4 ms·

I'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

by jpxxx 14y ago

I'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 ago
Why 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 ago
  Correct. 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
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Nobody will cheer more loudly than I will if SCOTUS holds that electronic strip searches cross the line from "reasonable" to "unreasonable", but I don't know of a credible constitutional law source that predicts that they will do that, so baldly asserting that these searches are prima facie unconstitutional is a losing argument. The case you've cited here is one where the 9th circuit held TSA's searches to be reasonable.
    - dalke 14y ago
      Heartily agree. The Circuit Courts seem to be in agreement, and the Supreme Court has declined to review appeals on this topic which were sent to them. This suggests that there is no Constitutional issue here which needs a decision. Or in other words - NYC passed a law prohibiting the sale of sugary drinks over 16 ounces in size. To the best of my knowledge, the Supreme Court has never made a decision on if that action is Constitutional. And I strongly doubt that it ever will. Does that mean the legality of the new law is under doubt? Absolutely not.
    - jpxxx 14y ago
      No, this case I've cited specifically says that magnetometer wanding and a pat-down over a duration of 18 minutes in search of a suspected weapon is a constitutionally reasonable administrative search. My beef is with mandatory -custody- searches, which are implemented as either electronic/radioactivity scans of the entire flesh and/or full physical inspections of the body. These were not in use prior to the TSA's inception and nobody has ruled on whether they are constitutionally reasonable or not.
- mindslight 14y ago
  > The fact of the matter is that it's SCOTUS that sets the standards here, not the Constitution. Well duh. Because the Constitution is inanimate, due to actually just being paper and ink. Meanwhile, SCOTUS consists of living people with free will and the ability to walk around. However, nothing about these facts implies that what the Sovereign Council of Nine says is consistent with the ideals that led to the creation of said document.
dalke 14y ago
Quoting from the DC Circuit opinion in "EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security": """As other circuits have held, and as the Supreme Court has strongly suggested, screening passengers at an airport is an "administrative search" because the primary goal is not to determine whether any passenger has committed a crime but rather to protect the public from a terrorist attack. See United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955, 958–63 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (passenger search at airport checkpoint); United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174, 178–81 (3d Cir. 2006) (Alito, J.) (same); United States v. Edwards, 498 F.2d 496, 499–501 (2d Cir. 1974) (Friendly, J.) (carry-on baggage search at airport); see also Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004) (police set up checkpoint to obtain information about earlier crash); Mich. Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) (sobriety checkpoint). An administrative search does not require individualized suspicion. City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 41, 47–48 (2000) (individualized suspicion required when police checkpoint is “primarily [for] general crime control,” that is, “to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing” unlike “searches at places like airports ... where the need for such measures to ensure public safety can be particularly acute”). Instead, whether an administrative search is “unreasonable” within the condemnation of the Fourth Amendment “is determined by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual’s privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 118-19 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted).""" The Edwards reference you mentioned is in there, but so are others. In "United States v. Aukai" (2007) the 9th Circuit said "We have held that airport screening searches, like the one at issue here, are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches because they are "conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, namely, to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft, and thereby to prevent hijackings." In United States v. Hartwell (3d Cir. 2006), para. 8 "We hold that the search was permissible under the administrative search doctrine. Cf. United States v. Marquez, 410 F.3d 612, 616 (9th Cir.2005) ("Airport screenings of passengers and their baggage constitute administrative searches and are subject to the limitations of the Fourth Amendment."). These were all easy to find.
- jpxxx 14y ago
  I appreciate your thoroughness. I fear I am not focusing my argument well. Administrative search at airports is legal, yes. Consent is not required or relevant, yes. Bag checks and scans are mandated by law, yes. Magnetometer searches are protected by law, yes. Weapons searches are protected by law, yes. Carrying a meth pipe in your pocket is probably a bad idea, yes. I am very specifically arguing that modern physical custody searches (aka "pat-downs") as performed by the TSA do not qualify under any Fourth Amendment exemptions. They have not been ruled as constitutionally reasonable upon by the SCOTUS, and that until they are, they are forbidden by the fourth amendment. Administrative searches 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'. Custody searches, in my personal opinion, do not qualify as minimally intrusive. Prior to the TSA's inception they were only used in very restricted settings. Now they're considered commonplace.

by jpxxx 14y ago

tptacek 14y ago

Why 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 ago
Correct. 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
- tptacek 14y ago
  Nobody will cheer more loudly than I will if SCOTUS holds that electronic strip searches cross the line from "reasonable" to "unreasonable", but I don't know of a credible constitutional law source that predicts that they will do that, so baldly asserting that these searches are prima facie unconstitutional is a losing argument. The case you've cited here is one where the 9th circuit held TSA's searches to be reasonable.
  - dalke 14y ago
    Heartily agree. The Circuit Courts seem to be in agreement, and the Supreme Court has declined to review appeals on this topic which were sent to them. This suggests that there is no Constitutional issue here which needs a decision. Or in other words - NYC passed a law prohibiting the sale of sugary drinks over 16 ounces in size. To the best of my knowledge, the Supreme Court has never made a decision on if that action is Constitutional. And I strongly doubt that it ever will. Does that mean the legality of the new law is under doubt? Absolutely not.
  - jpxxx 14y ago
    No, this case I've cited specifically says that magnetometer wanding and a pat-down over a duration of 18 minutes in search of a suspected weapon is a constitutionally reasonable administrative search. My beef is with mandatory -custody- searches, which are implemented as either electronic/radioactivity scans of the entire flesh and/or full physical inspections of the body. These were not in use prior to the TSA's inception and nobody has ruled on whether they are constitutionally reasonable or not.
mindslight 14y ago
> The fact of the matter is that it's SCOTUS that sets the standards here, not the Constitution. Well duh. Because the Constitution is inanimate, due to actually just being paper and ink. Meanwhile, SCOTUS consists of living people with free will and the ability to walk around. However, nothing about these facts implies that what the Sovereign Council of Nine says is consistent with the ideals that led to the creation of said document.

dalke 14y ago

Quoting from the DC Circuit opinion in "EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security": """As other circuits have held, and as the Supreme Court has strongly suggested, screening passengers at an airport is an "administrative search" because the primary goal is not to determine whether any passenger has committed a crime but rather to protect the public from a terrorist attack. See United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955, 958–63 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (passenger search at airport checkpoint); United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174, 178–81 (3d Cir. 2006) (Alito, J.) (same); United States v. Edwards, 498 F.2d 496, 499–501 (2d Cir. 1974) (Friendly, J.) (carry-on baggage search at airport); see also Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004) (police set up checkpoint to obtain information about earlier crash); Mich. Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) (sobriety checkpoint). An administrative search does not require individualized suspicion. City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 41, 47–48 (2000) (individualized suspicion required when police checkpoint is “primarily [for] general crime control,” that is, “to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing” unlike “searches at places like airports ... where the need for such measures to ensure public safety can be particularly acute”). Instead, whether an administrative search is “unreasonable” within the condemnation of the Fourth Amendment “is determined by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual’s privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 118-19 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted).""" The Edwards reference you mentioned is in there, but so are others. In "United States v. Aukai" (2007) the 9th Circuit said "We have held that airport screening searches, like the one at issue here, are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches because they are "conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, namely, to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft, and thereby to prevent hijackings." In United States v. Hartwell (3d Cir. 2006), para. 8 "We hold that the search was permissible under the administrative search doctrine. Cf. United States v. Marquez, 410 F.3d 612, 616 (9th Cir.2005) ("Airport screenings of passengers and their baggage constitute administrative searches and are subject to the limitations of the Fourth Amendment."). These were all easy to find.

jpxxx 14y ago
I appreciate your thoroughness. I fear I am not focusing my argument well. Administrative search at airports is legal, yes. Consent is not required or relevant, yes. Bag checks and scans are mandated by law, yes. Magnetometer searches are protected by law, yes. Weapons searches are protected by law, yes. Carrying a meth pipe in your pocket is probably a bad idea, yes. I am very specifically arguing that modern physical custody searches (aka "pat-downs") as performed by the TSA do not qualify under any Fourth Amendment exemptions. They have not been ruled as constitutionally reasonable upon by the SCOTUS, and that until they are, they are forbidden by the fourth amendment. Administrative searches 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'. Custody searches, in my personal opinion, do not qualify as minimally intrusive. Prior to the TSA's inception they were only used in very restricted settings. Now they're considered commonplace.