The TSA Vs. The Fourth Amendment

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

CHamilton

Engineer
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
5,301
Location
Seattle
The TSA Vs. The Fourth Amendment: You're Free To Board A Plane, But You're Not Free To Leave The Screening Area

...extenuating circumstances, dating back to the 1970s, have turned an airplane ticket into a waiver of Fourth Amendment rights. ...

Although they aren't told explicitly, simply entering the screening area is giving consent to the TSA to search you and your belongings. Should you wish to revoke this consent, you would need to make that decision before reaching the screening area. Practically speaking, this means finding another way to reach your destination. There's no way to assert your rights and still board a plane, even if you haven't broken any laws and aren't planning to.

Caselaw (and some common sense) supports the TSA's claim that travelers are not free to leave the screening area. But the TSA should be honest about it, rather than simply expect all travelers to be perfectly fine with waiving their rights for the "privilege" of boarding a plane. And the courts should be wary of issuing more caselaw supporting the expansion of "constitution-free zones" to anywhere the TSA (or other government agencies) might be operating.
 
The TSA Vs. The Fourth Amendment: You're Free To Board A Plane, But You're Not Free To Leave The Screening Area

And the courts should be wary of issuing more caselaw supporting the expansion of "constitution-free zones" to anywhere the TSA (or other government agencies) might be operating.
Geeze, this line of reasoning might almost make one think that The Constitution has at least something to do with defining the role of the Federal Government in the lives of average citizens. :blink: :blink: :blink:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I suppose right to travel on air is not guaranteed in the Constitution and I would imagine airlines would want their passengers searched before they board anyway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
According to a HLS Report to Congress, in the last quarter of Fiscal year 2015, the crack TSA Screeners failed to ID 67 out of 70 weapons that the Undercover HLS agents had in their carry on luggage during screening tests.

The Airports involved were redacted.

More Security Theater from the Modern Keystone Cops, aka the Clowns in Blue!
 
Setting aside their enormous price tag and their (overblown) privacy concerns... I've grown to like the full body scanners.

They're less susceptible to the common mistakes infrequent travellers make.

Example:

John Q. Hasntflownsince1999 leaves a handful of change in his pocket because he doesn't understand the concept of "take everything out of your pockets" and goes through security.

If he goes through a magnetometer... they have to give him a full body pat down... slowing the line down for the rest of us that can understand basic instructions.

If he goes through a full body scanner... they get a cartoon image that tells the agent to pat down his pocket. It takes like 10 seconds.

Even better than that... they're good at determining if you've left something benign on your body. They typically don't trigger for belt buckles, a single coin, your watch or that piece of wire you're using to hold your glasses together.

According to a HLS Report to Congress, in the last quarter of Fiscal year 2015, the crack TSA Screeners failed to ID 67 out of 70 weapons that the Undercover HLS agents had in their carry on luggage during screening tests.
That's carry on luggage... the article Charlie linked to has nothing to do with the baggage scanners.

But yes, we're all players in the world's biggest theater performance.
 
No, some of us have a vague notion of what our Constitutional rights are and don't like seeing them whittled away for no reason.
Since I do not fly anymore, it is rather a moot issue for me, but if and when I decide to get on an airplane again, I am hopeful that everyone on the plane has been thoroughly searched.

I guess my constitutional rights would not be worth much when my plane gets blown out of the sky at 40,000 feet. :eek:
 
The key word in the 4th Amendment is "unreasonable". Many couch entering an airport as a voluntary action and one where the visitor should understand that they may have to submit to certain rules that wouldn't apply on a sidewalk. There's plenty of case law that 4th Amendment protections don't apply (to some effect) in certain places such as airports. So the question is whether or not blanket searches of everyone are unreasonable or not.
 
No, some of us have a vague notion of what our Constitutional rights are and don't like seeing them whittled away for no reason.
Since I do not fly anymore, it is rather a moot issue for me, but if and when I decide to get on an airplane again, I am hopeful that everyone on the plane has been thoroughly searched.I guess my constitutional rights would not be worth much when my plane gets blown out of the sky at 40,000 feet. :eek:
That argument makes the (invalid) assumption that the searches are reasonable and actually do something to prevent weapons from getting on the plane.
 
No, some of us have a vague notion of what our Constitutional rights are and don't like seeing them whittled away for no reason.
Since I do not fly anymore, it is rather a moot issue for me, but if and when I decide to get on an airplane again, I am hopeful that everyone on the plane has been thoroughly searched.I guess my constitutional rights would not be worth much when my plane gets blown out of the sky at 40,000 feet. :eek:
That argument makes the (invalid) assumption that the searches are reasonable and actually do something to prevent weapons from getting on the plane.
I forgot I had a pocket knife on me the last time I went to an airport. I had a gate pass and got through all the shoe removal and jacket off. Somehow they found it - a Swiss Army Officer Classic. So at the very least they managed to find that.

Granted - back in the late 90s I openly carried a similar sized knife at an airport and onto the plane. I mean - it was hanging from a beaded chain around my neck. I just dropped it in the basket with my watch and coins and I didn't get anything other than "Oh - it's just a pocket knife). Since it was less than a 4" blade it was OK under the rules at the time.
 
TSA's own records suggest that they fail to detect upto 70% of hidden bad stuff during their own tests. I don't know quite what to make of it in terms of how effective they really would be against an organized concerted effort to cause harm. They have never come across as upto what one experiences say in Tel Aviv where it is known that multiple concerted effort to cause harm has been successfully thwarted.
 
No, some of us have a vague notion of what our Constitutional rights are and don't like seeing them whittled away for no reason.
Since I do not fly anymore, it is rather a moot issue for me, but if and when I decide to get on an airplane again, I am hopeful that everyone on the plane has been thoroughly searched. I guess my constitutional rights would not be worth much when my plane gets blown out of the sky at 40,000 feet.
Do you not realize that the TSA waiting lines in major airports routinely offer unprotected crowds that can exceed what even the largest of passenger aircraft can carry? Are you somehow unaware that the TSA folks routinely miss all sorts of restricted items? As you said yourself you don't fly anymore, so what exactly is your position based upon?
 
No, some of us have a vague notion of what our Constitutional rights are and don't like seeing them whittled away for no reason.
Since I do not fly anymore, it is rather a moot issue for me, but if and when I decide to get on an airplane again, I am hopeful that everyone on the plane has been thoroughly searched.I guess my constitutional rights would not be worth much when my plane gets blown out of the sky at 40,000 feet. :eek:
Seems like the act of searching is more important to you than the effectiveness of securing the plane (or the airport for that matter) and you are willing to give up your rights just for enabling the search theater! I bizarre position to take. But I guess whatever rocks ones boat. ;)
Here is an article from 2013 that gives some useful insights into the whole issue of air transport security:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/7-reasons-tsa-sucks-a-security-experts-perspective/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Based on the articles cited in the thread, it would seem that the general consensus is that the TSA and other government security organizations are so incompetent that they are just wasting our time by screening, scanning, searching, etc of passengers at airports. I would agree that the evidence presented by these critics would indicate this to be so.

But in lieu of major changes in the present system being made, what alternative does one have to continue to fly out of US airports.

The present system may be a joke, but at least there seems to be some evidence that some degree of effectiveness has taken place. There have been no known successful bombings at airports or planes flying out of US airports since 911.

I await the "bomb throwing" at my comments.. :)
 
The present system may be a joke, but at least there seems to be some evidence that some degree of effectiveness has taken place.
I carry in my pocket a small rock to ward off tigers, so that I am not eaten by one as I go about my daily business.

Since I haven't been eaten by a tiger (so far as I know), the rock is obviously imbued with magic tiger-repelling properties.
 
Thank you for offering your usual attempts at humor instead of addressing the issue. I am always open to hearing evidence for an argument but personal attacks are much easier. Since I do not wish to continue down the road to an argument I will move on to a more enlightened conversation with those who have something more concrete to offer on the subject of personal rights vs. security.
 
Actually, the tiger repelling rock perfectly addresses the issue.

Correlation in no way equals causation. You claimed that there was evidence that the TSA was effective. The lack of a successful attack is not evidence of that. If you have more concrete evidence to offer on the topic, I'm all ears.

In the absence of any new evidence, the position that the TSA is an unreasonable, ineffective waste of taxpayer dollars seems to be the logical one.
 
Ryan, I do not have any concrete evidence that the TSA is effective and certainly agree that there are things that need to be changed to make it more efficient. My point was only that in lieu of any change that may take place down the road, what we have may have had some deterrent effect on keeping the airways safe. As opposed to doing nothing. :) . Have a good evening. I think I will stick to riding trains.. :)
 
That's not exactly what you said originally.

The present system may be a joke, but at least there seems to be some evidence that some degree of effectiveness has taken place.
No be clear, there is no evidence whatsoever that the TSA has been anything other than a waste of time and money. On the contrary, there is an ample body of evidence that they're almost completely ineffective in preventing contraband from making it onto the airplanes that you don't fly in. In the process of doing so, they've created massive vulnerabilities in the form of helpless crowds queued up to go through their theatrical checkpoints.

Doing nothing (past what existed pre-9/11) would leave us with more money in our pockets, more time in our hands, and less chance of getting blown up. If the TSA magical ceased to exist, a repeat of 9/11 would still be completely impossible, prevented by a secured cockpit door and airline passengers that will fight to the death to prevent their aircraft from being turned into a guided missile. Heck - this kind of attack wasn't possible by noon on that day, when the passengers of flight 93 took matters into their own hands to prevent further damage.
 
Setting aside their enormous price tag and their (overblown) privacy concerns... I've grown to like the full body scanners.

They're less susceptible to the common mistakes infrequent travellers make.

Example:

John Q. Hasntflownsince1999 leaves a handful of change in his pocket because he doesn't understand the concept of "take everything out of your pockets" and goes through security.

If he goes through a magnetometer... they have to give him a full body pat down... slowing the line down for the rest of us that can understand basic instructions.

If he goes through a full body scanner... they get a cartoon image that tells the agent to pat down his pocket. It takes like 10 seconds.
But if he goes through a whole body scanner it takes about three to four times the time it takes to go through a magnetometer irrespective of whether he has coins or not. That is the reason that during heavy traffic airports try to avoid using body scanners, or more often, use them very selectively for randomly picked persons, while processing most of the people through Manetometers. What is worse is that there apparently are techniques that makes plastics very hard to distinguish from clothing by the much vaunted scanners. And even a pat down is pretty useless. So if someone is really hell bent on doing something they still can, unless one uses the Israeli technique of determining the person's intentions as opposed to just looking for materials.

One of the reason that body scanner were sold to TSA as the solution to all problems was because Michael Chertoff had money to make out of that whole scheme. Of course the specific ones he sold were the ones that did not work at all, and have since been withdrawn completely after Chertoff and his cronies pocketed the taxpayer money. Now those are sitting in warehouses eating up more taxpayer money for storage space occupied. Seriously, one could not make these things up if one wanted. Real life is sometimes stranger than fiction.
 
Back
Top