Skip to comments.
Almost arrested for refusing the TSA pat-down.
Mike Evers
Posted on 11/17/2010 11:22:37 AM PST by Mike Evers
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300 ... 341-345 next last
To: Mike Evers
Just don`t fly, and if you`re so dead set on flying then just deal with it. Its your choice, and a simple one at that, boycott or deal with it.
261
posted on
11/17/2010 6:14:07 PM PST
by
nomad
To: driftdiver
Having my nuts groped by a Fed is the last thing I need. (Unless she looks like Pam Anderson and we're in the bar after hours, of course.)
To: Mike Evers
I flew out of DCA. One small carry on. It was a circus getting through and so many people. Small problem, my flight was canceled but I was told when I processed my e-ticket thing Delta put me on a flight that was leaving in 20 minutes IF I could make it. If not I would have to wait 4 hours.
So I rush down to find a huge line waiting to get their ticket confirmed and go through checkpoint.
I put all the crap I had on me in the bowl thing but went into the scanner with my wallet in my pocket. I guess they saw it so I had to take that out and one of the TSA guys handed it to another TSA person who I saw with a bowl.
I come out of the scanner looking for the guy and my wallet, but TSA stopped me from going over to the conveyor belt thing, and I had to go off to the side and get a pat down. The first bowl and bag already came through. With the number of people on both sides grabbing stuff off the conveyor belt, there was nothing stopping anyone from lifting my wallet IF it was in there.
I did not see or know where my wallet was, and the guy who originally took my wallet was way back at the starting point of the conveyor.
I was so pissed I stood there with my hands behind my head like I was being arrested.
The bowl with my wallet did come out when I went over, but I was thinking it must have been over a minute since it was out of my hand. Only it doesn’t take anything a minute to go through the machine.
I got to the gate and they were already letting “everyone else” on the plane. I waited but the line wasn’t moving and the woman in front of me told me that ticket passengers were already in. Made it with a few minutes to spare.
263
posted on
11/17/2010 7:11:30 PM PST
by
FL911
To: Mike Evers; All
Just an additional note here. . .my husband just returned from a trip - by plane - leaving Albuquerque. As a mega-million mile flyer; he is certainly a
threat; but he was randomly picked for 'full body' option versus the usual scanner. He got a double whammy as he got a groping as well. When under 'scan'; they noticed something in his back pocket. When 'emptying' beforehand, he missed a parking ticket stub. This threat, warrented him a most unpleasant and all-too-thorough pat down/up, et al.
Just a reminder to make sure pockets totally empty. . .even a ticket stub can bring you down.
No question - these people are mindless and out of control and the people behind it all; are on a mission.
264
posted on
11/17/2010 7:14:09 PM PST
by
cricket
(Osama - NOT made in the USA. . .and Obama, not made in the USA either. . .)
To: Mike Evers
Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see how pat downs or anything else are “too far,” because it is always optional to fly. If you don’t want to be patted down, don’t fly.
Of course we should profile in the pat-down process, but until then, we shouldn’t be offended when it happens to us.
Just smile and think of Washington.
265
posted on
11/17/2010 7:16:10 PM PST
by
Feline_AIDS
(A gun in hand is better than a cop on the phone.)
To: Mike Evers
This is really out of control. They are so concerned they won’t be accused of racism or profiling that they are violating honest citizens.
It needs to stop. My mother is flying tomorrow to visit us and I’m worried for her.
266
posted on
11/17/2010 7:17:32 PM PST
by
tutstar
To: justlurking
It's a beaut, isn't it?
You are right, of course, that
Aukai is only binding in the 9th Circuit. However, circuit cases are often cited as "persuasive authority" before courts outside that circuit. Also, the TSA has been relying on
Aukai in setting its policies.
The really bad news is that the jurisprudence surrounding the issue of whether various sorts of airport searches are "reasonable" under the 4th Amendment has been highly deferential to the TSA (and its various predecessors) in every circuit I'm aware of, as well as in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has not, to my knowledge, reviewed the constitutionality of the more invasive TSA searches (though it has mentioned airport searches generally in dicta). However there are signs that the current Court won't be any less deferential to the TSA than are the lower courts. For example, in 2005, Sam Alito, then a judge on the 3rd Circuit, wrote an opinion in
United States v. Hartwell [PDF] which held a number of TSA procedures permissible under the "administrative search doctrine".
The facts of this case were slightly less outrageous than some others: Hartwell set off a metal detector, was asked to empty his pockets, and then went through again. He was then searched with a wand, which detected a "solid object" in his pocket. He was then escorted to a private screening room where the TSA officer demanded that he remove the object from his pocket. He refused, and, according to Hartwell, the TSA officer reached into his pocket and pulled out a package of drugs.
There are a number of points in Alito's reasoning that I find troubling. First, on page 9 while determining that there was a "special need" as required under the first step of the
Brown test for administrative searches, Alito makes the blanket statement that "there can be no doubt that preventing terrorist attacks on airplanes is of paramount importance." That suggests that little things like the privacy, liberty, and freedom of travel of American citizens are of secondary importance. Maybe they are, but I think those interests at least ought to be addressed before they are dismissed.
Next, Alito at page 11-12 places great weight on the fact that "air passengers are on notice that they will be searched". That is true, of course, but he neglects to explore exactly what sort of search passengers are on notice that they should expect. His reasoning almost seems to suggest that passengers are on notice of, and impliedly consent to, an unlimited spectrum of search procedures just by buying a ticket and getting in the security line. That's ridiculous. Yes, we expect to go through a metal detector, get our bags x-rayed, and maybe get wanded. We do NOT expect to be detained, patted down or strip-searched. We consent to LIMITED searches - we are not writing the TSA a blank check to grope us and probe our various orifices.
Also on page 11, Alito states that "the possibility for abuse is minimized by the public nature of the search." Quoting another case, he points out that "these searches are made under supervision and not far from the scrutiny of the travelling public." He neglects to mention that the air of intimidation actively cultivated by the TSA strongly discourages any objections by that travelling public - after all, who wants to speak up and risk landing themselves in the "happy booth", especially when there's a plane to catch?
Alito also makes the puzzling assertion that "the airlines themselves have a strong interest in protecting passengers from annoyance and harassment." This may have been relevant in the pre-9/11 era of private airport security. Today, however, it is a non-sequitur - the TSA does not in any way answer to the airlines.
Finally, in footnote 12, Alito, supported by a number of cases from other Circuits, makes the same conclusion as the 9th Circuit in
Aukai that one has no right to leave once the screening process starts. In this footnote (and, indeed, in the rest of the opinion) Alito cites cases from a number of other circuits which support his position. While
Aukai itself is the law only in the 9th Circuit, many, if not most, of the other circuits have taken the same position on airport searches.
This is something we need to be aware of as conservatives. There is a powerful, perhaps dominant, strain of conservative jurisprudence which favors an extremely powerful executive branch and few checks on its power in police and national security matters. When we support conservative judges, we need to be aware that conservative jurists can vary widely on these issues.
Finally, I think this highlights the fact that we cannot rely on the courts to protect us from the TSA's excesses. This is something that will have to be addressed through Congress, and that's going to be difficult, because no Congressman wants to be seen as "soft on fighting terrorism".
267
posted on
11/17/2010 7:25:09 PM PST
by
The Pack Knight
(Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and the world laughs at you.)
To: radpolis
To: Mike Evers; All; cricket
a p.s. clarification. . .while in 'scan'; they asked him if there was something in his back pocket; he reached back and pulled out ticket stub and held it up - they then told him he needed full body search.
Just prior to these new regs. . .if you went through x-ray scan and say. ..forgot you keys in pocket or somesuch; you pulled them out and walked back through. Now if you miss an item - a parking stub for God's sake - and while still standing under 'full body' scrutiny; they determine, even after your removing item; that you require a 'full body' search.
(What next? A 'cavity search'? They probably already have the tool to do just that. They just need more time, before official introduction.)
269
posted on
11/17/2010 7:26:53 PM PST
by
cricket
(Osama - NOT made in the USA. . .and Obama, not made in the USA either. . .)
To: The Pack Knight
Thanks, I appreciate the pointers. I skimmed through US v. Hartwell, and see that there's some dispute among all the decisions. If I read it right, the 5th circuit (where I live) is one of those where consent can be revoked. But, maybe that's a US district court decision that wouldn't apply at my home airport.
I agree that judicial remedy is unlikely, and that this will have to be addressed by Congress. But, I'm less pessimistic that it will be successful: the outrage is palpable, and it's mushrooming.
And states are getting involved. I'm watching one video of NJ legislators that are calling for the TSA to back off. A DA in California (San Mateo, I think) has warned that he will prosecute TSA screeners for sexual assault if they cross the line.
270
posted on
11/17/2010 7:49:39 PM PST
by
justlurking
(The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
To: Mike Evers
The TSA idiots from hell made my 78 year old caucasian blue eyed white haired marine corps veteran of WWII take off his shoes and belt and sit in a chair for 15 minutes while they waved through some arab women in black robes and headscarves right through,
ONE MORE REASON WHY I HATE THE US GOVERNMENT
I hate it with a seething passion and dangerous contempt
They have become our enemy. The US government is a foolish monster, everything it does is insane , EVERYTHING !
271
posted on
11/17/2010 7:57:14 PM PST
by
KTM rider
( Liberty is hijacked by the wealthy elite, US political system is their mercenary force)
To: for-q-clinton
We need a real rosa parks moment.I thought we had one yesterday. You see that young girl being groped by the female TSA agent? The girl, about 5 yrs old, was squirming and screaming, "Don't touch me". I thought the "it's for the children" libs would be out in full force: (((( crickets ))))
To: The Pack Knight
The horrible decision in Dredd Scott was reached by a man as scrupulous and fierce in his legal reasoning as Alito. Both good Catholics too. Famous Taney ruling, (which has never been overrruled!): That the original intent of the Founders was that "persons of the negro race ... [are] an inferior order and altogether unfit to associate with the white race"
273
posted on
11/17/2010 8:02:18 PM PST
by
bvw
To: McGruff
The airlines are going to go out of business if this thing doesnt change.
That's the plan. Makes it easier to nationalize the airline industry.
To: 444Flyer
“Refusal to submit”
This un-American tinhorn attitude has been nurtured and watered for decades in every dank corner of society, and even in broad daylight. It starts with the false premise that each individual must be loaded up full of self-esteem at all times, leaving no room (zero-tolerance) for anyone or anything who might shrink a massively inflated ego. The more puffed up the ego, the more delicate it becomes, and the slightest brush could make it pop.
Truth becomes a lie, a fantasy of “that which will get me what I want”, because outside of the self, there is nothing. We have a culture of self-worship, thus each inflated ego has no interest in balancing its desires with the reality of the world at large. It only knows that when a competing interest gets in the way, it must be squashed.
Hence it’s all about power and struggle with these folks. The Torah concepts of justice, righteousness, love, and mercy, which pave the true path to peace and elevate the soul, are not only foreign to them, but hostile, competing entities that must be destroyed at any cost. Truth requires a hard look beyond self, which is not an option.
Darkness has zero-tolerance for light.
275
posted on
11/17/2010 8:06:00 PM PST
by
Ezekiel
(The Obama-nation began with the Inauguration of Desolation.)
To: radpolis; Noob1999; All
I find it fascinating that an illegal cant be asked for his passport and ID while getting caught in the act of an actual crime in Arizona, but an American citizen can be groped, searched and harassed by federal agents without cause while travelling.
**********************
Bada-bing!
276
posted on
11/17/2010 8:14:23 PM PST
by
JouleZ
(You are the company you keep.)
To: bvw
Famous Taney ruling, (which has never been overrruled!): That the original intent of the Founders was that "persons of the negro race ... [are] an inferior order and altogether unfit to associate with the white race"
It should be noted that Dred Scott has not been overruled by the Supreme Court because it was overruled by the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.
277
posted on
11/17/2010 8:36:52 PM PST
by
The Pack Knight
(Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and the world laughs at you.)
To: Abbeville Conservative
Should have told him you were Muslim and objected on religous grounds. You would have been let through immediately.
Wear a “F-— You 0bama” t-shirt under a button up shirt and open it and see what happens. It would be fun to see their faces.
278
posted on
11/17/2010 8:38:29 PM PST
by
unkus
To: The Pack Knight
The airport has essentially become a Constitution-Free Zone.....
********************
There is no such thing in America. We are all covered by the Constitution at all times. Wonder what our troops would think about this idea when flying home from battle.
279
posted on
11/17/2010 8:39:03 PM PST
by
JouleZ
(You are the company you keep.)
To: pigsmith
See the USA in your Chevrolet without the TSA.
(new ad slogan?)
280
posted on
11/17/2010 8:47:49 PM PST
by
WOBBLY BOB
( "I don't want the majority if we don't stand for something"- Jim Demint)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300 ... 341-345 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson