4 ms·
TSA's searches without a warrant are illegal. The fourth amendment: >The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, again
by Vicinity9635 8mo ago
TSA's searches without a warrant are illegal.
The fourth 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.
And no, you cannot convince me that searching families flying to see grandma for Christmas is a "reasonable search".
- zeroonetwothree 8mo agoYou are entering government property so they have a right to search you. Just like if you enter a sporting event they have a right to search you. You are free to not use either service. Now we could argue that this isn’t a desirable way to do things but I don’t how it would violate the fourth amendment.
- Vicinity9635 8mo agoRead the fourth amendment since you clearly didn't the first time.
- otterley 8mo agoAs an attorney, I can tell you that a naive reading of words in the Constitution is not how law is decided.
- Vicinity9635 8mo agoBelieve it or not, I don't care what authoritarians feel about the 4th amendment that was designed to be read and interpreted free of the courts.
- otterley 8mo agoAnd how, exactly, are you certain of this intended design?
- Vicinity9635 8mo ago"shall not be violated" leaves no loopholes. Just like the second amendment: >A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "shall not be infringed" and "shall not be violated" do not leave loopholes. It's quite clear.
- otterley 8mo agoI didn’t ask you what the words say; anyone can read them. I asked you why you believe, based on the historical evidence, that the Constitution isn’t supposed to be interpreted by our courts.
- Vicinity9635 8mo agoI answered your question. Your failure of comprehension is not my problem.
- otterley 8mo agoYou did not. This is the answer of someone who has lost the argument and knows it, but refuses to admit it. The door is that way; kindly let yourself out.
- Vicinity9635 8mo agoSince you're pretending to be a lawyer and losing an argument I'll highlight the part that answers the question: >"shall not be infringed" and "shall not be violated" do not leave loopholes. It's quite clear.
- 8mo ago
- jazzyjackson 8mo agoI suppose you tell cops at a traffic stop that you don't need a license plate because you're an individual not engaging in commerce.
- Starlevel004 8mo agoThe Fourth Amendment only applies to places flying a flag with gold fringes
- otterley 8mo agoUnfortunately almost every court that has considered the question has concluded otherwise. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4344&context=mlr https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article... Also, the question has been largely sidestepped by the fact that travelers consent to search by voluntarily proceeding into the secure (airside) area of the airport, and there are usually--if not always--signs at the TSA screening point that say so. It’s not like you’re being involuntarily searched at the check-in desk.
- Vicinity9635 8mo agoThe courts are allowed to be wrong, it's true.
- otterley 8mo agoIf you think you know better, you should fight your own test case and publish a running report on how it’s going instead of armchair lawyering.