Former TSA Admin Admits They're Violating The 4th Amendment

[mrjarrell]

The former head of TSA Security admitted on the air that they're violating the 4th Amendment with these searches. Of course he goes on to say that it's for the greater good and all that crap, but at least someone affiliated with them has come out and admitted that what they're doing is unConstitutional.

YouTube - Fmr Asst TSA Admin on Security Checkpoints!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni4GVWvT2Zs&feature=related[/ame]

 

[dross]

It's not a 4th amendment issue. It's wrong, but it's not about the 4th amendment.

 

[mrjarrell]

I don't see how it's not, given the wording of the 4th Amendment.

[SIZE=+1]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. [/SIZE]

 

[96firephoenix]

It's not a 4th amendment issue. It's wrong, but it's not about 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.

I"m pretty sure that it is a 4A issue, but I'd like to hear your reasoning as to why its not.

Unreasonable searches... I'm pretty sure naked pictures are unreasonable.
Unreachable Seizures... anything they "seize" in a patdown is unreasonable.

 

[pudly]

It is absolutely, and in the clearest of terms, a violation of the 4th amendment. It is clearer than the second amendment even as there is no possible interpretation away from individual rights with words like militias.

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.

FTFY

 

[dross]

I don't see how it's not, given the wording of the 4th Amendment.

I"m pretty sure that it is a 4A issue, but I'd like to hear your reasoning as to why its not.

Unreasonable searches... I'm pretty sure naked pictures are unreasonable.
Unreachable Seizures... anything they "seize" in a patdown is unreasonable.

It is absolutely, and in the clearest of terms, a violation of the 4th amendment. It is clearer than the second amendment even as there is no possible interpretation away from individual rights with words like militias.

FTFY

Because you consent to the search. Don't get me wrong, I hate the TSA and have since they created them. I also think the law should be changed. I just don't think it is an illegal search.

You may still travel by several other means. You can charter an airplane, buy a time share with a business jet service, buy an airplane, as well as any other method of travel. You don't have to be searched, just don't enter the line.

Therefore, not a 4th amendment issue. Think about it. If they did away with the TSA and a private firm performed the same procedures, it wouldn't be a 4th amendment issue.

 

[rambone]

I feel it is little different than a roadside checkpoint. Then saying, "you can always take a different road."

 

[pudly]

Because you consent to the search.

That's the point, we don't consent to this search. We are screaming it loud and clear.

If they did away with the TSA and a private firm performed the same procedures, it wouldn't be a 4th amendment issue.

If a private company does this, it is a criminal act. That is unless directly ordered by the government in which case, it is again a 4th amendment violation.

 

[dross]

If a private company does this, it is a criminal act. That is unless directly ordered by the government in which case, it is again a 4th amendment violation.

Not if you consent.

Officer: May I search your car?
You: Yes.

No 4th Amendment violation.

Sign on military base:

All Vehicles Entering this Facility are Subject to Search

No 4th Amendment violation.

 

[pudly]

You are simply ignoring the multiple documented cases where people that totally refuse all searches are being harassed and sued as a result. There is nothing voluntary here at all.

 

[dross]

You are simply ignoring the multiple documented cases where people that totally refuse all searches are being harassed and sued as a result. There is nothing voluntary here at all.

Pretty narrow issue, I suppose I would agree that if there wasn't a sign upon entering the screening area that you made yourself subject to search, you have a point. If I opt out and then refuse a pat down, but they insist on searching me anyway, I agree that in that narrow instance it would be a 4th Amendment violation.

A sign upon entering the security checkpoint, or letting someone go without boarding for refusal takes care of the 4th Amendment concerns, however.

 

[eldirector]

I think the point Dross is making is that by purchasing an airline ticket, you have given the airlines permission to search by whatever means they choose.

From Delta's Contract of Carriage:

permit search of his person or property for explosives, weapons, dangerous materials, or other prohibited items.

Source: http://images.delta.com.edgesuite.net/delta/pdfs/contract_of_carriage_dom.pdf

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Fair enough, Dross - not a Fourth Amendment issue... I see your point. So we hit the airlines where it counts, in the bank account.

 

[pudly]

Sorry, but it is a 4th amendment issue. Not all searches are reasonable. Walking through a metal scanner isn't a huge imposition. Virtual strip searches and groping are. Want that kind of authority, have probable cause or get a warrant.

 

[rambone]

I don't really see how announcing or advertising the government searches makes any difference. So lets say the government passes some crazy warrantless wiretapping law, and they announce it, hang signs up, run tv commercials, etc. Does it make it any more constitutional that we all know they are doing it?

What other industries are they allowed to take over? Railways? Boating? Highways? Segways? At what point do they say, 'You saw the signs. If you don't want to be searched, just walk,' or 'stay home.'

 

[dross]

Sorry, but it is a 4th amendment issue. Not all searches are reasonable. Walking through a metal scanner isn't a huge imposition. Virtual strip searches and groping are. Want that kind of authority, have probable cause or get a warrant.

You don't have to be searched. Just don't fly commercial airlines at a public airport.

I don't really see how announcing or advertising the government searches makes any difference. So lets say the government passes some crazy warrantless wiretapping law, and they announce it, hang signs up, run tv commercials, etc. Does it make it any more constitutional that we all know they are doing it?

What other industries are they allowed to take over? Railways? Boating? Highways? Segways? At what point do they say, 'You saw the signs. If you don't want to be searched, just walk,' or 'stay home.'

Industry takeover might be unconstitutional for another reason, but it's not a 4th Amendment issue.

 

[rambone]

You don't have to be searched. Just don't fly commercial airlines at a public airport.
Industry takeover might be unconstitutional for another reason, but it's not a 4th Amendment issue.

Maybe 'industry takeover' is the wrong way to describe it, more like fascist imposition of mandatory searches. What makes this unconstitutional is that the government has no authority to be in the checkpoint business at all, announced or not.

How about we look at the forgotten 3rd Amendment. (Illegal to quarter troops in residences). What if the government made laws that said it would not apply if you were staying in a hotel - and the Feds had the right to put their troops up in your hotel room against your consent? Would it not still be unconstitutional, even if you read the newspaper articles and saw the announcements posted on the door? It would be unjustifiable to say 'If you don't like it, avoid travel,' or 'next time go camping.'

 

[level.eleven]

Dross, so you are of the opinion that consent negates any question of the "unreasonableness" of the search?

 

[dross]

Dross, so you are of the opinion that consent negates any question of the "unreasonableness" of the search?

Yes.

 

[level.eleven]

Yes.

I would agree with you in a market based environment. However, that's not what we have here. In this scenario you only have one player, and that player holds the purse strings and has the airports and airlines bent over a barrel. Airlines and airports are heavily subsidized by the feds. I don't consider a tiny airport in Florida opting out of the TSA as win. They probably received little funding to begin with.

By not questioning the reasonableness of the federal governments search procedures, I think we open ourselves up to the common route of every government, mission creep.

Would it be reasonable for the TSA to collect 4473's and use that as a criteria for "secondary"? We've already seen no fly-no buy, so perhaps this isn't too far fetched.

At the end of the day, if nine lawyers think roadblocks are okay, I would guess that nine lawyers would give an okay to the TSA. Our interpretation of the constitution simply don't matter. It's about nine lawyers that have been churned out of TWO Ivy League schools.