$10,000+ fine for deciding not to fly after all?

[Fivelives]

http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/ ... tween.html

Apparently, this guy could be subject to a $10,000 fine for refusing to let TSA agents pat him down and leaving the airport. I saw the Penn & Teller show live in Vegas, and they were selling these metal copies of the Constitution with the 4th amendment highlighted. It was guaranteed to set off any metal detector anywhere. I wonder how the people that bought those after the show fared when they tried to board their flights home?

[Snake-Aes]

From what I read everyone there was going through their own zealous set of procedures and traumas. It'd be more interesting if it ended up as some sort of international scandal.

[Macktruck]

Seriously? I read the story, and it's essentially a load of bullshit. I feel no sympathy for the guy whatsoever. Officers on the street are allowed to do a stop and frisk if a person is exhibiting suspicious behavior, but most of all, for the safety of the officer and those nearby.

When TSA officers ask you if they can do a pat down, it's not only for their safety, but for the safety of those in the airport as well. A pat down is less invasive than you think. Yes, they're going to feel you up a little bit, but it is necessary. I would consider a physical to be a little more invasive than a pat down. If you're so offended by this act, then grow up. 13 yr olds take it better than this guy when they're trying out for athletics.

The fact that this guy essentially caused so much trouble is reasonable suspicion enough to detain him. "I'll walk through a metal detector, but you're not touching me" can be construed as reasonable suspicion. It can be saying "Hey, I got shit on me that will pass through a metal detector, but I don't want your hands on me and find it."

Sometimes, the State's interests trump individual rights. If we have to inconvenience you a little bit to guarantee the safety and rights of the public, well, the Supreme Court has ruled it constitutional.

Again, no sympathy for this guy.

[Candiru]

How on earth can they threaten a civil lawsuit for security related stuff? Surely if its security its criminal or nothing?

Seems a bit retarded.

[Jabari]

Seriously? I read the story, and it's essentially a load of bullshit. I feel no sympathy for the guy whatsoever. Officers on the street are allowed to do a stop and frisk if a person is exhibiting suspicious behavior, but most of all, for the safety of the officer and those nearby.

When TSA officers ask you if they can do a pat down, it's not only for their safety, but for the safety of those in the airport as well. A pat down is less invasive than you think. Yes, they're going to feel you up a little bit, but it is necessary. I would consider a physical to be a little more invasive than a pat down. If you're so offended by this act, then grow up. 13 yr olds take it better than this guy when they're trying out for athletics.

The fact that this guy essentially caused so much trouble is reasonable suspicion enough to detain him. "I'll walk through a metal detector, but you're not touching me" can be construed as reasonable suspicion. It can be saying "Hey, I got shit on me that will pass through a metal detector, but I don't want your hands on me and find it."

Sometimes, the State's interests trump individual rights. If we have to inconvenience you a little bit to guarantee the safety and rights of the public, well, the Supreme Court has ruled it constitutional.

Again, no sympathy for this guy.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Edited to add: http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=172373

[Sabindeus]

Seriously? I read the story, and it's essentially a load of bullshit. I feel no sympathy for the guy whatsoever. Officers on the street are allowed to do a stop and frisk if a person is exhibiting suspicious behavior, but most of all, for the safety of the officer and those nearby.

What? No they're not. They have to charge you with something first.

[Dorvan]

Wait so now not wanting to be groped or have nude imagery taken is "suspicious behavior"? What the hell.

Airport screening is one thing, but this full body scan and invasive pat down crap has gotten to the point where I'd rather accept an ever so slightly higher security risk than put up with this sort of invasiveness. The summary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXDLQPfq ... r_embedded

[Melathys]

Seriously? I read the story, and it's essentially a load of bullshit. I feel no sympathy for the guy whatsoever. Officers on the street are allowed to do a stop and frisk if a person is exhibiting suspicious behavior, but most of all, for the safety of the officer and those nearby.

What? No they're not. They have to charge you with something first.

both are wrong. suspicious behavior doesn't necessarily mean possible concealed weapons. all you need is mere suspicion that someone might be concealing a weapon to do an immediate area search, or frisk (this is anything that is immediately reachable by the person, and if you're in a car, it includes the passenger compartment).

I see way too many stories and youtube videos of people trying to assert their 4th amendment rights, when they really have no idea how it actually works. For example, when a cop tells you to stop, you stop. if you keep walking away you are being actively resistant, and this warrants tazers, pepper spray etc. a cop does not have to have any level of suspicion to ask you to step out of your vehicle during a vehicle stop...he asks you to get out, you get out. I could go on an on, but I won't, lol. Suffice it to say that learning/knowing 4th amendment rights are what makes or breaks a LEO (law enforcement official)

[Fivelives]

The problem is that TSA searches are not constitutional. The 4th amendment guarantees freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. In the case of security checkpoints at airports, it's unreasonable because there is no grounds for a search. We do not explicitly consent to a search. We do not waive our protections simply by purchasing an airline ticket; now, if they were to have us sign a waiver agreeing to a search at the checkpoint, then it would be a different story and the guy would be in the wrong.

Ninth circuit court of appeals ruling in United States v. Davis held "To meet the test of reasonableness, an administrative screening search must be as limited in its intrusiveness as is consistent with satisfaction of the administrative need that justifies it. It follows that airport screening searches are valid only if they recognize the right of a person to avoid search by electing not to board the aircraft."

They concluded (again in United States v. Davis) that "In sum, airport screening searches of the persons and immediate possessions of potential passengers for weapons and explosives are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment provided each prospective boarder retains the right to leave rather than submit to the search."

The ninth circuit also held in 2005, in United States v. Aukai that "Although we held in Davis that "airport screening searches are valid only if they recognize the right of a person to avoid [the] search by electing not to board the aircraft," 482 F.2d at 910-11, we did not address when such a choice must be made—that is, whether there is some stage during or after which a prospective passenger may not withdraw his implied consent to a search of his person or carry-on baggage by electing not to fly."

The 9th circuit court also upheld a person's right to decline an airport search in United States v. Miner, 484 F.2d 1075 (9th Cir. 1973), and United States v. Moore, 483 F.2d 1361 (9th Cir.1973).

In this case, the guy didn't even place his luggage on the conveyor belt or pass through the metal detector before being pulled out of line for a stop and frisk. That clearly counts as a violation of 4th amendment rights, as he withdrew the implied consent to a search when he said "Ok, so I don't want to go on the plane then". No matter which of the decisions, either for or against airport screening (there have been quite a few in either direction), you go with, they all agree that the search begins when you place your luggage on the x-ray conveyor or pass through the metal detector. That's the "point of no return", where the courts can step in and say "well, you consented to be screened, and we found something" as it counts under the standard of reasonableness.

I don't want to be frisked or have nude pictures taken of me whenever I go on an airplane. That's just fucking stupid, especially when I'm giving absolutely no indicators of suspicious behavior. If the airlines want us to consent to the random searches, then they should make us sign a waiver saying that we consent to them. The implied consent stops at the metal detectors and x-ray baggage screens. That's reasonable. Frisks, cavity searches, luggage searches, and the new AIT (advanced imaging technology) scanners are too. fucking. much.

[Sabindeus]

Seriously? I read the story, and it's essentially a load of bullshit. I feel no sympathy for the guy whatsoever. Officers on the street are allowed to do a stop and frisk if a person is exhibiting suspicious behavior, but most of all, for the safety of the officer and those nearby.

What? No they're not. They have to charge you with something first.

both are wrong. suspicious behavior doesn't necessarily mean possible concealed weapons. all you need is mere suspicion that someone might be concealing a weapon to do an immediate area search, or frisk (this is anything that is immediately reachable by the person, and if you're in a car, it includes the passenger compartment).

I see way too many stories and youtube videos of people trying to assert their 4th amendment rights, when they really have no idea how it actually works. For example, when a cop tells you to stop, you stop. if you keep walking away you are being actively resistant, and this warrants tazers, pepper spray etc. a cop does not have to have any level of suspicion to ask you to step out of your vehicle during a vehicle stop...he asks you to get out, you get out. I could go on an on, but I won't, lol. Suffice it to say that learning/knowing 4th amendment rights are what makes or breaks a LEO (law enforcement official)

Perhaps I misused the word "charge" there. But if a police officer stops you they have to have reasonable suspicion to do so and that has its own challengable rules. They can't stop you for no reason, like they did in the case of this guy who was just leaving the airport.

[RedAces]

Seriously? I read the story, and it's essentially a load of bullshit. I feel no sympathy for the guy whatsoever. Officers on the street are allowed to do a stop and frisk if a person is exhibiting suspicious behavior, but most of all, for the safety of the officer and those nearby.

When TSA officers ask you if they can do a pat down, it's not only for their safety, but for the safety of those in the airport as well. A pat down is less invasive than you think. Yes, they're going to feel you up a little bit, but it is necessary. I would consider a physical to be a little more invasive than a pat down. If you're so offended by this act, then grow up. 13 yr olds take it better than this guy when they're trying out for athletics.

The fact that this guy essentially caused so much trouble is reasonable suspicion enough to detain him. "I'll walk through a metal detector, but you're not touching me" can be construed as reasonable suspicion. It can be saying "Hey, I got shit on me that will pass through a metal detector, but I don't want your hands on me and find it."

Sometimes, the State's interests trump individual rights. If we have to inconvenience you a little bit to guarantee the safety and rights of the public, well, the Supreme Court has ruled it constitutional.

Again, no sympathy for this guy.

Hey,

wait what? If he doesn't want to be touched or photographed naked, thats his choice! He followed the orders given by the officers and the other personnell and get charged for doing so? Why? The officer said "go away", he goes away and this suit-guy says "if you go away, we'll charge you for whatever we may deem". He never rampaged "I MUST GET TO THIS PLANE NOW, so I can blow it up!!!!", he just refused getting touched.

Bye, RedAces.

[Amirya]

I am amazed that people think it's ok to demand that a stranger be allowed to touch your genitalia for any length of time (I understand that it's extremely brief), but people pitch a fit at Janet Jackson's tit appearing on national TV for the same amount of time.

Americans make my head hurt.

[Dorvan]

I am amazed that people think it's ok to demand that a stranger be allowed to touch your genitalia for any length of time (I understand that it's extremely brief), but people pitch a fit at Janet Jackson's tit appearing on national TV for the same amount of time.

Americans make my head hurt.

That'll happen when you treat any 300 million people as a single monolithic set of opinions.

[mew]

The bigger issue is the waste of money on these fancy new x-ray machines.

[Shoju]

The phrase for it in my neck of the woods is "Probably Cause".

If a cop wants to search you, your car, enter your home, feel you up, they need probably cause to execute the search.

If, they do bring a case against this man for following the directions that they gave him, the TSA is going to be up the river.

I understand that we live in a dangerous world. I understand that there are people out there who want to do horrible things to innocent people. There is a line that we need to draw though. Random Advanced Imaging Screenings and full body patdowns are going too far.

Given the recent hot water that the TSA has gotten in over Drug Pranks, Their poor screening methods of employees, and now, these scanners, I don't think that this lawsuit is going to investigation is going to amount to much. there are attorneys chomping at the bit to have a field day in court with the TSA>

I'm not walking into a machine that essentially takes my clothes off for me. Don't think the scanner really makes you nude? This TSA agent would like to disagree

There are plenty of crazy people out there blogging about it, and sadly, I agree with them. TSA has gotten too big, too fast, and the lack of communication between the agency and the public is horrendous. The TSA website is woefully months behind, and the workers at the airports aren't even on the same page. There are documented cases all around the web of people who have encountered different sets of regulations within the same airport, on different days.

The underlying major problem to the whole thing?
The qualifications to become an TSA screener.

Employment Requirements

• Applicants must be a citizen of the United States or a U.S National and have a high school diploma, GED or recognized equivalent. If you do not possess the education component, you can still apply if you have at least one year of full time experience working as an X-ray technician, aviation screener or security officer. In addition to these two basic requirements, applicants will be required to meet the following employment conditions:
• Demonstrate physical fitness to work on a daily basis without the aid of medication.
• Work irregular hours and shifts, including holidays and weekends.
• Pass drug and alcohol screening tests.
• Pass background, criminal and credit checks.

Thats it. Nothing more. The pay? Um... I have a college degree and I fall into that bracket. What the %&*( am I doing wrong?

Starting salary range of $23,600 to $35,400 (Federal Pay Band D)