Does the TSA violate the Constitution?

Does the TSA violate the Constitution?


  • Total voters
    17
Dec 2007
3,217
907
NY
#41
First line in my above link:

Border search exception

The border search exception is a doctrine of United States criminal law that exempts searches of travelers and their property from the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.

Thus... the border search exception trumps Terry V. Ohio



The Fourth Amendment requires that a search or seizure conducted by a governmental agent be
reasonable and supported by probable cause. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourth
Amendment to include a presumptive warrant requirement on all searches and seizures conducted
by the government. Any violation of these requirements could result in the suppression of any
information derived therefrom. The Supreme Court, however, has also recognized situations that
render obtaining a warrant impractical or against the public’s interest and has accordingly crafted
various exceptions to the warrant and probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment.
Few exceptions to the presumptive warrant and probable cause requirements are more firmly
rooted than the “border search” exception.
Derived from the sovereign right to stop and examine
persons and property crossing into the country, border searches allow customs officials the
flexibility to inspect incoming individuals and their belongings and to interdict incoming
contraband without having to inform a magistrate before the search.
Border searches can also occur in places other than the actual physical border. Two different legal
concepts authorize such searches: (1) searches at the functional equivalent of the border; and (2)
extended border searches. These concepts allow federal officers to conduct border searches even
in situations when it is not feasible to conduct the search at the actual point of entry (e.g.,
examining a person upon arrival at a U.S. airport rather than during a mid-flight crossing into the
country).

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL31826.pdf
.... That has nothing to do with what Cicero said or what I posted. He stated that Terry searches were legal... Not in reference to the TSA, just in general life. I stated only with probably cause, which you called bullshit on. So I'm still waiting to hear how I'm wrong.

As far as your quote, that it's reference to coming into the US? What about flying within a state? How about state to state? Your quote does not give them the authority to perform searches.

As far as my opinion about TSA in reference to airports: If the TSA machines are randomly going off, which is my contention, then the TSA is in violation of United States Vs. Hartwell which states “well-tailored to protect personal privacy escalating in invasiveness only after a lower level of screening disclosed a reason to conduct a more probing search.”
 
Last edited:

Devil505

Former Staff
Jan 2008
70,386
28,756
Florida
#42
.... That has nothing to do with what Cicero said or what I posted. He stated that Terry searches were legal... Not in reference to the TSA, just in general life. I stated only with probably cause, which you called bullshit on. So I'm still waiting to hear how I'm wrong.

As far as the about TSA in reference to airports: If the TSA machines are randomly going off, which is my contention, then the TSA is in violation of United States Vs. Hartwell which states “well-tailored to protect personal privacy escalating in invasiveness only after a lower level of screening disclosed a reason to conduct a more probing search.”
You must be being deliberately obtuse if you think I didn't answer you question. This topic is discussing the TSA & claiming it's searches are illegal. You're pretending that the Border Search Exception (to the 4th amendment) doesn't exist & trying to rely on Terry......which is trumped by the border search exception.Terry V Ohio is totally irrelevant to this topic.

From above: "The Supreme Court, however, has also recognized situations that
render obtaining a warrant impractical or against the public’s interest and has accordingly crafted
various
exceptions to the warrant and probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment.

I'll spell it out for you: No warrant OR Probable Cause are needed for TSA to legally perform searches under the Border Search Exception.


Reread your above link with you eyes open this time.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2007
3,217
907
NY
#43
You must be being deliberately obtuse if you think I didn't answer you question. This topic is discussing the TSA & claiming it's searches are illegal. You're pretending that the Border Search Exception (to the 4th amendment) doesn't exist & trying to rely on Terry......which is trumped by the border search exception..

From above: "The Supreme Court, however, has also recognized situations that
render obtaining a warrant impractical or against the public’s interest and has accordingly crafted
various exceptions to the warrant and probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment.


Reread your above link with you eyes open this time.
And the situation as outlined in your link is in reference to OUT OF COUNTRY travel only. Yet we're still subjected to the searches even if it's within the same state, or country.
So no, your quote does not support the searches.
 

Devil505

Former Staff
Jan 2008
70,386
28,756
Florida
#44
And the situation as outlined in your link is in reference to OUT OF COUNTRY travel only. Yet we're still subjected to the searches even if it's within the same state, or country.
So no, your quote does not support the searches.
Let's see your proof that the TSA violated the law when they searched me prior to getting on a domestic flight from Boston to West Palm, Fla last summer.
Link please.
 
Dec 2007
3,217
907
NY
#45
Let's see your proof that the TSA violated the law when they searched me prior to getting on a domestic flight from Boston to West Palm, Fla last summer.
Link please.
The proof is the 4th Amendment buddy. In order to bypass that, you would have to paste the case, law, exemption, etc that ruled there's an exception for domestic flights..... What you posted above does not do this. That only applies to international flights.

Try again.
 

Devil505

Former Staff
Jan 2008
70,386
28,756
Florida
#46
The proof is the 4th Amendment buddy. In order to bypass that, you would have to paste the case, law, exemption, etc that ruled there's an exception for domestic flights..... What you posted above does not do this. That only applies to international flights.

Try again.
I've spent about as much time as I care to trying to prove a simple obvious fact:
The TSA performs warrant-less & Probable Cause-less searches every day at almost every major airport in this country & they are not breaking the law by doing so.

Perhaps this law http://travel.state.gov/pdf/irtpa2004.pdf contains the specific wording you want but I'll leave it you to find it.


Edit:

Try this:
In 1973 the 9th Circuit Court rules on U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908, there are key pieces of wording that give the TSA its power to search essentially any way they choose to. The key wording in this ruling includes “noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.”
http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyin...lity-of-the-tsas-enhanced-pat-down-authority/
 
Last edited:
Likes: new_publius
Dec 2007
3,217
907
NY
#47
I've spent about as much time as I care to trying to prove a simple obvious fact:
The TSA performs warrant-less & Probable Cause-less searches every day at almost every major airport in this country & they are not breaking the law by doing so.

Perhaps this law http://travel.state.gov/pdf/irtpa2004.pdf contains the specific wording you want but I'll leave it you to find it.


Edit:

Try this:
In 1973 the 9th Circuit Court rules on U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908, there are key pieces of wording that give the TSA its power to search essentially any way they choose to. The key wording in this ruling includes “noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.”
The Legality Of The TSA’s ‘Enhanced Pat Down’ Authority - Flying With Fish
I already covered this in the other thread. I'll copy and paste it here for you
Why the TSA pat-downs and body scans are unconstitutional
Although the Supreme Court hasn't evaluated airport screening technology, lower courts have emphasized, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in 2007, that "a particular airport security screening search is constitutionally reasonable provided that it 'is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives.' "

In a 2006 opinion for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, then-Judge Samuel Alito stressed that screening procedures must be both "minimally intrusive" and "effective" - in other words, they must be "well-tailored to protect personal privacy," and they must deliver on their promise of discovering serious threats. Alito upheld the practices at an airport checkpoint where passengers were first screened with walk-through magnetometers and then, if they set off an alarm, with hand-held wands. He wrote that airport searches are reasonable if they escalate "in invasiveness only after a lower level of screening disclose a reason to conduct a more probing search."

As currently used in U.S. airports, the new full-body scanners fail all of Alito's tests. First, as European regulators have recognized, they could be much less intrusive without sacrificing effectiveness. For example, Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport, the European airport that employs body-scanning machines most extensively, has incorporated crucial privacy and safety protections. Rejecting the "backscatter" machines used in the United States, which produce revealing images of the body and have raised concerns about radiation, the Dutch use scanners known as ProVision ATD, which employ radio waves with far lower frequencies than those used in common hand-held devices. If the software detects contraband or suspicious material under a passenger's clothing, it projects an outline of that area of the body onto a gender-neutral, blob-like human image, instead of generating a virtually naked image of the passenger. The passenger can then be taken aside for secondary screening.

How the new TSA “Security Theater” may violate the 4th Amendment | The Cornell Law School Federalist Society

And lastly, as I stated, it's my contention they are performing random, unwarranted patdowns. This violates:
“well-tailored to protect personal privacy escalating in invasiveness only after a lower level of screening disclosed a reason to conduct a more probing search.” (United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955 (2007))
 
Apr 2011
37,967
12,803
Under your skin
#48
The TSA stormtroopers seem to have a "thing" for old women and children. What's up with that?

You might want to have your child read this book before they travel by air.

 

Devil505

Former Staff
Jan 2008
70,386
28,756
Florida
#49
I already covered this in the other thread. I'll copy and paste it here for you
Why the TSA pat-downs and body scans are unconstitutional

How the new TSA “Security Theater” may violate the 4th Amendment | The Cornell Law School Federalist Society

And lastly, as I stated, it's my contention they are performing random, unwarranted patdowns. This violates:
“well-tailored to protect personal privacy escalating in invasiveness only after a lower level of screening disclosed a reason to conduct a more probing search.” (United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955 (2007))
Be sure you let me know how the case turns out when you bring it to the SCOTUS. (& then explain how you'll ensure flight safety with no weapons checks anymore....Honor system?)
 
Last edited: