6 ms·
A quibble, because this whole fucking disgusting thing fills me with limitless rage: TSA agents do not perform 'pat-downs'. Pat-downs are very quick checks to
by jpxxx 14y ago
A quibble, because this whole fucking disgusting thing fills me with limitless rage:
TSA agents do not perform 'pat-downs'. Pat-downs are very quick checks to see if any obvious weapons are being concealed on someone's body. Police will do these before putting a suspect into a police vehicle, for instance.
TSA employees do what are called 'custody searches', designed to find contraband material on detainees. These are only performed under specific scenarios, such as being incarcerated.
Custody searches in this context are forbidden by the fourth amendment, by the way, regardless of what the TSA's legal team may claim.
- aneth4 14y ago> Custody searches in this context are forbidden by the fourth amendment, by the way, regardless of what the TSA's legal team may claim. As is x-raying baggage and body-scans. Fourth amendment rights don't apply to the same extent when you are on private property, when there are balancing security concerns, when you enter a courthouse, when you enter a school, etc. You know the deal when you enter these places and you have a choice whether to enter them. The idea that you have the same fourth amendment rights boarding a plan as you do in your house or car is ridiculous. I'm not saying I agree with TSA searches, only that your normal forth amendment standard does not apply.
- pyre 14y ago> when you enter a courthouse > you have a choice whether to enter them Not necessarily...
- aneth4 14y agoTrue, though the security concerns of weapons in a courthouse surely justify a baggage scan, metal detector, and pat down. Security is far more of an issue in a courthouse even than on a plane.
- Zigurd 14y agoHaving recently been on a jury, I wish airport security was as hassle free as a courthouse in Massachusetts, where my bag was x-rayed with my laptop in it, and I walked, shoes on, through a metal detector. I also agree that, in practical terms, security at a courthouse faces many more real-world challenges than air travel. That should tell us something about appropriate levels of security.
- mkr-hn 14y agoWhat's the point of a right if it can be violated where you most need it?
- drzaiusapelord 14y agoThen don't fucking fly. Seriously, you guys make it sound the TSA breaks into your homes and strips you. Yes, I disagree with a lot of their policies but this "Ron Paul" attitude of "the federal government actually has no power if you listen to my absurd interpretation of the constitution" isn't helping either. Its making my legitimate grievances sound lumped in with your extremist interpretations. You can have sane security if you want it. The Europeans and others do it just fine. Its not illegal to search people or xray their luggage when they're coming on a plane. Deal with it. I'm getting sick of the weekly TSA hatefests. If site just a smaller reddit now? TSA has nothing to do with ycombinator or startups.
- rayiner 14y agoBoarding an airplane probably isn't where 4th amendment rights are most needed...
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- cma 14y agoIt isn't just when boarding airplanes: http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty...
- tptacek 14y agoNo they're not. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld an exemption for searches in the context of airport security under the doctrine of administrative searches, where the state's legitimate interest overrides the cost (to individuals) of the search, and where no one person is singled out by the searches. Your argument doesn't even follow logically, as all the 4th Amendment requires is that searches be "reasonable", and "reasonable" is obviously subjective. It's a right practically tailor made for adjudication by the Supreme Court. Given that bags have been subject to search for decades prior to "pat-down" or "custody" searches, and that it's hard to think of a more invasive search than one that allows officers to rifle through your personal luggage, I don't think Constitutionality is the issue here. We should simply pass a federal law restricting the TSA's ability to electronically strip search or invasively grope passengers. I'm just as disgusted by airport electronic strip searches as you are, but we shouldn't using sure-loser arguments against them.
- jpxxx 14y agoI'm very specifically talking about custody searches, not pat-downs or "enhanced pat-downs" (an imaginary term created by the TSA's marketing team). Anyway, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no Supreme court ruling on the constitutionality of any of these techniques in the context of airport security. I'm glad to be proven wrong. The most relevant ruling I know of was from a half century ago and it wasn't the Supreme Court talking. United States v. Edwards, 498 F.2d 496, 500 (2d Cir.1974)
- tptacek 14y agoWhy would it be lawful for the TSA to search through your underwear, but not lawful for them to feel you up? Where would the Constitution be drawing that line? The fact of the matter is that it's SCOTUS that sets the standards here, not the Constitution.
- jpxxx 14y agoCorrect. My point is that SCOTUS has not said word one about these standards. "Constitutionally reasonable administrative searches" in the context of an airport are legal, per SCOTUS. Consent has nothing to do with it, that concept does not apply here. But, critically, SCOTUS has never ruled on whether the current TSA techniques are constitutionally reasonable. The only thing for sure is that the 3rd says that they must be 'minimally intrusive' and 'escalat[e] in invasiveness only after a lower level of screening disclose[s] a reason to conduct a more probing search'. For further reading: United States Vs. Aukui from the 9th http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1265662.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1265662.html
- rplst8 14y agoThe ironic thing is that we lose the right to be free from searches, because we lost the right to defend ourselves. It is often the case where the Second Amendment is absent, so goes the Fourth.
- switch007 14y agoHear hear. The current day pat down is nothing of the sort. I like to stand post security and loudly call them what they are: gropes.