Ron Paul Responds to TSA: Introduces 'American Traveler Dignity Act'

What they two of you are still missing is that its not a point of frequency, since you could theoretically fly very often and never go through a scanner or a pat down, but what is the legal principle behind these searches. As noted from my reading the basis of these type of searches goes to the Stitz ruling which is specifically about sobriety checkpoints.

I find this an interesting argument from you jo mama since didn't you challenge me earlier with the argument that "if it doesn't happen to me then it doesn't matter?" In this case are you saying that since discretionless searches at sobriety checkpoints have never happened to you then that principle shouldn't apply?

 

Its a good piece especially the first part. I think the second part regarding his arguments on Constitutional rights is mistaken. Travel can be considered a right but not the means of it. His argument essentially presumes that there is no other way of traveling between states except by flying when that is clearly not the situation. Also as I've pointed out that ignores the discretionless checkpoints I have brought up previously already allowed by the USSC. Another problem with this argument is that there is a specific exception regarding 4th Amendment search and seizure protections at international ports, so any airport that list itself as an international airport would still be able to conduct these searches.

 

Just to follow up on my previous statement I have been reading some more about the border search exception and there might be a very good legal argument from a rights standpoint against the TSA searches in it.

http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Border_search_exception

Even though the exception allows searches to be conducted without a warrant there is still a 'reasonableness' standard required and the law differentiates between what are considered 'routine' and 'nonroutine' searches.

[rquoter]A routine border search is a search that does not pose a serious invasion of privacy or offend the average traveler.51 For example, a routine border search may consist of limited searches for contraband or weapons through a pat-down,52 the removal of outer garments such as jackets, hats, or shoes, the emptying of pockets, wallets, or purses,53 the use of a drug-sniffing dog,54 some inspection of cars,55 the cutting of a spare tire,56 and some x-ray searches of inanimate objects.57 The consistent approval of routine border searches by courts reflects a longstanding concern for the protection of the integrity of the border.

It has long been established that an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy is lower at the border than in the interior of the country. In essence, because a person crossing the border is on notice that a search may be likely, his privacy is “less invaded by those searches.”58 A person crossing the border apparently has an opportunity to decrease the amount of intrusion by limiting the nature and character of the items which he brings with him.59 Routine border searches are also arguably less intrusive because they are administered to a class of people (international travelers) rather than to individuals.60 The degree of intrusiveness or invasiveness associated with the particular technique is particularly helpful in determining whether a search is routine. The First Circuit, for example, compiled a nonexhaustive list of six factors to be considered: (1) whether the search required the suspect to disrobe or expose any intimate body parts; (2) whether physical contact was made with the suspect during the search; (3) whether force was used; (4) whether the type of search exposed the suspect to pain or danger; (5) the overall manner in which the search was conducted; and (6) whether the suspects’s reasonable expectations of privacy, if any, were abrogated by the search.61 [/rquoter]

Just to note that in the wikipedia entry regarding this said that pat-downs were considered non-routine. In this case though I think the wikilaw entry is better.

[rquoter]Once a personal search by a government official goes beyond a limited intrusion, a court may determine that a nonroutine search has occurred. In general, nonroutine border searches are conducted in order to detect and search individuals who have resorted to alimentary canal smuggling. Nonroutine border searches may include destructive searches of inanimate objects, prolonged detentions, strip searches, body cavity searches, and some x-ray examinations.[5]

At the very least, it appears courts require a government official have a “reasonable suspicion” of illegal activity to conduct a nonroutine border search on an individual entering the country.[6] The reasonable suspicion standard generally requires an officer at the border to have “a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person” of wrongdoing.[7] For example, in United States v. Forbicetta, the court found reasonable suspicion to exist where Customs officials acted on the following objective facts: (1) the suspect arrived from Bogota, Colombia, (2) was traveling alone, (3) had only one suitcase and no items requiring Customs inspection, (4) was young, clean-looking, and attractive, and (5) was wearing a loose-fitting dress.[8] Some courts, however, have required a higher degree of suspicion to justify the more intrusive of the procedures.[9] [/rquoter]

On this basis there might be a good rights based argument that the current TSA policy is exceeding the 'routine' standard for these body scans and pat downs since they exceed what has been considered routine under the border exception.

 

Explain. I don't think the above is accurate.

Your argument is silly. If I make a conscious decision to drive I significantly lower my odds of being stopped and having my rights violated and I eliminate any potential for the more egregious violation the new TSA methods require. Period.

Furthermore, the "legal" principle argument is a dead horse:

And (from wikipedia)

Let's take a more detailed look: It is important to note to that Stitz was actually ruled in his favor by the State of Michigan on the grounds that the program was ineffective, among standard fourth amendment precautions. The state court of appeals affirmed "the State has a "grave and legitimate" interest in curbing drunken driving; that sobriety checkpoint programs are generally ineffective and, therefore, do not significantly further that interest; and that, while the checkpoints' objective intrusion on individual liberties is slight, their "subjective intrusion" is substantial."

The argument on effectiveness was basically thrown out of the Supreme Court on a technicality:

And furthermore, the case also specifically excuses itself from making judgments pertaining to more intrusive methods:

More importantly, the rationale for allowing the bend from strict fourth amendment rights required taking into account traveler inconvenience. I would argue this rationale not applicable for scanning and groping techniques:

So let's end this silly argument on constitutionality. It's not clear and it's (as you yourself mentioned and history validates) likely that the courts will get it wrong. As I wrote to Major:

Accordingly, the argument at this point revolves not so much in the ether of supposed legality, but in the facts as currently documented:

1) The technique is excessively invasive.
2) The technique is not effective.
3) The technique is being abused.

End it now. **** the TSA.

 

Yeah, I was not keen on his use of the term "right to privacy". He should have reinforced that in the same way he did for the ""right to travel": with court cases such as Katz v United States.

 

i dont fly very often and i have been patted down - my mom doesnt fly very often and she has been body scanned and patted down after being scanned.

it is a matter of frequency - 2 million people a day fly in this country and you want to treat them all like convicted criminals. everyone gets scanned (except on the busiest travel day of the year). and again, this goes back to the argument over what is or isnt "unreasonable". i dont like the idea of sobriety checkpoints, but im pretty sure they arent taking naked pics of you or sexually molesting you at them. the notion that checkpoints, where you stop and make sure drivers arent drunk, is as invasive as naked body scanning and sexually molesting everyone who boards a plane is ridiculous.

as i said, its the degree of invasiveness. cops at sobriety checkpoints are not trying to take naked pics or sexually molest you and if they did they would go to jail and have to go on the sex offender registry. and last time i checked, two million people a day are not going through sobriety checkpoints or trying to visit nuclear facilities.

 

this guy flys almost 100 times a year and has a artificial hip, so he gets the full patdown everytime. so he decided to strip down to a speedo and the TSA made him put all his clothes back on before getting patted down.

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ef1sdIlun-4&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ef1sdIlun-4&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

 

a little more on sobriety checkpoints vs. tsa perverts...

when cops set up sobriety checkpoints they arent pulling everyone out of their cars and subjecting them to field sobriety tests or blood draws. they are more than likely just going up to the driver and asking if they have had anything to drink...if they suspect they have then they can pull them out of the car and make them walk a straight line or whatever...but they certainly arent doing it to everyone. they talk to everyone and make an assessment on whether or not a particular driver needs further 'screening'.

the tsa, on the other hand, requires everyone to get naked body scanned and/or sexually molested (except on the busiest travel day of the year). there is no preliminary screening - everyone is automatically a suspect.

 

which is exactly why racial profiling works.

percentage of white terrorists - 0%

percentage of middle eastern looking terrorists - 100%

But i guess its a slippery slope right?

 

Have you ever heard of Timothy McVeigh, the unibomber, and the guy who sent the anthrax after 9/11?

 

ya, well im talking more airplane taking terrorists.

I know race dosent have anything to do with it, im just saying...

so maybe my hypothetical percentage could be

percentage of white terrorists - 10%?

percentage of middle eastern looking terrorists - 90%?

but ya, either way, if someone really wanted to do something they would/could.

 

You realize there are white Middle Easterners right?

 

Completely not surprising:

Auditors Conclude TSA is Wasting A Whole Heap of Money

 

No sympathy. Reminds me of the tazer videos.

Standing on ceremony only makes her foolish.

 

notice how the article has two quotes from scared cowards at the end about how they "feel" safer and the woman deserved what she got. every time one of these stories comes out in the paper or on the news they only show interviews w/ those who are all in favor of this stuff, and its almost always women.

 

Actually that is not true at all. I flew two weeks ago and on both out bound and return flight wasn't required to go through a scanner or a pat down. This was Dec. 9 and 13 most definitely not eh busiest travel days of the year.

 

Umm..

Jihad Jane:


Also you do realize that there are many middle easterners who are white and Middle Easterners appearances can look like anywere from Sub-Saharan black to Northern European. One of my Judo students who was born and raised in Alexandria Egypt has blond hair and blue eyes.

Also if you are talking about terrorists there are many white terrorists besides Islamic terrorists. In the UK one of the ethnic profiles for terrorists is Northern Irish.