyone saying the searches violates the 4th amendment (a legal question), can you back up your claim with a legal argument supported by cited authority?

How about contract law?
None of the people that bought tickets in advance were informed of this requirement nor did they sign any documentation consenting to it.

How about sexual harrassment laws?
The search is both unwelcome and inappropriate.

How about laws against pedophilia?

But when it comes right down to brass tacks, the fact that so many TSA employees feel the need to apologize should tell us it is wrong.

 

[Listen_to_This]

Let’s see, if I want to fly on a plane I must submit myself to two types of searches.

One that will let the government look at my genitals.

Or one that will let government touch my genitals.

Am I stupid or have we been bombed by American citizens hiding explosives in their genitals?

Make the legal argument with cited authority that the searches violate the 4th amendment.

Remember that before the new procedures were put in place there were other procedures that subjected travelers to searches that were upheld by the courts.

 

[Listen_to_This]

How about contract law?
None of the people that bought tickets in advance were informed of this requirement nor did they sign any documentation consenting to it.

How about sexual harrassment laws?
The search is both unwelcome and inappropriate.

How about laws against pedophilia?

But when it comes right down to brass tacks, the fact that so many TSA employees feel the need to apologize should tell us it is wrong.

Are you just making up this argument off the top of your head? All of these points are irrelevant to 4th amendment. That is why I asked for the argument to be supported by cited authority.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Make the legal argument with cited authority that the searches violate the 4th amendment.

Remember that before the new procedures were put in place there were other procedures that subjected travelers to searches that were upheld by the courts.

We must have another lawyer on the forums.

Welcome.

I don’t think I have tried making a legal argument. I will not try to make a legal argument, my knowledge and understanding of the law is not sufficient enough to do so.

I know of another lawyer on here who may choose to do so. We’ll see.

But whether it is legal or not, will not change the fact that it isn’t right.

If we didn’t have incompetent leaders in charge it would be done differently.

 

[Listen_to_This]

We must have another lawyer on the forums.

Welcome.

I don’t think I have tried making a legal argument. I will not try to make a legal argument, my knowledge and understanding of the law is not sufficient enough to do so.

I know of another lawyer on here who may choose to do so. We’ll see.

But whether it is legal or not, will not change the fact that it isn’t right.

If we didn’t have incompetent leaders in charge it would be done differently.

I am not a lawyer. But I know that if a person claims that the new procedures violate the 4th amendment that person is making a legal argument. Whether something violates the 4th amendment is a legal question.

 

[Aramis]

It seems like everyone’s forgetting WHY the pat-downs, body scanners are there. Like its just some hassle for no reason. And yeah, in most of our cases, there is no reason - but there is a darn good reason for them having these security procedures in general…

And yet, the NTSB has reported (quietly) that the TSA is LESS effective than the private screeners were.

Plus the whole issue of due process and unreasonable search when searches are demanded by the government.

Essentially, the TSA is a statement by the Bush administration of “Everyone who flies is a criminal.”

 

[Listen_to_This]

And yet, the NTSB has reported (quietly) that the TSA is LESS effective than the private screeners were.

Plus the whole issue of due process and unreasonable search when searches are demanded by the government.

Essentially, the TSA is a statement by the Bush administration of “Everyone who flies is a criminal.”

If you want to argue the searches are unreasonable, make the legal argument with cited legal authority.

And again, there is due process issue.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

The methods used, especially in this woman’s case are questionable. Sexual assault can include inappropriate touching, depending on what state you are in. Many people would consider the back side of someone’s hand rubbing on their genitals inappropriate.

I’m not sure their methods on children, but I would hope they are not so intrusive.

**The fact is, we American citizens, should be able to purchase a round trip, domestic airline ticket without being afraid of getting violated by some stranger. **

Before all of this took place, my wife had to fly with our child a couple of times. They were so impatient with her a couple of times that she broke down crying. She would have her diaper bag, the stroller, the baby and whatever else she happened to be carrying at the time. When they would ask her to remove the babies milk and all of that they were very rude about it.

It’s only going to get worse.

We usually buy tickets several times a year, we won’t be buying any while this is going on. When the airlines see this hitting them financially, things will change. We need a means available for us to fly around our own country without all this bureaucracy bs.

If this keeps up, I could run against Obama in 2012 and beat him.

I’m late to the direction of the discussion, but I have to note this post.
I tend to agree with your view on this.
Funny, too.

 

[vz71]

From FindLaw.com:

When Does the Fourth Amendment Apply?

The legal standards derived from the Fourth Amendment provide constitutional protection to individuals in the following situations, among others:

• An individual is stopped for police questioning while walking down the street.

• An individual is pulled over for a minor traffic infraction, and the police officer searches the vehicle’s trunk.

• An individual is arrested.

• Police officers enter an individual’s house to place him or her under arrest.

• Police officers enter an individual’s apartment to search for evidence of crime.

• Police officers enter a corporation’s place of business to search for evidence of crime.

• Police officers confiscate an individual’s vehicle or personal property and place it under police control.

Potential scenarios implicating the Fourth Amendment, and law enforcement’s legal obligation to protect Fourth Amendment rights in those scenarios, are too numerous to cover here. However, in most instances a police officer may not search or seize an individual or his or her property unless the officer has:

• A valid search warrant;

• A valid arrest warrant; or

• A belief rising to the level of “probable cause” that an individual has committed a crime.

Since no police officer is actually doing the search, one would have to assume that the TSA agent to be the acting authority.
This leaves a few problems.
No search warrant.
No valid arrest warrant.
No probable cause (although probable cause has been accounted for in the previous court document in which random selection was considered probable cause.)

Now I believe we have a valid 4th amendment violation.
Unless, of course, the TSA has gone through the trouble of getting a blanket warrant.
But that would be difficult as the warrant would be unconstitutional.

 

[Listen_to_This]

From FindLaw.com:

Since no police officer is actually doing the search, one would have to assume that the TSA agent to be the acting authority.
This leaves a few problems.
No search warrant.
No valid arrest warrant.
No probable cause (although probable cause has been accounted for in the previous court document in which random selection was considered probable cause.)

Now I believe we have a valid 4th amendment violation.
Unless, of course, the TSA has gone through the trouble of getting a blanket warrant.
But that would be difficult as the warrant would be unconstitutional.

So once again you fail to make a legal argument that cites authority. I think reason you continue to fail to cite legal authority is because you know there isn’t any that supports your position…

I will also point out that if the 4th amendment required a search warrant, arrest warrant, or probable cause before searching a airline passenger, then metal detectors would violate the 4th amendment if there was not a search warrant, arrest warrant, or probable cause, which is obviously not the case.

I will again ask you to make a legal argument that is supported by cited authority (FindLaw.com is not authority). Come on, if the new procedures are really a 4th amendment violation, you should be able to find some authority.

(although probable cause has been accounted for in the previous court document in which random selection was considered probable cause.)

Where you getting this? From US v. Davis:

The essence of these decisions is that searches conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, rather than as part of a criminal investigation to secure evidence of crime, may be permissible under the Fourth Amendment though not supported by a showing of probable cause directed to a particular place or person to be searched.

U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908

By the way, the new procedures use random selection.

 

[jmcrae]

Do you really there should be no searches before getting on a plane? No metal detectors? The 4th amendment does not prevent warrantless searches. It prevents unreasonable searches. In the view of the courts, administrative searches for the safety of airline passengers are reasonable.

I would say that stripping off someone’s prosthetic breast is far more invasive than having her walk through a metal detector. It would have been bad enough even if they only did it in a very professional and clinical manner, but to then make her the butt of lewd jokes for several hours afterwards is beyond what any reasonable person could possibly consider to be acceptable.

 

[Listen_to_This]

I would say that stripping off someone’s prosthetic breast is far more invasive than having her walk through a metal detector. It would have been bad enough even if they only did it in a very professional and clinical manner, but to then make her the butt of lewd jokes for several hours afterwards is beyond what any reasonable person could possibly consider to be acceptable.

You are mixing two stories, neither of which are confirmed.

newsfeed.time.com/2010/11/22/the-tsa-horror-story-to-trump-them-all/

theaustralian.com.au/travel/news/airport-staff-exposed-womans-breasts-laughed/story-e6frg8ro-1225955345734

 

[Linda_Marie]

It was just this kind of thing that the 4th amendment was added to prevent. imho, the court erred in saying that random searches are reasonable.

No matter games with semantics, in practice, it is the suspension of the 4th amendment. We don’t need to be lawyers or to have some liberal agenda-driven court tell us; it is patently obvious.

Again, what has changed since October that warrants this?
There is no increased risk.

Instead of spending all this money on increased scrutiny of passengers, why don’t they spend it on increased scrutiny of parcels and cargo, which have a far greater potential for destroying an aircraft and which have a heightened risk due to recent events?

Have they found ANYTHING (relating to hijacking or blowing up an aircraft) on the thousands they have patted down or taken lewd photos of?

Watch the video of the 3 year old being searched and screaming ‘stop touching me’ as a stranger runs her hands all over her body, touching her intimately. This child has been sexually molested. If anyone else did that, they’d be in jail.

I believe that many TSA employees intend to humiliate, harass and degrade the people under their control like the one who ‘ignored’ the man who said, watch out you are going to break the seal on my bag. The TSA man listened but he went ahead and broke the seal on the bag and covered this man in urine. It wasn’t lack of training but intent to humiliate, just as they intended to humiliate the woman whose breasts they exposed, in my opinion.

I’m with Ron Paul - remove their immunity from prosecution.

Paul explained the bill’s need in a speech on the House floor yesterday, saying, “If you can’t grope another person, if you can’t X-ray people and endanger them… if you cant take nude photos of individuals, why do we allow the government to do it?”
<…>
“This is much more about money than it is about security. The former Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, represents Rapid Scan, the company which is selling these scanners to his former department,” said Duncan Wednesday.

 

[vz71]

I’m with Ron Paul - remove their immunity from prosecution.

This does beg the question.
Why would immunity need to be in place?

Clearly there is something prosecutable here, else they would not have such ‘immunity’

 

[Listen_to_This]

It was just this kind of thing that the 4th amendment was added to prevent. imho, the court erred in saying that random searches are reasonable.

I like how your view is just asserted without anything to support it, as if it were an opinion. There is historical evidence of the framers’ view of the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment was primarily designed to deal with the issuance of warrants. The framers saw the jury as the protector of the reasonableness requirement through common-law actions that were available. The biggest concern was that if a warrant were issued, the common-law actions were not available. That is why there is a more stringent (probable cause v. reasonableness) standard for the issuance of a warrant versus a warrantless search. The 4th amendment was not intended to stop warrantless, administrative searches. It only requires that the warrantless searches are reasonable.

For a review of the framers’ views that is written for a popular audience, see Professor Akhil Amar’s The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction pages 64-72. For a more scholarly review, see Amar’s citations.

All of this is kind of unimportant. The courts, including the Supreme Court, did not follow the framers’ views in creating the current 4th amendment law during the 20th century. The current law protects against more government actions than the framers’ views.

No matter games with semantics, in practice, it is the suspension of the 4th amendment. We don’t need to be lawyers or to have some liberal agenda-driven court tell us; it is patently obvious.

Except as my cites show, the new procedures comport with the 4th amendment.

I repeat my challenge to those that think the new procedures violate the 4th amendment: present a legal argument with cited authority that shows the new procedures violate the 4th amendment.

If you like, you could even present an argument that the new procedures violate the framers’ views of the 4th amendment. Theoretically, this showing would be even harder to make than showing the new procedures violate current 4th amendment law since the current law protects against more government actions than the framer’s view. In practice, the new procedures are okay under either standard.

Just baldly asserting that the new procedures violate the 4th amendment because they violate the 4th amendment is not an argument. It is a circular, question-begging assertion.

 

[vz71]

I repeat my challenge to those that think the new procedures violate the 4th amendment: present a legal argument with cited authority that shows the new procedures violate the 4th amendment.

Given the challenge, is it your assertion that these amendments are meaningless without some authority citation with them outlining it’s usage?

 

[Listen_to_This]

Given the challenge, is it your assertion that these amendments are meaningless without some authority citation with them outlining it’s usage?

No, but I don’t really want to get into a discussion of constitutional interpretation. Like it or not, the courts interpret the constitution. Parephrasing Oliver Wendell Holmes: the law is largely judicial behavior.

Notice, I also opened my challenge to include showing the new procedures go against the framers’ (as opposed to the courts’) views of the 4th amendment.

 

[vz71]

No, but I don’t really want to get into a discussion of constitutional interpretation.

But that is exactly what your challenge is.

Like it or not, the courts interpret the constitution. Parephrasing Oliver Wendell Holmes: the law is largely judicial behavior.

If we have to have some kind of court opinion to define the application of an amendment then it renders the amendment meaningless.

At some point the amendment must stand on its own.

It would be up to the supreme court to determine if the application is constitutional.

 

[bcarson]

Number of terrorists exposed by TSA to date? ZERO

Typical government effciency. The terrorists are laughing at us. Just look what they have caused in the good 'ol USA. Nowhere else in the world do airline passengers have to go through the machinations that we do.

Call me a conspiratist, but I think this is all a deliberate major distraction to draw attention from the lame duck congress. Dream Act? Tax increases? Government intrusion in the insurance industry? Who knows what else?

 

[Listen_to_This]

But that is exactly what your challenge is.

I meant I do not want to get into a discussion of the theoretical basis of the role that the courts should play in interpreting the constitution. (A matter that has been decided for all intents and purposes over the history of our country.) Like it or not, the courts interpret the constitution.

No, it does not. The amendment is the still the basis of the courts’ decisions. We can all have opinions about the 4th amendment does or does not do, but the only opinions that matter are judicial opinions.

At some point the amendment must stand on its own.

Amendments never stand on their own. Even the most radical originalist would not argue against looking at the historical context of a constitutional texts’ drafting.

And, as I pointed out, the framers’ views of the 4th amendment would not prevent a reasonable, warrantless that was not supported by probable cause. The probable cause standard was a higher standard that was to be applied to the issuance of a warrant, not a warrantless search.

Here is the text of the 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.”

Notice, the only requirement for a search (as opposed to the issuance of warrant) is reasonableness.

What specifically is your argument that the new procedures violate the 4th amendment, other than the new procedures violate the 4th amendment because they violate the 4th amendment?

[/QUOTE]