About Bashing the BATF

[Keith B]

Before it goes into overboard, I will state we do NOT allow generalized bashing of ANY enforcement agency. Civil discussion about things that happen or actual events are OK, but across the board bashing will not be allowed per the guidelines.

Thanks and keep it within the boundaries of the rules.

[marksiwel]

TSA does employ LEOs and does a LE job, but I have to ask, how are they infringing on the 4th?

They basically admit that they are in their own website
http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/optout/spp_faqs.shtm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Do contracted screeners draw their authority from the Aviation Transportation and Security Act PL107-71 (ATSA), or do state and local governments have to codify ATSA to establish their authority to perform Administrative Searches? If so, what if there is a conflict with the State Constitution (e.g., random vehicle searches during heightened alert conditions)? Will the Screening Standard Operating Procedures be modified to accommodate these conflicts?

Even prior to the passage of ATSA and the Federalization of the screening work force, Federal courts upheld warrantless searches of carry-on luggage at airports. Courts characterize the routine administrative search conducted at a security checkpoint as a warrantless search, subject to the reasonableness requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Such a warrantless search, also known as an administrative search, is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, " confined in good faith to that purpose," and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly. [See United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973)].

While the searches at the airport will be conducted by private screening companies, such searches will continue to be subject to the Fourth Amendment requirements of reasonableness because they are conducted at the instigation of the federal Government and under the authority of federal statutes and regulations governing air passenger screening."

[stevie_d_64]

I agree with Wild Bill's assessment.

I'm with you fellers...

[BigMickey]

The Fourth Amendment provides, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons ... and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not ve violeated, and no Warrant shall issu, but upon probably cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place so searched, and the personal or things to be seized."

When you walk up to the access point with your carry on baggage you are required to dump your metal on your (ball point pens, keys, etc) in a box, run your carry on baggage and the box through a fluoroscope, and walk through a metal detector. If you beep, you search yourself for metal your forgot and go through again. Sometimes they wand you whether you beeped or not. Your baggage is electronically "sniffed" and you are often required to open your carry on baggage so someone can look through it because they saw something "funny" in it. Often, you are required to take off your shoes.

If you have a pocket knife, or nail clippers, or a nail file, or matches, or liquids in amounts greater than some mystical amount of ounces, or a wide variety of other items, they are seized, you are not given a receipt, and you will never get them back. You can, if you have the materials at hand, mail them back to yourself (except for some items).

If these are not searches and seizures, then I am at a loss to describe them. Oh, but they are legal, you say? Yes, they are because Congress, the President, the Secretary concerned (through regulations), etc., have all said so and the Supreme Court of the U.S. has not (yet) said they are violations of the Fourth Amendment.

Oh, but it is necessary, because of the terrorist threat! Are they, really? The only two instances of which I am aware where someone got aboard a plane with an explosive device were the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber, both of whom were prevented from completing their actions by alert and brave passengers. They got on, regardless of the TSA warrantless searches and seizures.

Then, there's the argument that you have to do this in order to fly. Why? If it's not effective, if it's not legal, if it is an unwarranted search and seizure of my property, what is the necessity of doing it in order for me to fly?

I just can't see it. I don't want to give up my liberty for a questionable security. (Sorry, Ben.)

Sorry to everyone else, too, as this carries the topic a bit far off topic. I'll restrain myself in future.