Legal-minded? Seeking help w/info for my TSA protest

[msjones]

I will be protesting the new TSA procedures on Wednesday. I want to have all my 'ducks in a row' to address any questions that may come my way. I want to understand my opposition before I hold up my flag and my sign and open my big mouth. ;)

 

I have no legal training, but am guessing that some of you do. (Of course I'm doing other research, but this is such a big forum of reasonable, educated people that I'm assuming I'll find some help here.)

 

From a simple reading of the 4th amendment, it seems clear that these searches are unconstitutional.

 

But apparently it's not that simple or the government wouldn't be endorsing the searches.

 

How would the government prove that these searches are legal? Does the Patriot Act give the government leeway to search any citizen traveling by air?

Is there some other ruling I haven't heard about?

 

I know we have a right to travel freely. But I also know our cars can be searched when driving...something about "reasonable expectation of privacy." (I don't completely understand that.) It seems to me that a search of our cars is very different from a search of our bodies, but maybe there's something I'm missing.

 

Can anyone contribute some information or links to articles/sites to help me prepare? Thank you!

[Mary in VA]

The 4th Amendment doesn't apply in this case. Passengers are being searched as a condition of air travel and nobody is making them travel by air. That's the legal reasoning anyway. I don't like it either, but it's legal. I think there are other more effective ways to make flying safer.

 

Mary

[msjones]

The 4th Amendment doesn't apply in this case. Passengers are being searched as a condition of air travel and nobody is making them travel by air. That's the legal reasoning anyway. I don't like it either, but it's legal. I think there are other more effective ways to make flying safer.

 

Mary

 

Is this the government position on the procedures?

 

What about the right to travel freely?

[Rebel]

The government would say you COULD travel freely by car, train, bike, etc., even by air if you had your own plane.

[Murphy101]

The government would say you COULD travel freely by car, train, bike, etc., even by air if you had your own plane.

 

 

I don't agree.

 

If this is legal for air travel, then legally there is no reason it could not at some point be applied to other forms of travel or even all forms of travel.

 

I don't think something becomes legal just because you have the option to not do it.

 

I suppose one could argue we could all just walk, but I think that's a bogus argument.

[Harriet Vane]

The 4th Amendment doesn't apply in this case. Passengers are being searched as a condition of air travel and nobody is making them travel by air. That's the legal reasoning anyway. I don't like it either, but it's legal. I think there are other more effective ways to make flying safer.

 

Mary

 

That may be the legal reasoning, but there is NOTHING legal about it. The Constitution applies to every inch of America, and every other business in America.

[Harriet Vane]

I will be protesting the new TSA procedures on Wednesday. I want to have all my 'ducks in a row' to address any questions that may come my way. I want to understand my opposition before I hold up my flag and my sign and open my big mouth. ;)

 

I have no legal training, but am guessing that some of you do. (Of course I'm doing other research, but this is such a big forum of reasonable, educated people that I'm assuming I'll find some help here.)

 

From a simple reading of the 4th amendment, it seems clear that these searches are unconstitutional.

 

But apparently it's not that simple or the government wouldn't be endorsing the searches.

 

How would the government prove that these searches are legal? Does the Patriot Act give the government leeway to search any citizen traveling by air?

Is there some other ruling I haven't heard about?

 

I know we have a right to travel freely. But I also know our cars can be searched when driving...something about "reasonable expectation of privacy." (I don't completely understand that.) It seems to me that a search of our cars is very different from a search of our bodies, but maybe there's something I'm missing.

 

Can anyone contribute some information or links to articles/sites to help me prepare? Thank you!

 

The police are most definitely NOT allowed to search your car without a warrant and probable cause. They act like they can, but in reality they cannot do so without your consent or a warrant.

[Murphy101]

there is NOTHING legal about it. The Constitution applies to every inch of America, and every other business in America.

 

:iagree:

[LisaKinVA]

The police are most definitely NOT allowed to search your car without a warrant and probable cause. They act like they can, but in reality they cannot do so without your consent or a warrant.

 

Well, whatever is in plain view is allowable -- but they have to pull you over for a valid reason. If there is something in plain view that gives them probable cause (like the butt of a rifle showing under a jacket in the back seat... )

[eternalknot]

If this is legal for air travel, then legally there is no reason it could not at some point be applied to other forms of travel or even all forms of travel.

 

Martha, you're so right.

 

I linked to articles in another thread that the TSA has already presented themselves at a PA train station and KY bus station. The link also mentions the TSA's intent to give all mass-transit as high priority as air-travel currently is given (by them).

 

I think we tend to equate TSA with airports and flying, but the "T" stands for TRANSPORTATION ... we need to remind mindful of that.

[msjones]

The police are most definitely NOT allowed to search your car without a warrant and probable cause. They act like they can, but in reality they cannot do so without your consent or a warrant.

 

What about drunk driver check points? I know those are (somehow) legal.

 

And I read something about the "keep nothing in your car that you don't want the police to see" law. Anyone know what that is?

[Harriet Vane]

What about drunk driver check points? I know those are (somehow) legal.

 

And I read something about the "keep nothing in your car that you don't want the police to see" law. Anyone know what that is?

 

I don't really know much specifically about drunk driver check points. However, my understanding is that probable cause applies. If someone is driving or behaving erratically, that is probable cause. If someone is driving or behaving normally but still requested to take a breathalyzer, I would consider that an unreasonable search without cause, and therefore a violation of constitutional rights.

[Mejane]

I don't really know much specifically about drunk driver check points. However, my understanding is that probable cause applies. If someone is driving or behaving erratically, that is probable cause. If someone is driving or behaving normally but still requested to take a breathalyzer, I would consider that an unreasonable search without cause, and therefore a violation of constitutional rights.

 

I believe checkpoints are also set up in strategic locations at times when dd is suspected to be high - near sports bars on Superbowl Sunday, for example, or on New Year's Eve.

[LND1218]

Those DUI check points are unconstitutional. But the US Supreme court ruled to allow them even after admitting it was unconstitutional.

 

Chief Justice Rehnquist began his majority opinion by admitting that DUI sobriety checkpoints do, in fact, constitute a "seizure" within the language of the Fourth Amendment. In other words, yes, it appears to be a blatant violation of the Constitution. However, he continued, it's only a little one, and something has to be done about the "carnage" on the highways caused by drunk drivers. The "minimal intrusion on individual liberties," Rehnquist wrote, must be "weighed" against the need for -- and effectiveness of -- DUI roadblocks. In other words, the ends justify the means

[Big Buckin' Longhorn]

Those DUI check points are unconstitutional. But the US Supreme court ruled to allow them even after admitting it was unconstitutional.

 

I don't know about everywhere else, but here in Texas they also have checkpoints to check for drugs coming out of Mexico and (I imagine) illegal immigrants because they always ask if you are an American citizen.

 

I've had MANY family members dragged out of their cars and searched for no apparent reason, I assume it's some random number draw, but I've always wondered if this is unconstitutional. My family lives in the Rio Grande Valley, but not super close to the border, and that's where the checkpoint is. It's so strange, really.

[Gwenhwyfar]

Those DUI check points are unconstitutional. But the US Supreme court ruled to allow them even after admitting it was unconstitutional.

 

i've never heard of anyone being against DUI check points ... so i'm curious: are you? (or is anyone else here?) i'd be interested in knowing why... drunk driving kills a LOT of people every year ~ i'm all for whatever it takes to get drunk drivers off the road.

[Murphy101]

i've never heard of anyone being against DUI check points ... so i'm curious: are you? (or is anyone else here?) i'd be interested in knowing why... drunk driving kills a LOT of people every year ~ i'm all for whatever it takes to get drunk drivers off the road.

 

I am. For that matter, I'm usually against anythinng that includes the phrase "whatever it takes". Goes double when it boils down to treating all citizens as criminals.

 

Citizens should be permitted to travel and generally live without police intrusion unless they are under investigation for a known crime.

 

DRIVING in general kills thousands every year. If you really want to do whatever it takes to make roads safer, remove the driving and they will be much safer.

[astrid]

I am. For that matter, I'm usually against anythinng that includes the phrase "whatever it takes". Goes double when it boils down to treating all citizens as criminals.

 

Citizens should be permitted to travel and generally live without police intrusion unless they are under investigation for a known crime.

 

DRIVING in general kills thousands every year. If you really want to do whatever it takes to make roads safer, remove the driving and they will be much safer.

 

Do you think you'd feel the same way if you had a loved one killed by a drunk driver on, say, New Year's Eve? Honestly? Serious question-- I"m not being snarky.

 

Astrid

[Gwenhwyfar]

i've never heard of anyone being against DUI check points ... so i'm curious: are you? (or is anyone else here?) i'd be interested in knowing why... drunk driving kills a LOT of people every year ~ i'm all for whatever it takes to get drunk drivers off the road

 

I am. For that matter, I'm usually against anythinng that includes the phrase "whatever it takes". Goes double when it boils down to treating all citizens as criminals.

 

Citizens should be permitted to travel and generally live without police intrusion unless they are under investigation for a known crime.

 

DRIVING in general kills thousands every year. If you really want to do whatever it takes to make roads safer, remove the driving and they will be much safer.

 

see now...i'd be happy if ALL car manufacturers installed those devices where the car won't start if you have alcohol on your breath...i'm THAT much against drunk driving. ;)

 

what's the alternative? we just allow people to drive in whatever shape and..scrape up the bodies later? okay that's a bit dramatic in presentation, but it's from truth...

 

you're seriously the first person i've ever EVER known who was against them - and i'm not saying you shouldn't be (don't get the wrong idea) i'm just really curious where this goes.. i mean, what IS the answer?

 

[maybe part of it is that i don't view a checkpoint as "intrusion" ...it's just the police doing their best to keep us safe on the roads - and i'm happy to show that i've not been drinking. i've nothing to hide eh?]

 

 

(do you believe there should be a driving AGE?)

[Harriet Vane]

I am. For that matter, I'm usually against anythinng that includes the phrase "whatever it takes". Goes double when it boils down to treating all citizens as criminals.

 

Citizens should be permitted to travel and generally live without police intrusion unless they are under investigation for a known crime.

 

DRIVING in general kills thousands every year. If you really want to do whatever it takes to make roads safer, remove the driving and they will be much safer.

:iagree:

 

I am speaking as the daughter of a serious alcoholic, who has other alcoholic and drug-addicted family members.

 

I am absolutely opposed to reducing our Constitutional rights.

 

I would gladly support other, Constitutional measures to protect the innocent. I do not want anyone to die from a drunk driver. I think we're smart enough to find a better way.

[Harriet Vane]

Those DUI check points are unconstitutional. But the US Supreme court ruled to allow them even after admitting it was unconstitutional.

 

Quote:

Chief Justice Rehnquist began his majority opinion by admitting that DUI sobriety checkpoints do, in fact, constitute a "seizure" within the language of the Fourth Amendment. In other words, yes, it appears to be a blatant violation of the Constitution. However, he continued, it's only a little one, and something has to be done about the "carnage" on the highways caused by drunk drivers. The "minimal intrusion on individual liberties," Rehnquist wrote, must be "weighed" against the need for -- and effectiveness of -- DUI roadblocks. In other words, the ends justify the means

 

:eek:

 

WHAT?!?!?!

 

Excuse me, but the ONLY thing that can change the Constitution is an act of Congress. Judges are to INTERPRET the law, not make law. The Supreme Court does not have the RIGHT to allow laws that are unconstitutional, no matter how noble the intent behind the law. Once the Constitution is subverted in this matter, it's truly a slippery slope.

 

Hyperventilating . . . .

[Mrs Mungo]

Those DUI check points are unconstitutional. But the US Supreme court ruled to allow them even after admitting it was unconstitutional.

 

Quote:

Chief Justice Rehnquist began his majority opinion by admitting that DUI sobriety checkpoints do, in fact, constitute a "seizure" within the language of the Fourth Amendment. In other words, yes, it appears to be a blatant violation of the Constitution. However, he continued, it's only a little one, and something has to be done about the "carnage" on the highways caused by drunk drivers. The "minimal intrusion on individual liberties," Rehnquist wrote, must be "weighed" against the need for -- and effectiveness of -- DUI roadblocks. In other words, the ends justify the means

 

:eek:

 

WHAT?!?!?!

 

Excuse me, but the ONLY thing that can change the Constitution is an act of Congress. Judges are to INTERPRET the law, not make law. The Supreme Court does not have the RIGHT to allow laws that are unconstitutional, no matter how noble the intent behind the law. Once the Constitution is subverted in this matter, it's truly a slippery slope.

 

Hyperventilating . . . .

 

That's really a misrepresentation of the court's decision.

 

http://caselaw.duicenter.com/sitz01.html

 

Actual quotes from the decision:

This case poses the question whether a State's use of highway sobriety checkpoints violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. We hold that it does not, and therefore reverse the contrary holding of the Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Petitioners concede, correctly in our view, that a Fourth Amendment "seizure" occurs when a vehicle is stopped at a checkpoint. Tr. of Oral Arg. 11; see Martinez-Fuerte, supra, at 556 ("It is agreed that checkpoint stops are `seizures' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment"); Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 597 (1989) (Fourth Amendment seizure occurs "when there is a governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied" (emphasis in original)). The question thus becomes whether such seizures are "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment.

The court's decision was that the "seizure" experienced by being briefly stopped and questioned at a checkpoint is not an unreasonable one and therefore is NOT unconstitutional. Edited November 22, 2010 by Mrs Mungo

[Gwenhwyfar]

why is going through a DUI stop a "seizure"? they aren't "seizing" anything... (well, unless you're drunk - then they're gonna seize you and your car)

[Mrs Mungo]

why is going through a DUI stop a "seizure"? they aren't "seizing" anything... (well, unless you're drunk - then they're gonna seize you and your car)

 

They are "seizing" you and your car, albeit temporarily, while they ask you a few questions.

[LizzyBee]

The 4th Amendment doesn't apply in this case. Passengers are being searched as a condition of air travel and nobody is making them travel by air. That's the legal reasoning anyway. I don't like it either, but it's legal. I think there are other more effective ways to make flying safer.

 

Mary

 

The 4th Amendment absolutely does apply. The question is whether body scans and enhanced pat downs are unreasonable searches and seizures.

[Gwenhwyfar]

why is going through a DUI stop a "seizure"? they aren't "seizing" anything... (well, unless you're drunk - then they're gonna seize you and your car)

 

They are "seizing" you and your car, albeit temporarily, while they ask you a few questions.

 

hmmm.

 

i don't feel "seized" at a checkstop ~ i've felt nervous once, going through a check that was for plates/inspection stickers/etc...because although the vehicle i was driving was all up date in those things, i was 17 and unlicensed :laugh: (they looked over the vehicle & waved me through)

 

but nah.. DUI checks don't make me feel like i've been 'seized' or anything...i don't have anything to hide... the officers are always polite and stuff....

[Murphy101]

Do you think you'd feel the same way if you had a loved one killed by a drunk driver on, say, New Year's Eve? Honestly? Serious question-- I"m not being snarky.

 

Astrid

 

Absolutely. And you presume I haven't.

 

see now...i'd be happy if ALL car manufacturers installed those devices where the car won't start if you have alcohol on your breath...i'm THAT much against drunk driving. ;)

 

what's the alternative? we just allow people to drive in whatever shape and..scrape up the bodies later? okay that's a bit dramatic in presentation, but it's from truth...

 

you're seriously the first person i've ever EVER known who was against them - and i'm not saying you shouldn't be (don't get the wrong idea) i'm just really curious where this goes.. i mean, what IS the answer?

 

[maybe part of it is that i don't view a checkpoint as "intrusion" ...it's just the

police doing their best to keep us safe on the roads - and i'm happy to show that i've not been drinking. i've nothing to hide eh?]

 

 

(do you believe there should be a driving AGE?)

 

It is not the polices job to keep us safe on the roads. It is their job to go after criminals. It is not their job to treat all citizens as criminals in the hopes of scooping a few who actually are.

 

What do you mean by a driving AGE? I don't think anyone that can't pass the drivers test should drive.

 

 

The 4th Amendment absolutely does apply. The question is whether body scans and enhanced pat downs are unreasonable searches and seizures.

 

Key word bolded. MOST of the time unreasonable is determined by not having probable cause.

 

hmmm.

 

i don't feel "seized" at a checkstop ~ i've felt nervous once, going through a check that was for plates/inspection stickers/etc...because although the vehicle i was driving was all up date in those things, i was 17 and unlicensed :laugh: (they looked over the vehicle & waved me through)

 

but nah.. DUI checks don't make me feel like i've been 'seized' or anything...i don't have anything to hide... the officers are always polite and stuff....

 

 

How you feel doesn't matter. The world is full of all kinds of people. Some would probably even like cavity checks or being felt up at the airports.

 

It also has nothing to do with whether you have anything to hide. Even if you did, you have the right to hide it and the govt does not have the right to search for it unless you give them reasonable cause. Even then, they usually have to state what they are looking for.

 

It has nothing to do with whether the cop is polite, tho that is nice, he could be a total donkey and still be right in doing his job. Or he could be very polite and still very wrong in what he is doing or asking.

 

The only question here is if it is okay to treat all citizens like criminals in the hopes of preemptively stopping a crime. For the most part, our constitution says no. Because that is a huge slippery slope towards just removing the right altogether and at the very least it certainly sends the message to citizens that whether they really have that right or not is completely at the whim of someone in uniform.

 

Aside from that, it's a PITA for citizens to deal with.

 

As for what to do about drunk drivers? We could start by citizens acting like citizens. It is not the job of the police to stop the guy leaving the bar or party. Most of the time there is an entire room full of citizens who didn't have the cajones to stop the guy, offer a taxi, tell the bartender or hostess to stop serving, or call the cops THEN. If people did their jibs as citizens instead of expecting cops to be omnipresent, drunk driving would go way down. And yes, I've done it and yes, when I see someone driving erratically, I call it in if I can.

[Harriet Vane]

 

 

Key word bolded. MOST of the time unreasonable is determined by not having probable cause.

 

 

 

 

How you feel doesn't matter. The world is full of all kinds of people. Some would probably even like cavity checks or being felt up at the airports.

 

It also has nothing to do with whether you have anything to hide. Even if you did, you have the right to hide it and the govt does not have the right to search for it unless you give them reasonable cause. Even then, they usually have to state what they are looking for.

 

It has nothing to do with whether the cop is polite, tho that is nice, he could be a total donkey and still be right in doing his job. Or he could be very polite and still very wrong in what he is doing or asking.

 

The only question here is if it is okay to treat all citizens like criminals in the hopes of preemptively stopping a crime. For the most part, our constitution says no. Because that is a huge slippery slope towards just removing the right altogether and at the very least it certainly sends the message to citizens that whether they really have that right or not is completely at the whim of someone in uniform.

 

Aside from that, it's a PITA for citizens to deal with.

 

 

 

:iagree: Well said.

[newlifemom]

As usual, you [generic group you] have given me food for thought on a rainy day. Thank you.

[tex-mex]

From a simple reading of the 4th amendment, it seems clear that these searches are unconstitutional.

 

But apparently it's not that simple or the government wouldn't be endorsing the searches.

 

How would the government prove that these searches are legal? Does the Patriot Act give the government leeway to search any citizen traveling by air?

Is there some other ruling I haven't heard about?

 

I heard on FOX News (and other news) say the reason TSA is able to do this is due to Homeland Security being created as a result of President Bush's Executive Order when 9/11 happened. Any Presidental Executive Order trumps previous law or constitutional rights -- according to them allowing more martial law or a "police state" to happen.

 

Also heard it on the show that Gov. Jesse Ventura does from a different (i.e. conspiracy) POV ;) about Presidental Executive Powers. HTH

Edited November 22, 2010 by tex-mex

[missesd]

I am. For that matter, I'm usually against anythinng that includes the phrase "whatever it takes". Goes double when it boils down to treating all citizens as criminals.

 

Citizens should be permitted to travel and generally live without police intrusion unless they are under investigation for a known crime.

 

DRIVING in general kills thousands every year. If you really want to do whatever it takes to make roads safer, remove the driving and they will be much safer.

 

I think it's one thing to be stopped and asked to take a breathalyzer. It's another be seem virtually naked, or molested and groped so hard your most private of areas hurts more then after a gyn exam.

[tex-mex]

I think it's one thing to be stopped and asked to take a breathalyzer. It's another be seem virtually naked, or molested and groped so hard your most private of areas hurts more then after a gyn exam.

Funny you mention that -- just heard it on FOX News about the TSA getting more complaints. And the TSA rep saying they are trying to get all TSO on official procedure. Basically, if you are asked to have a pat-down and disrobe, under 12 yrs old, or are being treated rudely -- ask for a supervisor ASAP.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/22/lawmakers-seek-probe-tsas-pat-training-reported-misbehavior/

[Mrs Mungo]

I think it's one thing to be stopped and asked to take a breathalyzer. It's another be seem virtually naked, or molested and groped so hard your most private of areas hurts more then after a gyn exam.

 

Just for the sake of clarity? The case did not even involve breathalyzers. It was just stopping people and asking them a couple of questions to establish "reasonable cause" to think they were drunk or not.

[Alessandra]

There are some links to protest groups in this article

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/19/business/19security.html?scp=4&sq=scanner+pat+down&st=nyt

[Lolly]

i've never heard of anyone being against DUI check points ... so i'm curious: are you? (or is anyone else here?) i'd be interested in knowing why... drunk driving kills a LOT of people every year ~ i'm all for whatever it takes to get drunk drivers off the road.

 

I am also opposed to them.

 

see now...i'd be happy if ALL car manufacturers installed those devices where the car won't start if you have alcohol on your breath...i'm THAT much against drunk driving. ;)

 

what's the alternative? we just allow people to drive in whatever shape and..scrape up the bodies later? okay that's a bit dramatic in presentation, but it's from truth...

 

you're seriously the first person i've ever EVER known who was against them - and i'm not saying you shouldn't be (don't get the wrong idea) i'm just really curious where this goes.. i mean, what IS the answer?

 

[maybe part of it is that i don't view a checkpoint as "intrusion" ...it's just the police doing their best to keep us safe on the roads - and i'm happy to show that i've not been drinking. i've nothing to hide eh?]

 

 

(do you believe there should be a driving AGE?)

 

I would be more comfortable with having to take a breathalyzer to start the car than the police stopping me in a mass checkpoint to question me in the assumption that I am doing something illegal.

[msjones]

There are some links to protest groups in this article

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/19/business/19security.html?scp=4&sq=scanner+pat+down&st=nyt

 

Very helpful. Thank you!

[msjones]

OP here...

 

I spoke with a retired lawyer. He said the govt/TSA's argument would probably claim that airline travelers consent to security procedures when they get in the security line. It isn't an illegal search if the traveler consented to it.

:glare:

 

I see the crux of the argument. Now I wonder what is the best way around it.

[msjones]

I am. For that matter, I'm usually against anythinng that includes the phrase "whatever it takes". Goes double when it boils down to treating all citizens as criminals.

 

Citizens should be permitted to travel and generally live without police intrusion unless they are under investigation for a known crime.

 

DRIVING in general kills thousands every year. If you really want to do whatever it takes to make roads safer, remove the driving and they will be much safer.

 

Well said, Martha.

 

You would provide some great conversation at a dinner party.