TSA spreading its wings

[The Davy Crockett]

Less than 3 weeks ago there were TSA agents with a dog hanging around outside of ESX before and when #55 pulled into the station. They kept to themselves and seemed to be letting the dog do what he was trained to do - and what dogs love to do - smelling whatever scents came his way.

This I have no problem with, but when we trash The Constitution, democracy's enemies win. :angry2:

 

[BCL]

It's reason enough for me. My problem with TSA is that I'm put in a situation I don't control, where complete strangers have the final say over whether another complete stranger will make uninvited physical contact with me. Strangers do not touch me, ever.

Implied wherever you go is that anyone can be searched on "reasonable suspicion" by law enforcement. If it comes to that, you have no say in the matter. I'm not saying that you have to like it given that you believe strangers can never touch you, but that's been the reality of living in the US and most of the world. I suspect that if it ever came down to a cop frisking you on suspicion that a bulge in your clothing may be a concealed weapon, you'd probably make an exception.

 

[CelticWhisper]

It's reason enough for me. My problem with TSA is that I'm put in a situation I don't control, where complete strangers have the final say over whether another complete stranger will make uninvited physical contact with me. Strangers do not touch me, ever.

Implied wherever you go is that anyone can be searched on "reasonable suspicion" by law enforcement. If it comes to that, you have no say in the matter. I'm not saying that you have to like it given that you believe strangers can never touch you, but that's been the reality of living in the US and most of the world. I suspect that if it ever came down to a cop frisking you on suspicion that a bulge in your clothing may be a concealed weapon, you'd probably make an exception.

Exception? Not without consulting a lawyer first to see if there's any grounds for a constitutional lawsuit against the cop or their department. Yes, really. Principle matters that much to me.

My rights come first, period. I concern myself with safety only once my rights are guaranteed. We have to push back, hard and constantly, to keep TSA et. al. in check. I think it's time I had words with my elected officials again. Durbin proclaims to be Mr. Illinois-Is-The-Nation's-Rail-Hub, maybe he'll care. They need to know that we're not going to stand for TSA in train stations. That agency has done enough damage already and APD has always been more than capable of handling rail security without harassing passengers.

Either way, I'll report on what I see when I'm at CUS, WAS and PVD in a couple weeks. Holding out hope that the Metro/CA lounges will be TSA-free, or that boarding via a Red Cap will circumvent any TSA BS, but whatever happens I'll let you all know.

 

[tonys96]

Personally, I do not mind TSA at stations. I do not want the whole "circus" that exists at airports, but law enforcement presence either APD or TSA or whatever is acceptable. A dog sniffing my luggage is OK, too. That is because I have nothing to hide.

The entire "take off shoes/belts/x-ray" would be too much. Hell, I might not even mind a metal detection scheme, if done smartly and efficiently. Efficiency and with common sense is tantamount, though. It works in courthouses all over the country.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

My rights come first, period.

Really?

From the website FindLaw:

Annotation 13 - First Amendment

Maintenance of National Security and the First Amendment

Preservation of the security of the Nation from its enemies, foreign and domestic, is the obligation of government and one of the foremost reasons for government to exist. Pursuit of this goal may lead government officials at times to trespass in areas protected by the guarantees of speech and press and may require the balancing away of rights which might be preserved inviolate at other times. The drawing of the line is committed, not exclusively but finally, to the Supreme Court. In this section, we consider a number of areas in which the necessity to draw lines has arisen.

 

[leemell]

My rights come first, period.

Really?

From the website FindLaw:

Annotation 13 - First Amendment

Maintenance of National Security and the First Amendment

Preservation of the security of the Nation from its enemies, foreign and domestic, is the obligation of government and one of the foremost reasons for government to exist. Pursuit of this goal may lead government officials at times to trespass in areas protected by the guarantees of speech and press and may require the balancing away of rights which might be preserved inviolate at other times. The drawing of the line is committed, not exclusively but finally, to the Supreme Court. In this section, we consider a number of areas in which the necessity to draw lines has arisen.

And they have already established that LEOs may search an individual for safety, Terry v. Ohio State 1963.

 

[jis]

My rights come first, period.

So would your rights come first even when my safety is threatened by it? Depending on the answer to that I'd form an opinion about whether I would care for protecting your rights or not.

But again all this is veering way off subject of the thread.

 

[BCL]

It's reason enough for me. My problem with TSA is that I'm put in a situation I don't control, where complete strangers have the final say over whether another complete stranger will make uninvited physical contact with me. Strangers do not touch me, ever.

Implied wherever you go is that anyone can be searched on "reasonable suspicion" by law enforcement. If it comes to that, you have no say in the matter. I'm not saying that you have to like it given that you believe strangers can never touch you, but that's been the reality of living in the US and most of the world. I suspect that if it ever came down to a cop frisking you on suspicion that a bulge in your clothing may be a concealed weapon, you'd probably make an exception.

Exception? Not without consulting a lawyer first to see if there's any grounds for a constitutional lawsuit against the cop or their department. Yes, really. Principle matters that much to me.

My rights come first, period. I concern myself with safety only once my rights are guaranteed. We have to push back, hard and constantly, to keep TSA et. al. in check. I think it's time I had words with my elected officials again. Durbin proclaims to be Mr. Illinois-Is-The-Nation's-Rail-Hub, maybe he'll care. They need to know that we're not going to stand for TSA in train stations. That agency has done enough damage already and APD has always been more than capable of handling rail security without harassing passengers.

Either way, I'll report on what I see when I'm at CUS, WAS and PVD in a couple weeks. Holding out hope that the Metro/CA lounges will be TSA-free, or that boarding via a Red Cap will circumvent any TSA BS, but whatever happens I'll let you all know.

You certainly have the right to ask if there is a reasonable suspicion and deny a frisk if the answer is no. Some cops do ask if you'll consent to a search on a hunch without reasonable suspicion.

However, if the answer is "I believe I have reasonable suspicion - please place your hands behind your head" that's your obligation under the law in pretty much every state, and it's not unconstitutional. If you don't voluntarily do as such, you could very well be arrested for obstructing an officer, with more strangers touching you then you'd bargained for in the first place. You'll be able to contact your attorney at that point.

A lot of times this happens, they make the arrest, and then drop the charges. However, it's no fun being arrested. So if the principle is important enough to you to risk getting cuffed and taken to a police station, then be my guest. We live in a constitutional democracy, but our individual rights are not absolute. While the Fourth Amendment protects those in the US against unreasonable search, that doesn't preclude a reasonable search. If there's a search warrant that includes an allowance to search your person, you most definitely won't be allowed to contact your attorney before the search occurs.

 

[BCL]

My rights come first, period.

Really?

From the website FindLaw:

Annotation 13 - First Amendment

Maintenance of National Security and the First Amendment

Preservation of the security of the Nation from its enemies, foreign and domestic, is the obligation of government and one of the foremost reasons for government to exist. Pursuit of this goal may lead government officials at times to trespass in areas protected by the guarantees of speech and press and may require the balancing away of rights which might be preserved inviolate at other times. The drawing of the line is committed, not exclusively but finally, to the Supreme Court. In this section, we consider a number of areas in which the necessity to draw lines has arisen.

This might be more relevant:

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment4/annotation03.html#1

 

[JoeBas]

Yes, but if his reasonable suspicion consists of "I think so" or "My gut tells me, either that or the Chili I ate last night", then he'd better be prepared to back that up in court.

But we're far afield from "reasonable suspicion" when it comes to the TSA, and much more over in the "Somehow vaguely constitutional because courts had their heads put up their butts on 9/11/01" dragnet territory.

 

[JoeBas]

And they have already established that LEOs may search an individual for safety, Terry v. Ohio State 1963.

Terry requires Reasonable, Articulable suspicion. Not a "random" search, or dragnet.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

This might be more relevant:

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment4/annotation03.html#1

Absolutely! :hi:

 

[George Harris]

A lot of times this happens, they make the arrest, and then drop the charges. However, it's no fun being arrested. So if the principle is important enough to you to risk getting cuffed and taken to a police station, then be my guest. We live in a constitutional democracy, but our individual rights are not absolute. While the Fourth Amendment protects those in the US against unreasonable search, that doesn't preclude a reasonable search. If there's a search warrant that includes an allowance to search your person, you most definitely won't be allowed to contact your attorney before the search occurs.

And, if you have not been arrested, I would suggest that you would really like to avoid it happening. As part of the process, your identity is checked out, which means fingerprinting and probably mug shots. From that point forward, you are "in the system" and your stats will be part of the checking process whenever there is an unknown person they are trying to identify. If you have ever been in service, applied for any job requiring any form of seccurity clearance, and now in most states are a teacher or have or have applied for a job working with children, you are already in the system. If you are not already in the system for other reasons and want to keep a low profile it would be a REALLY GOOD IDEA to avoid being arrested if at all possible to do so.

 

[BCL]

And they have already established that LEOs may search an individual for safety, Terry v. Ohio State 1963.

Terry requires Reasonable, Articulable suspicion. Not a "random" search, or dragnet.

However, we have someone posting here that his/her protection from being searched is apparently absolute and never to be violated. I could easily see a situation in a public place where law enforcement could conduct a pat down and there's zero chance that an argument that one's constitutional rights are being violated will hold. I would hope that LE would be professional and courteous. If there's nothing to be found, then it pays to cooperate and receive a "That's it, and thank you for your cooperation" rather than fight. It's one thing to have principles about one's inviolability, and another to wrongly believe that one is always entitled to be free from unwanted contact. If anything, I'd suggest asking an attorney before this ever happens, because the inevitable answer is that a Terry frisk is very much legal and provided the search is professionally done - nothing can be done to prevent it short of getting arrested for obstructing a peace officer (and then really being searched while handcuffed).

There was the Sikh man who tried getting on an Amtrak train with a clearly display dagger (called a kirpan). He was told to get off for having a weapon on his person and refused. When the police arrived, he didn't have an issue with being handled by law enforcement, but the thing he repeatedly made clear was that the kirpan was not to be touched by anyone but himself. Personally, I don't believe that the police typically allow someone to possess a dagger while they are in custody, and I'm pretty sure they confiscated it while he was being booked.

 

[CelticWhisper]

It's reason enough for me. My problem with TSA is that I'm put in a situation I don't control, where complete strangers have the final say over whether another complete stranger will make uninvited physical contact with me. Strangers do not touch me, ever.

Implied wherever you go is that anyone can be searched on "reasonable suspicion" by law enforcement. If it comes to that, you have no say in the matter. I'm not saying that you have to like it given that you believe strangers can never touch you, but that's been the reality of living in the US and most of the world. I suspect that if it ever came down to a cop frisking you on suspicion that a bulge in your clothing may be a concealed weapon, you'd probably make an exception.

Exception? Not without consulting a lawyer first to see if there's any grounds for a constitutional lawsuit against the cop or their department. Yes, really. Principle matters that much to me.

My rights come first, period. I concern myself with safety only once my rights are guaranteed. We have to push back, hard and constantly, to keep TSA et. al. in check. I think it's time I had words with my elected officials again. Durbin proclaims to be Mr. Illinois-Is-The-Nation's-Rail-Hub, maybe he'll care. They need to know that we're not going to stand for TSA in train stations. That agency has done enough damage already and APD has always been more than capable of handling rail security without harassing passengers.

Either way, I'll report on what I see when I'm at CUS, WAS and PVD in a couple weeks. Holding out hope that the Metro/CA lounges will be TSA-free, or that boarding via a Red Cap will circumvent any TSA BS, but whatever happens I'll let you all know.

You certainly have the right to ask if there is a reasonable suspicion and deny a frisk if the answer is no. Some cops do ask if you'll consent to a search on a hunch without reasonable suspicion.

However, if the answer is "I believe I have reasonable suspicion - please place your hands behind your head" that's your obligation under the law in pretty much every state, and it's not unconstitutional. If you don't voluntarily do as such, you could very well be arrested for obstructing an officer, with more strangers touching you then you'd bargained for in the first place. You'll be able to contact your attorney at that point.

A lot of times this happens, they make the arrest, and then drop the charges. However, it's no fun being arrested. So if the principle is important enough to you to risk getting cuffed and taken to a police station, then be my guest. We live in a constitutional democracy, but our individual rights are not absolute. While the Fourth Amendment protects those in the US against unreasonable search, that doesn't preclude a reasonable search. If there's a search warrant that includes an allowance to search your person, you most definitely won't be allowed to contact your attorney before the search occurs.

For various personal reasons, I would respond...poorly...to being arrested. To that end, I wouldn't actively fight back right then and there against a warrantless/no-probable-cause search, but rather would pursue legal redress after the fact as aggressively as possible. I'm the kind who gets really, REALLY angry over rights violations. I want to see careers ended. Scorched-earth type stuff. May not get it but I'd pursue it as best I could.

I don't have any real fear over interaction with APD. They seem to know what they're doing, the ones I talked to at PHL last year were perfectly cordial and didn't seem like authoritarians, and from what I gleaned from my conversation with Dugan, they make an even bigger point now than ever before to respect procedure (probable cause and the like) due to TSA's flagrant disregard for people's rights.

My concern is over whether, when/if confronted with TSA interaction at a train station, I request assistance or intervention from APD and either end up with a rookie cop who kowtows to some TSA-hole "pulling rank" by brandishing the word "federal" or get a cop who's had a bad day and takes it out on me.

This news is alarming enough that I've even had thoughts of canceling the whole trip. I don't want to do that and I don't intend to, but I may not book any more for a long time if someone in Washington (whether at my urging or by some other impetus) doesn't step in and block TSA from continuing their expansion. Amtrak stands to lose a good amount of business over this - surely they must realize that.

 

[JoeBas]

However, we have someone posting here that his/her protection from being searched is apparently absolute and never to be violated. I could easily see a situation in a public place where law enforcement could conduct a pat down and there's zero chance that an argument that one's constitutional rights are being violated will hold. I would hope that LE would be professional and courteous. If there's nothing to be found, then it pays to cooperate and receive a "That's it, and thank you for your cooperation" rather than fight. It's one thing to have principles about one's inviolability, and another to wrongly believe that one is always entitled to be free from unwanted contact. If anything, I'd suggest asking an attorney before this ever happens, because the inevitable answer is that a Terry frisk is very much legal and provided the search is professionally done - nothing can be done to prevent it short of getting arrested for obstructing a peace officer (and then really being searched while handcuffed).

Sorry, but that's mealy-mouth surrender-monkeyism at its finest.

If a LEO is going to search me, he's going to articulate his suspicion first. And if the laws of the state I'm in (such as mine) allow it, I'll be recording his answer for posterity. And yes, I will submit to the search, but he will find himself justifying it after the fact.

 

[BCL]

For various personal reasons, I would respond...poorly...to being arrested. To that end, I wouldn't actively fight back right then and there, but rather would pursue legal redress after the fact as aggressively as possible. I'm the kind who gets really, REALLY angry over rights violations. I want to see careers ended. Scorched-earth type stuff. May not get it but I'd pursue it as best I could.

That someone (maybe even you) may be searched is not necessarily a rights violation. You may think that a Terry frisk is a violation of your rights that can get someone fired and maybe a large monetary settlement with a police department. However, I'd think if a frisk was done by the book, you'd get laughed out of court and your attorney admonished for bringing such a weak case before the court.

 

[JoeBas]

And keep in mind that a "terry frisk" is only permitted insofar as to allow the officer to be confident of his safety. It is not a carte blanche for an extensive search. Probable Cause still applies for that (at least for now).

Similarly, I will (and have) refused requests from LEO on the train to search my belongings. Once, the cop let it go. Once, he went and got the conductor, who as per my contract of carriage agreement I allowed to inspect my belongings.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

 

[BCL]

However, we have someone posting here that his/her protection from being searched is apparently absolute and never to be violated. I could easily see a situation in a public place where law enforcement could conduct a pat down and there's zero chance that an argument that one's constitutional rights are being violated will hold. I would hope that LE would be professional and courteous. If there's nothing to be found, then it pays to cooperate and receive a "That's it, and thank you for your cooperation" rather than fight. It's one thing to have principles about one's inviolability, and another to wrongly believe that one is always entitled to be free from unwanted contact. If anything, I'd suggest asking an attorney before this ever happens, because the inevitable answer is that a Terry frisk is very much legal and provided the search is professionally done - nothing can be done to prevent it short of getting arrested for obstructing a peace officer (and then really being searched while handcuffed).

Sorry, but that's mealy-mouth surrender-monkeyism at its finest.

If a LEO is going to search me, he's going to articulate his suspicion first. And if the laws of the state I'm in (such as mine) allow it, I'll be recording his answer for posterity. And yes, I will submit to the search, but he will find himself justifying it after the fact.

Like I said - I wasn't referring to random hunches. If a cop sees someone randomly and nervously pacing in front of a bank and also has a suspicious bulge in a jacket pocket, that's actually a pretty reasonable suspicion that maybe the guy could be a bank robber. It could go down like this:

Sir, would you consent to a search?

What for?

I noticed you pacing in front of the bank.

Is that illegal?

No, but will you consent to a search?

Am I required to?

I have reasonable suspicion that you're carrying a concealed weapon. Please place your hands behind your head. I will frisk you now.

OK.

<Frisk concluded. Cop notices that the bulge was just a lot of money with a withdrawl receipt>

Sorry about that. Looks like you're just nervous about carrying all that cash. You're free to go.

It's not surrender. It's being realistic that a search like that is fully constitutional and has been tested in our courts. Even if fully recorded, if done by the book the cop surely isn't going to be in trouble.

 

[JoeBas]

Such an action is legal and reasonable and articulable, and as such would be allowed. But like I said, he'd damned well better have a damned good reason that he can articulate, and not just "respect my authoritah!!!!!".

But again, we're pretty far afield with what TSA does... who in fact, are not sworn peace officers at all, rather civilians dressed up and playing security*.

*(with the exception of the armed VIPR teams, who actually are sworn peace officers, with all the rights and RESPONSIBILITIES (including articulable suspicion and probable cause) thereof).

 

[BCL]

And keep in mind that a "terry frisk" is only permitted insofar as to allow the officer to be confident of his safety. It is not a carte blanche for an extensive search. Probable Cause still applies for that (at least for now).

Not probable cause but reasonable suspicion. The standard is lower.

A cop needs probable cause to arrest or to seek a warrant, but only reasonable suspicion to detain and/or frisk.

 

[BCL]

Such an action is legal and reasonable and articulable, and as such would be allowed. But like I said, he'd damned well better have a damned good reason that he can articulate, and not just "respect my authoritah!!!!!".
But again, we're pretty far afield with what TSA does... who in fact, are not sworn peace officers at all, rather civilians dressed up and playing security*.

*(with the exception of the armed VIPR teams, who actually are sworn peace officers, with all the rights and RESPONSIBILITIES (including articulable suspicion and probable cause) thereof).

You mentioned VIPR. There's also the Federal Air Marshal Service, although they typically wouldn't be involved in ground security operations.

For the most part in my dealings with TSA, I've never actually seen anyone act like they were actually law enforcement. That doesn't always mean I felt comfortable in my dealings, but I always got the sense that if anything were to happen, they'd be calling for help from local law enforcement.

 

[JoeBas]

And keep in mind that a "terry frisk" is only permitted insofar as to allow the officer to be confident of his safety. It is not a carte blanche for an extensive search. Probable Cause still applies for that (at least for now).

Not probable cause but reasonable suspicion. The standard is lower.

A cop needs probable cause to arrest or to seek a warrant, but only reasonable suspicion to detain and/or frisk.

He needs reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk. But he needs probable cause and/or a warrant for an extensive search.

A terry stop (stop and frisk) is only SUPPOSED to extend to convince the officer that you are not armed.

 

[JoeBas]

You mentioned VIPR. There's also the Federal Air Marshal Service, although they typically wouldn't be involved in ground security operations.
For the most part in my dealings with TSA, I've never actually seen anyone act like they were actually law enforcement. That doesn't always mean I felt comfortable in my dealings, but I always got the sense that if anything were to happen, they'd be calling for help from local law enforcement.

Well, yes and no. TSA likes their nice spiffy blue shirts and tin badges, because it gives them the appearance of actual authority, and makes the people they're "processing" more intimidated and easier to control.

That being said, if anything serious bad were going down, I have no doubt they'd be at best standing by and doing nothing, and at worst pushing passengers out of the way running away. In fact, it's already happened.