I don't think there's anything reasonable or okay about the TSA. I just don't think the searches are a 4th amendment issue.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Former TSA Admin Admits They're Violating The 4th Amendment
- Thread starter mrjarrell
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 4th amendment tsa
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I don't think there's anything reasonable or okay about the TSA. I just don't think the searches are a 4th amendment issue.
MACHINEGUN
Shooter
I would say these searches are unreasonable.. especially if they have no probable cause to search you to begin with.
I'd rather they profile like the Israelis do.. it seems to work just fine for them.
I'd rather they profile like the Israelis do.. it seems to work just fine for them.
If they are unreasonable, then why submit to them?
indytechnerd
Master
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGWUZQ5xCyw]YouTube - Tesla - Signs Unplugged[/ame]
Go out where?
If I travel on a military base, I consent to search by the act of entering the base. Is that a fourth amendment issue?
Let's say I offer free AR -15s to the first 100 people who show up to my house. The only condition is that you must submit to an invasive search. If you refuse to be searched, I won't let you enter my property and therefore you get no free rifle.
Now, let's say I hire police to conduct the searches. Is that a fourth amendment issue?
In public, where the police state is. Is a roadside checkpoint or a government curfew acceptable if you walk right into it as you attempt to travel like a free person?
Are we that far gone already? Do we accept that any point they choose can suddenly be treated as if it were an entrance to a military compound? I understand you can be shot on sight for crossing invisible lines in the sand that mark the border of certain military bases. The constitution obviously doesn't apply when you come near a U.S. military base, even if its in the middle of the USA.
I would have to ask when police departments became security contractors. But if it's your house, with private security, then sure.
Now let's hypothesize that the searches were put into law by the Federal Government and are done at the taxpayers' expense.
Look, I think we've got a constitutional beef. I just don't think it's the 4th Amendment.
If you purchase a ticket for passage on a commercial airline, you effectively create a contract. One of the written stipulations to that contract (written on the ticket and apparently on the website as well) is that by that purchase, in exchange for the airline granting you passage on their plane, you agree among other things to pay for the ticket and to consent to a search of your person and belongings. There are also, at least according to what they tell you on the plane, federal laws requiring you to obey the orders of uniformed crew on the planes, not disable the smoke detectors in the bathroom, etc.
To restate only the salient point, by your purchase, you consent.
To require a search prior to entering a courtroom might be closer to a 4A matter, especially if you're a witness and there under subpoena; you are required to be there and have committed no crime. You might even be there under protest, but your presence is compelled under pain of arrest. If you want to go after a 4A case, that might be a way to do so, thinking in terms of prior restraint and compulsory presence (just because you might do something unlawful with a weapon does not give cause to deny it to you, else we would be requiring movie patrons to have their mouths glued shut to prevent them from yelling "fire" in the theater.)
Flying on a plane is not a 4A violation. The unreasonableness of the search notwithstanding, if you consent to it by buying a ticket, it's no different than if every store owner makes a precondition to entering his store that you be wearing a pink tutu and a cowboy hat.
And no, I do not defend the TSA; I think they should be abolished, as should no less and probably far more than 50% of government agencies.
Any attorneys who believe I'm mistaken, please say so and explain how. If I am wrong, I'll retract the above and take it as a learning experience.
Blessings,
Bill
To restate only the salient point, by your purchase, you consent.
To require a search prior to entering a courtroom might be closer to a 4A matter, especially if you're a witness and there under subpoena; you are required to be there and have committed no crime. You might even be there under protest, but your presence is compelled under pain of arrest. If you want to go after a 4A case, that might be a way to do so, thinking in terms of prior restraint and compulsory presence (just because you might do something unlawful with a weapon does not give cause to deny it to you, else we would be requiring movie patrons to have their mouths glued shut to prevent them from yelling "fire" in the theater.)
Flying on a plane is not a 4A violation. The unreasonableness of the search notwithstanding, if you consent to it by buying a ticket, it's no different than if every store owner makes a precondition to entering his store that you be wearing a pink tutu and a cowboy hat.
And no, I do not defend the TSA; I think they should be abolished, as should no less and probably far more than 50% of government agencies.
Any attorneys who believe I'm mistaken, please say so and explain how. If I am wrong, I'll retract the above and take it as a learning experience.
Blessings,
Bill
Hopefully we never see the day when we have to remind ourselves, "By putting my keys in the ignition of this registered vehicle, I have already given consent to a government search. Otherwise I should have walked."
If this was the action of some private security organization, this would be very different. But because the government itself has picked places in public to start searching people, it is a 4A issue in my book. It would be no different if they set up shop in front of your local grocery store. Your rights aren't supposed to only remain intact as long as you can stay 2 steps ahead of the thugs who are infringing them.
Different issue, Rambone. You own the vehicle. You do not own the plane. If you DO own the plane, you do not have to consent to a TSA search to fly in it. As for the grocery, are the government employees searching people entering the store or just walking by? If they are searching anyone entering, did the business owner have anything to do with them being there? If so, you have the right to deny him your business and shop elsewhere, and incidentally avoid the search as well. If they are searching people just walking by, that would be 4A, and the courts have already ruled against it, IIRC.
Sobriety checkpoints are a good example of this: At least in IN, I recall reading that when set up, there must be a way to turn to avoid the checkpoint if you so choose. Again, if I'm mistaken on that, please, someone who knows correct the error. (note that I don't support those either)
I'm not denying that there are rights infringements happening often, Rambone. I'm just saying that being searched to fly on a commercial plane is not unConstitutional unless you're being FORCED (ie under threat of arrest) to fly and do not consent to the search.
Blessings,
Bill
You might own your car, but you don't own the road. I can see someone making a case for warrantless searches of any vehicle on public roads if we adopt this logic.
As for the analogy; Lets say the government was playing security guard for people grocery businesses - just like they do to people entering the business of air travel. The business owner had nothing to do with it, merely told his security is not sufficient and the government is taking over by law (possiblity of opting out in XX number of years). All the grocery stores in America have the government searches at the doors, so your only chance of voting with your dollars is to start growing crops and not buy food from a store.
Does the fact that you show up in public to do business make the search any more warranted or reasonable?
I know you don't support them, but by God, if they aren't unconstitutional then what is??
Its like saying, don't want to be arrested for your speech, then keep your foul mouth at home! Don't want to be proned out because someone saw that you carry a handgun, then don't OC!
Are our rights really this neutered that we accept the 'avoidance' defense for rights infringments?
My town recently had a debate over Government 'inspections' of every apartment in town limits, regardless if the tenant or owner gave consent, regardless if anyone had any complaints about the repair of the building. Would the same defense apply? Don't want your dwelling inspected by strangers? Then don't live in an apartment. You knew the law when you moved in.
Rambone, do you think you have a right to fly on someone else's airplane?
Someone on here recently posted that the difference between rights and privileges is that you don't have to pay to have a right. Those warrantless searches to which you refer? They're already law, IF the officer who pulls you over can see something in plain sight or can show RAS or PC to search. Is it right? No. Does it exist? Unquestionably. Since you purchase the privilege of flying on their airplane, you agree to follow the conditions made available to you at the time of purchase. If you do not, you have a choice to not fly.
Let's go back to the example I used above of a subpoenaed witness in court. His presence is demanded; he has only the choice of arrest or appear. He has committed no crime; is not even accused of one, he merely saw something that he is now compelled to reveal in court. He is subject to the same search of his person on entering the courthouse and the same prohibition of being armed, regardless of the fact that he is there to help the government's case. THIS, at least in my mind, constitutes a 4A violation. His presence is not optional nor is his consent to the search an issue.
No one is forcing you to fly.
As for the grocer, you're correct, you always have the option of growing your own food. Some places have delivery of groceries available. Perhaps this would be an area for an entrepreneur, someone willing to disarm and subject himself to government search, who could then enter the store, do the shopping according to the list that a customer gives, and deliver it to their home so that they did not have to consent to a search they did not wish to. The entrepreneur would be able to charge a premium for his own gas, vehicle, insurance, time, and inconvenience of entering the store. The store owners would fight the security as well, since impulse buying would slow to a crawl.
As for the apartment, no, the same defense would not apply. The owner's consent is immaterial, IIRC. Once a renter pays his rent, even the owner must either give notice prior to entry or must be invited in. Payment of rent conveys right of residence (that's not strict legal terminology, but it should convey the idea I'm attempting to relate.)
Purchase of an airline ticket only purchases the privilege of travel in that seat for the duration of that specific flight. A violation would occur if you complied with all of the conditions and they still both denied you passage and refused to refund your payment. This would probably be addressable under "breach of contract". It would still not be unConstitutional, it would instead be a (civil) tort action.
Blessings,
Bill
Someone on here recently posted that the difference between rights and privileges is that you don't have to pay to have a right. Those warrantless searches to which you refer? They're already law, IF the officer who pulls you over can see something in plain sight or can show RAS or PC to search. Is it right? No. Does it exist? Unquestionably. Since you purchase the privilege of flying on their airplane, you agree to follow the conditions made available to you at the time of purchase. If you do not, you have a choice to not fly.
Let's go back to the example I used above of a subpoenaed witness in court. His presence is demanded; he has only the choice of arrest or appear. He has committed no crime; is not even accused of one, he merely saw something that he is now compelled to reveal in court. He is subject to the same search of his person on entering the courthouse and the same prohibition of being armed, regardless of the fact that he is there to help the government's case. THIS, at least in my mind, constitutes a 4A violation. His presence is not optional nor is his consent to the search an issue.
No one is forcing you to fly.
As for the grocer, you're correct, you always have the option of growing your own food. Some places have delivery of groceries available. Perhaps this would be an area for an entrepreneur, someone willing to disarm and subject himself to government search, who could then enter the store, do the shopping according to the list that a customer gives, and deliver it to their home so that they did not have to consent to a search they did not wish to. The entrepreneur would be able to charge a premium for his own gas, vehicle, insurance, time, and inconvenience of entering the store. The store owners would fight the security as well, since impulse buying would slow to a crawl.
As for the apartment, no, the same defense would not apply. The owner's consent is immaterial, IIRC. Once a renter pays his rent, even the owner must either give notice prior to entry or must be invited in. Payment of rent conveys right of residence (that's not strict legal terminology, but it should convey the idea I'm attempting to relate.)
Purchase of an airline ticket only purchases the privilege of travel in that seat for the duration of that specific flight. A violation would occur if you complied with all of the conditions and they still both denied you passage and refused to refund your payment. This would probably be addressable under "breach of contract". It would still not be unConstitutional, it would instead be a (civil) tort action.
Blessings,
Bill
Further, let's turn this around. Let's just say for a moment that you, Rambone, own an airline. You've invested significant amounts of money into it (a minimum of 8 figures, and the first one is probably not less than 5), and while it's insured, you don't want to have any of your planes at risk.
QUESTION:
Do you, as a business owner, have a right to decide what types of security to impose on those you will be allowing passage on your aircraft? Regardless of what you would impose, I'm asking if you have the right to make decisions regarding your property?
If you answer yes, you do have that right, you've just ended your argument against the major airlines doing the same thing. If you answer that you do not have that right, you've claimed you do not have property rights as a free American.
So.... unless your claim is that you would have that right but the major airline owners do not, I don't see how this discussion can continue, though I'm certainly not averse to it continuing. I'll be looking forward to seeing your reply though, regardless.
Blessings,
Bill
QUESTION:
Do you, as a business owner, have a right to decide what types of security to impose on those you will be allowing passage on your aircraft? Regardless of what you would impose, I'm asking if you have the right to make decisions regarding your property?
If you answer yes, you do have that right, you've just ended your argument against the major airlines doing the same thing. If you answer that you do not have that right, you've claimed you do not have property rights as a free American.
So.... unless your claim is that you would have that right but the major airline owners do not, I don't see how this discussion can continue, though I'm certainly not averse to it continuing. I'll be looking forward to seeing your reply though, regardless.
Blessings,
Bill
The right in dispute is not the right to a seat on an airplane; it is the right to perform voluntary transactions while maintaining the privacy *from government searches* that is assured in the Bill of Rights.
It shouldn't matter if I'm renting a movie, riding in a taxi, or buying groceries to feed my family. The government is in places it constitutionally should not be, doing things that are constitutionally not allowed.
Again, let us differentiate between private security contractors, and Federal TSA agents that hold a monopoly on securing privately owned businesses.
The fact that the TSA has usurped power at the time of my ticket purchase does nothing to make their actions constitutional.
I agree the courtroom example. However, rights are rights, independent of whether you are compelled to be somewhere, or you are patronizing a business voluntarily.
Private security at a private business may search me if I plan on completing my transaction. Government security at a private business may not search me without probable cause or a warrant. The constitution binds government agents even in private businesses.
You contend there is no 4A breach, even if government locked down grocery stores? All I can do is suggest again that we have rights from government intrusion whether we are in public or in private. It is outside their authority to set up checkpoints. Otherwise we'll have to agree to disagree about where the 4A applies.
I think the analogy still holds some parallels. I don't have the right to rent the apartment. Yet I am still in the middle of fulfilling a contractual paid agreement, and government is asserting their power to intrude upon our private business, as well as my privacy. The 4th Amendment protects me whether I'm in my house, or on my way to work.
With this, I agree with you. I think the TSA is a huge government overreach, and they are not authorized by the Constitution to do it. It's not, however, an illegal search.
It's like if the government nationalized bowling alleys. If you bowl, you must be searched. The search isn't the issue, because you consent to that by bowling. The nationalization of the bowling alley was the unconstitutional part.
The condition put in place by the owner of that seat is that you be screened. If you disagree, deny him your business, tell him why, and let him choose whether to lose your money and that of whoever else agrees with you vs. continuing with the level of security he thinks is correct. The federal government has (unConstitutionally) stepped up to provide this screening. It's not unConstitutional because of the 4th Amendment, but rather the 9th, unless we want to give even more power to the much-abused interstate commerce clause.
Your argument seems to center on who is paying the screeners. Do you think that TSA would have come into place without the airlines wanting them there? Of course they want the gov't paying the screeners; that's fewer people the airlines have to pay or support by airport usage fees! It's still wrong, we're not disagreeing on that point. The only point I've yet seen where we differ is whether or not it violates the 4A to be consensually searched when you board a plane. This is the central issue, IMHO: You consent to the search. If you do not, don't buy the ticket. I see a similarity with the Miranda rights: You have the right to remain silent, which you may choose not to exercise. You have the right to have an attorney present, which you may choose not to exercise. You have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and to be secure in your person, papers, and effects, which you may choose not to exercise, that is, you may voluntarily allow the search, and by buying the ticket and using it, you are choosing not to exercise it. If you later choose to exercise it, simply do not use the ticket.
I contend that as long as the search is not compulsory, (which, if you're penalized under the law for leaving the line, would be difficult to argue- you can always choose to begin exercising your Miranda rights, for example) there is no 4A violation.
I agree that checkpoints are unConstitutional. I do not think they're violations of the 4A so long as the person has the right to exit the line and avoid the checkpoint.
As for the 4A protecting you on your way to work, how do you figure? LEO stops you, sees something in your vehicle, removes you from the vehicle and searches it based on RAS or PC. Alternatively, LEO claims to smell something in your vehicle.... Maybe you had a beer last night, spilled it on your shirt, took off your shirt in the car and drove home. now he wants to search your vehicle for open containers, etc. If you think you're protected, you might be very surprised.
Blessings,
Bill
I wasn't aware that airports lobbied for the TSA. It seemed like a pen was waved and the agency forced its way into our lives, like it or not.
I think the employer of the screeners is a big part of the argument. As we have discussed previously, private citizens cannot violate another person's rights - only government can do that. So a search done by private contractors might be intrusive, but not compulsory and not funded by taxpayers. The argument for 4A infringement is predicated on the fact that the government is performing the search.
Would you argue that the 2nd Amendment is not violated in the state of Illinois, because people "consent" to live there, and therefore forfeit all their gun rights?
I don't think the BOR describes a forfeiture of our civil rights depending upon where we live, who we do business with, and what checkpoint line we stand in. I don't think a presumption of consent is warranted until the person utters the magic words. Hell, half the country is so asleep that they don't know that this crap even happens in airports; it cannot be assumed that everyone who shows up at the airport has consented to getting the TSA treatment.
My argument wouldn't change without this information, but it seems that refusal of the search is treated harshly.
TSA promises $10,000 fine for refusing airport body search
I just mean that my rights certainly don't end as I leave my house. That plane ride very well could be my ride to work. I deserve rights in transit too.
As for the other examples, they all seem to fall within probable cause of a commission of a crime, something that is explicitly listed as a legitimate reason for a search in the 4A. Abuse of PC/RAS will lead to an entirely different conversation, but at least they are paying lip-service to finding a reason to search you, other than "you bought a ticket."
