Yahoo: Jesse Ventura sues TSA

[LeesburgSkinFan]

MINNEAPOLIS – Former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura sued the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration on Monday, alleging full-body scans and pat-downs at airport checkpoints violate his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Ventura is asking a federal judge in Minnesota to issue an injunction ordering officials to stop subjecting him to "warrantless and suspicionless" scans and body searches.

More at link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_ventura_airport_security

[DRSmith]

What an idiot

So which country is going to let a plane land in it that has people who have not been checked?

since everyine goes through it for a reason it is not unresonable

[Box76]

So going through up to 10 minute rub downs, including genetalia, every single time this man tries to get on a plane is reasonable? Most folks know why Jesse gets singled out like he does.

[Homercles82]

A man who ran around in the 80's dressed in feather boas while getting grappled and hugged by men, with crotches 2" from his nose is upset he got searched.

[DRSmith]

So going through up to 10 minute rub downs, including genetalia, every single time this man tries to get on a plane is reasonable? Most folks know why Jesse gets singled out like he does.

No more unreasonable then me getting pulled over and my car search almost everytime I enter the US

A country has the right to protect itself from acts of violence

[AsburySkinsFan]

Can Jesse Ventura please go away.

[Tweedr01]

A man who ran around in the 80's dressed in feather boas while getting grappled and hugged by men, with crotches 2" from his nose is upset he got searched.
hahaha i think he may be pushing for more time spent around the crotch area during the search

[stevenaa]

No more unreasonable then me getting pulled over and my car search almost everytime I enter the US

A country has the right to protect itself from acts of violence

Not using methods that violate constitutionally protected individual rights. Not sure if I think pat downs and scans do, but there are limits to what our coutry, ie. government, can do. Individual rights and the freedoms we enjoy will always leave us succeptible to attacks of one form or another.

[DRSmith]

Not using methods that violate constitutionally protected individual rights. Not sure if I think pat downs and scans do, but there are limits to what our coutry, ie. government, can do. Individual rights and the freedoms we enjoy will always leave us succeptible to attacks of one form or another.

And if countries say there will be no more international flights from the US what will you do?

Do you oppose biometric cards and back ground checks if people want to avoid the pat downs and scans?

How much more do you think insurance will go up for airlines if they are sued for failing to prevent terrorist attacks?

[Box76]

Can Jesse Ventura please go away.


Why would you say that? Its not like he just makes **** up. He has the guts to confront politicians who then turn tail and hide like the scum they are.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Not using methods that violate constitutionally protected individual rights. Not sure if I think pat downs and scans do, but there are limits to what our coutry, ie. government, can do. Individual rights and the freedoms we enjoy will always leave us succeptible to attacks of one form or another.

I agree that there are certainly limits, and I'm not sure if these scans exceed those limits, but there needs to be answered whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy when on an airplane. Currently I'm split on the body scans because our right to privacy may very well need to be seen as secondary to the safety of others on an airplane due to the uniqueness of the in flight environment and security risks. Personally, I think that 100% luggage screening would be a better use of funding rather than the ad hoc body scans. There are currently only 68 airports that have the full body scanners out of 503 US airports offering commercial services that seems like a real security gap to me. After all of the 9/11 hijackers none of them entered through security at a major hub instead they came in through the regional airports...those same airports that don't have the body scanners. Looks a lot more like window dressing as an effort to maintain the illusion of security to me.

[Kosher Ham]

^^^ Didn't two of the planes fly out of Logan international airport ? That's a major hub.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Why would you say that? Its not like he just makes **** up. He has the guts to confront politicians who then turn tail and hide like the scum they are.

Please Jesse is a side show attraction and it's impossible to hear what he's saying over all the baggage he carries with him.

---------- Post added January-26th-2011 at 09:39 AM ----------


^^^ Didn't two of the planes fly out of Logan international airport ? That's a major hub.

Right, but then entered security through Bangor International in Maine and then flew to Boston.

*edit...looks like three entered through Newark NJ.

The point still stands though, the regional airports are still not as secure and once you enter through security in one airport you are free in any other.

[Madison Redskin]

I agree that there are certainly limits, and I'm not sure if these scans exceed those limits, but there needs to be answered whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy when on an airplane. Currently I'm split on the body scans because our right to privacy may very well need to be seen as secondary to the safety of others on an airplane due to the uniqueness of the in flight environment and security risks. Personally, I think that 100% luggage screening would be a better use of funding rather than the ad hoc body scans. There are currently only 68 airports that have the full body scanners out of 503 US airports offering commercial services that seems like a real security gap to me. After all of the 9/11 hijackers none of them entered through security at a major hub instead they came in through the regional airports...those same airports that don't have the body scanners. Looks a lot more like window dressing as an effort to maintain the illusion of security to me.

Actually, the 9/11 hijackers flew out of Boston’s Logan International Airport, D.C.’s Dulles International Airport, and Newark Liberty International Airport.

In any case, I recently flew out of Dulles and had to go through a body scan. While I felt somewhat uncomfortable knowing that someone was looking at a grainy picture of my junk (a high-resolution picture would have been far more enjoyable for the TSA screeners), I did not particularly mind. I realize that I do not have an unqualified Constitutional right to fly on airplanes. Moreover, I realize that terrorists would love to kill a lot of Americans and they seem to have a particular affinity for using airports and airplanes to do so. So, while I would prefer to fly without going through a body scan, I find the alternative (i.e., a slightly increased risk of death by terrorist) slightly less appealing.

[Hunter44]

I like Jesse but he's going about this the wrong way. Flying is a privilege not a right. If you don't like airport security procedures then don't fly.

[War Paint]

Why would you say that? Its not like he just makes **** up. He has the guts to confront politicians who then turn tail and hide like the scum they are.

I respect men like Ventura. Unfortunately, many people would rather be treated as if they are the criminals by the government to protect them from "terrorists". Frequent flyers don't want to be body scanned numerous times. It's not good to have x-rays frequently. Not everyone wants a picture of their junk taken. Not everyone wants to be patted down by some dumb ass.

According to this source, the chances of being blown up by a terrorist are extremely slim.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/odds-of-airborne-terror.html


Over the past decade, according to BTS, there have been 99,320,309 commercial airline departures that either originated or landed within the United States. Dividing by six, we get one terrorist incident per 16,553,385 departures.


These departures flew a collective 69,415,786,000 miles. That means there has been one terrorist incident per 11,569,297,667 mles flown. This distance is equivalent to 1,459,664 trips around the diameter of the Earth, 24,218 round trips to the Moon, or two round trips to Neptune.



Therefore, the odds of being on given departure which is the subject of a terrorist incident have been 1 in 10,408,947 over the past decade. By contrast, the odds of being struck by lightning in a given year are about 1 in 500,000. This means that you could board 20 flights per year and still be less likely to be the subject of an attempted terrorist attack than to be struck by lightning.

People need to quit giving away their freedoms for "safety".

[Madison Redskin]

I respect men like Ventura. Unfortunately, many people would rather be treated as if they are the criminals by the government to protect them from "terrorists". Frequent flyers don't want to be body scanned numerous times. It's not good to have x-rays frequently. Not everyone wants a picture of their junk taken. Not everyone wants to be patted down by some dumb ass.

According to this source, the chances of being blown up by a terrorist are extremely slim.

People need to quit giving away their freedoms for "safety".

Then it's safe to say that you were opposed to the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping and electronic surveillance programs, right?

[War Paint]

Then it's safe to say that you were opposed to the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping and electronic surveillance programs, right?

Yes, I am very opposed to it. Right after 9/11, when I first heard about the Patriot Act, I didn't see it for what it was at the time because I was still shell shocked by the attacks. Overtime, I think the Patriot Act is horrendous. Please don't turn this into a Bush vs Obama thing. They are both Big Brother puppets. I don't like either.

[Madison Redskin]

Yes, I am very opposed to it. Right after 9/11, when I first heard about the Patriot Act, I didn't see it for what it was at the time because I was still shell shocked by the attacks. Overtime, I think the Patriot Act is horrendous. Please don't turn this into a Bush vs Obama thing. They are both Big Brother puppets. I don't like either.

That's fair. I didn't ask that question to turn this into a Bush v. Obama thing. The reason why I asked is because several of my conservative buddies are absolutely opposed to the body scans, but strongly support warrantless wiretapping and electronic surveillance programs.

I agree that the odds of dying in a terrorist attack are small. However, I think the X-rays, body scans, patdowns, etc. are a small price to pay for the privilege (as opposed to right) to fly.

[War Paint]

That's fair. I didn't ask that question to turn this into a Bush v. Obama thing. The reason why I asked is because several of my conservative buddies are absolutely opposed to the body scans, but strongly support warrantless wiretapping and electronic surveillance programs.

I agree that the odds of dying in a terrorist attack are small. However, I think the X-rays, body scans, patdowns, etc. are a small price to pay for the privilege (as opposed to right) to fly.

My view is, if I am one of the unlucky 1 out of 10.5 million chance of being chosen to meet my demise from terrorism, then I would just mark it as "it was my time". That said, even if I was 1 of the 10.5 million to get involved with a terrorist incident, that doesn't mean I'll be killed. The terrorist might be tackled before he does anything, like the shoe bomber. It's so obvious that the government is trying to sell the people fear of the terror boogyman for more control.

[Corcaigh]

I agree that the odds of dying in a terrorist attack are small. However, I think the X-rays, body scans, patdowns, etc. are a small price to pay for the privilege (as opposed to right) to fly.

If this was the only weakness in airline security, then the argument might have merit. But if terrorists can bypass this type of security through luggage, freight, infiltrating airport services or simply entering the airline passenger screening system through an airport that doesn't have these measures, what are the x-rays and pat-downs accomplishing other than providing the illusion of security.

[Bang]

Seems simple enough.
If you don't like it don't fly.
Other modes of transportation are available, and it's not anyone's right to fly.

~Bang

[Madison Redskin]

If this was the only weakness in airline security, then the argument might have merit. But if terrorists can bypass this type of security through luggage, freight, infiltrating airport services or simply entering the airline passenger screening system through an airport that doesn't have these measures, what are the x-rays and pat-downs accomplishing other than providing the illusion of security.

I don't buy the "if we can't do everything, we shouldn't do anything" logic. Plus, luggage and freight are screened and these scanners are being rolled out to other airports.

---------- Post added January-26th-2011 at 01:47 PM ----------


It's so obvious that the government is trying to sell the people fear of the terror boogyman for more control.

I agree that many government officials exploit the public's fear of Mooslems, ghey boogeymen, etc. However, I don't think it's reasonable to argue that government officials are "trying to sell the people fear of the terror boogyman" to view low-resolution pics of their junk.

[War Paint]

Seems simple enough.
If you don't like it don't fly.
Other modes of transportation are available, and it's not anyone's right to fly.

~Bang

Bang, when do people finally draw the line? Some people have to fly for their job. Why not just go back to metal detectors? If people don't put their foot down, naked body scanners and pat downs will eventually make their way to bus stations and subways. Then after that, they'll eventually make their way to public events like football games and concerts.


QZM4Bpt3xZU

[elkabong82]

Give up freedom for security and you won't get either.

If better saftey precautions and procedures were taken on the planes themselves then there wouldn't be aneed for pat downs etc, the metal detectors would suffice.

Expand the size of the cockpit enough to where a couple monitors can fit in and an extra seat, put a video camera or two up, and have an extra person in the cockpit to monitor the passengers.

The pat downs and extra security are a joke and an impractical delay. They are trying to eliminate a terrorist being able to take over a plane. Sealing off the cockpit, adding procedures which prevent the door from ever being opened during flight, adding monitoring inside the plane, all take care of that.

[Madison Redskin]

The pat downs and extra security are a joke and an impractical delay. They are trying to eliminate a terrorist being able to take over a plane. Sealing off the cockpit, adding procedures which prevent the door from ever being opened during flight, adding monitoring inside the plane, all take care of that.

Not if a passenger has explosives strapped to his **** and just wants to blow up the plane.

[War Paint]

Not if a passenger has explosives strapped to his **** and just wants to blow up the plane.

Which is probably a 1 out of a 10.5 million chance of happening in the first place.

[Madison Redskin]

Which is probably a 1 out of a 10.5 million chance of happening in the first place.

So, then, do you propose that we don't screen passengers for such explosives?

[Corcaigh]

I don't buy the "if we can't do everything, we shouldn't do anything" logic. Plus, luggage and freight are screened and these scanners are being rolled out to other airports.[COLOR="Gold"]



But that's not the choice - serious threats go unaddressed so that the TSA can spend many billions looking for threats that aren't real, all in pursuit of 'security theater' ... the pretense of doing a good job.

Any investigation should be on behavior. Unless you have suspicion that the five year old boy going through security is a threat he should not be strip-searched. Likewise with Jesse Ventura.

Meanwhile the underpants bomber was a known radical who was turned in by his own father, a respected businessman, but we chose to allow him to fly.

[War Paint]

So, then, do you propose that we don't screen passengers for such explosives?

Metal detectors alone are fine. You can't have 100% safety for every single thing in your life. We're all going to bite the dust one day. 1 out of 10.5 million chance......it's not exactly russian roulette.

[Madison Redskin]

Metal detectors alone are fine. You can't have 100% safety for every single thing in your life. We're all going to bite the dust one day. 1 out of 10.5 million chance......it's not exactly russian roulette.

Metal detectors would catch knives and guns, but not most explosives.

[War Paint]

Metal detectors would catch knives and guns, but not most explosives.

You are 20 times more likely getting struck by lightening.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Jesse has a lot of good ideas, and, of course, some silly ones. But, overall I think he's a breath of fresh air.

That being said, I think he's got a big battle here. Basically, I think there is pretty strong precedent set that you waive your Fourth Amendment rights when you choose to travel by plane.

[mojobo]

Just because something is a privilege instead of a right doesn't mean the government has a right to do an unwarranted search of you. Just like it isn't your privilege to use a phone, but that shouldn't give the government to tap into your conversations when it wants. If the airline itself wants to run these security measures then that is fine as it has every right to implement whatever security measures it feels is best for its company and if people disagree with the method then they are free to use another airline. If the government wants to search somebody they need to have a reason to suspect that a person has committed a crime or is a threat. Flying on an airplane does not show or even hint that I might commit a crime.

[War Paint]

Jesse has a lot of good ideas, and, of course, some silly ones. But, overall I think he's a breath of fresh air.

That being said, I think he's got a big battle here. Basically, I think there is pretty strong precedent set that you waive your Fourth Amendment rights when you choose to travel by plane.

Where in the Constitution does it say Amendments are waived when traveling?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Just because something is a privilege instead of a right doesn't mean the government has a right to do an unwarranted search of you. Just like it isn't your privilege to use a phone, but that shouldn't give the government to tap into your conversations when it wants. If the airline itself wants to run these security measures then that is fine as it has every right to implement whatever security measures it feels is best for its company and if people disagree with the method then they are free to use another airline. If the government wants to search somebody they need to have a reason to suspect that a person has committed a crime or is a threat. Flying on an airplane does not show or even hint that I might commit a crime.

Ok. But if you waive your rights, you can't complain about them. That's called waiver.

I don't really disagree with you in spirit, but I think the law is pretty clear.

---------- Post added January-26th-2011 at 02:59 PM ----------


Where in the Constitution does it say Amendments are waived when traveling?

Thanks for asking a ridiculous question.

I'll tell you what though, if you can tell me where in the Constitution it says that the government can NOT conduct X-ray scans of people, and also where it says that the government doesn't have the power to police "airports" then I'll answer your question.

If you really need some semblance of an answer though, the Constitution gives the federal government "police power" to maintain order, and gives it power to regulate "interstate commerce." The latter may be used a lot, but certainly you'd agree that air travel qualifies as interstate commerce.

The Constitution has all sorts of competing interests within it. It wasn't written to be a cook book for every single scenario for the next thousand years. There are things in the future that we can't even think of today that have to be forced into the Constitution. You can't ask such silly questions. :)

[Mickalino]

He's simply doing this so he has more material for his Conspiracy Theory show.

[War Paint]

Ok. But if you waive your rights, you can't complain about them. That's called waiver.

I don't really disagree with you in spirit, but I think the law is pretty clear.

---------- Post added January-26th-2011 at 02:59 PM ----------



Thanks for asking a ridiculous question.

I'll tell you what though, if you can tell me where in the Constitution it says that the government can NOT conduct X-ray scans of people, and also where it says that the government doesn't have the power to police "airports" then I'll answer your question.

If you really need some semblance of an answer though, the Constitution gives the federal government "police power" to maintain order, and gives it power to regulate "interstate commerce." The latter may be used a lot, but certainly you'd agree that air travel qualifies as interstate commerce.

The Constitution has all sorts of competing interests within it. It wasn't written to be a cook book for every single scenario for the next thousand years. There are things in the future that we can't even think of today that have to be forced into the Constitution. You can't ask such silly questions. :)


4th Amendment


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It's pretty clear to me. X-rays and pat downs are clearly searches.

[Popeman38]

Where in the Constitution does it say Amendments are waived when traveling?Where is flying listed as an unalienable right? Flying is a choice. Even if you fly for business, you chose to take that job. People need to quit looking at everything that makes their life easier as a right.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Most of this applies to a person and his belongings. An airport or airplane is not yours. Try to enter the White House without major security checks. What happens? You are denied entry, and if you make a scene most likely arrested. Is that against the law? What about access to museums? The National Mall? None of this is private property. It is public property. Is it your "right" to have unchecked access to all of these places?

[Mickalino]

Where is flying listed as an unalienable right? Flying is a choice. Even if you fly for business, you chose to take that job.

No, you don't. You're employer makes that choice.

[War Paint]

Where is flying listed as an unalienable right? Flying is a choice. Even if you fly for business, you chose to take that job. People need to quit looking at everything that makes their life easier as a right.Most of this applies to a person and his belongings. An airport or airplane is not yours. Try to enter the White House without major security checks. What happens? You are denied entry, and if you make a scene most likely arrested. Is that against the law? What about access to museums? The National Mall? None of this is private property. It is public property. Is it your "right" to have unchecked access to all of these places?

No, people need to quit being cowards and giving up their rights to feel safe from a terrorist boogeyman. 1 out of 10.5 million chance of running into a terrorist incident.

[AsburySkinsFan]

No, you don't. You're employer makes that choice.

You choose to work for that employer.

[mojobo]

Ok. But if you waive your rights, you can't complain about them. That's called waiver.

I don't really disagree with you in spirit, but I think the law is pretty clear.

But that doesn't give the government the right to withhold a "privilege" if you don't waive that right. Only the airlines can withhold the privilege of using their airline just as I can take my money elsewhere if I feel the security goes too far. I don't think any airline would want to be known for too loose of security since most people want to feel safe while flying, but I also don't think any airline would want to specifically be known for groping and taking full body pictures of its customers. Again if the government has reason to believe that a specific individual probably going to commit a criminal offense then by all means search, grope, seize property, etc. But if they do not have a reason to believe this and cannot demonstrate their reason in court then don't obstruct people from carrying about their business.

[Mickalino]

I like Jesse but he's going about this the wrong way. Flying is a privilege not a right. If you don't like airport security procedures then don't fly.

A person has a right not to be molested regardless what privilege they choose to do

---------- Post added January-26th-2011 at 08:46 PM ----------


You choose to work for that employer.

Record numbers of people are unemployed, and have been for up to 2 years or more, and many about to lose much of what they own as a result, and you want to tell them that they have a "choice" in the employer they work for ?

Many of those people apply for hundreds of jobs and are lucky to get a single job offer in a year's time.

[mojobo]

You choose to work for that employer.

So if my employer requires I fly somewhere the government has a right to grope me and take body scan pictures of me?

[Madison Redskin]

4th Amendment

It's pretty clear to me. X-rays and pat downs are clearly searches.

The 4th Amendment does not prohibit all searches (e.g., searching people at the border, in airports, etc.). The 4th Amendment forbids "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Numerous courts have ruled that it is not unreasonable for the government to search individuals who wish to fly on an airline to search for guns, knives, explosives, drugs, etc. Most people agree with those rulings, even if there is controversy regarding body scans.

---------- Post added January-26th-2011 at 04:29 PM ----------


So if my employer requires I fly somewhere the government has a right to grope me and take body scan pictures of me?

That's exactly right. If you don't like it, you can always travel by train, boat, or car ... or you can take it up with your employer. When do you think the government should have the right to search people?

---------- Post added January-26th-2011 at 04:34 PM ----------


You are 20 times more likely getting struck by lightening.

A lightning strike won't kill 300-400 people in one fell swoop. A lightning strike won't cause people to avoid traveling and hurt the tourism industry. A lightning strike won't result in a plane knocking down two skyscrapers, killing thousands of people, and sending the economy into a tailspin. A lightning strike won't kill hundreds of military officers working in the Pentagon.

While it is highly unlikely that any of us will be killed in a terrorist attack on an airplane, I believe that the potential consequences of terrorist attacks warrant the government asking the public to deal with mildly obnoxious lines and searches at the airport.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Where in the Constitution does it say Amendments are waived when traveling?

You do not always have the expectation of privacy.

[elkabong82]

Not if a passenger has explosives strapped to his **** and just wants to blow up the plane.

Please explain how someone with explosives would get them onto a plane without them being noticed in their luggage when it's screened or how, if it's on their person, they get it through a metal detector when the detonation system has metal in it. That would be highly sosphisticated technology to be able to get it through, which is not easily available. Why can't they have dogs at the airports that can sniff that stuff out?

And as others in here pointed out, how long until these intrusive security measurements find their way into metros, government buildings, schools, etc.? Being dismissive of it only adds to the problem. Airport security is considered a joke by most, heck even Obama cracked on them in the State of he Union address. Doesn't matter if it's viewed as a priviliege, that doesn't excuse a violation of rights. Driving is a privilege, should cops be able to pull you out of your car and pat you down just because? The "deal with it" argument excuses rights violations and is rudely dismissive of the majority in America who have a problem with the intrusiveness of airline security. The impracticality of such has also been a financial burden on airlines, which they pass on to the customer in the forms of baggage costs and other small extra charges that previously were free.

---------- Post added January-26th-2011 at 05:38 PM ----------


You do not always have the expectation of privacy.

But you should always have the expectation of reasonable searches and just cause for such searches.

---------- Post added January-26th-2011 at 05:47 PM ----------


I believe that the potential consequences of terrorist attacks warrant the government asking the public to deal with mildly obnoxious lines and searches at the airport.

I believe the potential consequences should be forcing the government to initiate innovative security measures at airports, not just letting them play bouncer essentially. There are other preventative measures that can be taken, the current form of security is an extreme reactionary type. Everyone is serached as thoroughly as possible, which drives up costs and wait time. It's impractical. There are better security measures and monitoring technology that can be used.

I suggested ealier better security in the cockpits themselves, which had such been implemented before 2001, the hijackers would have been unsuccesful in taking over the plane and controlling where it went. You said it wouldn;t stop them from bringing explosives on and blowing up the plane. But there are detection devices for explosives, heck, you can have dogs there for that just as there are dogs for drugs. I'd much prefer walking by a dog than being violated in a pat down or having a full body scan done to me.

[mojobo]

That's exactly right. If you don't like it, you can always travel by train, boat, or car ... or you can take it up with your employer. When do you think the government should have the right to search people?

The right to search comes when there is probable cause that an individual committed or is attempting to commit a crime. Buying a plane ticket and showing up at an airport does not demonstrate probable cause that I am going to commit a criminal offense. Again if an individual airline wants to make this part of their own security efforts to keep their airlines safe then that is fine. If one wants to knowingly submit themselves to the invasive screening for their own personal safety that is their choice. If an airline is too loose with its security then they risk losing customers due to an increase in perceived security risk. If an airline is too invasive with its security measures or the security causes too long of a wait to get onto flights then they too risk losing customers. Our government can't just claim a right to search people for using a specific industry for travel. Unless the government shows probable cause that an individual committed or going to commit a crime the government has no right to search them. We do not have to prove our innocence to use a service, the government has to prove our guilt before they can deny it to us.

[Madison Redskin]

The right to search comes when there is probable cause that an individual committed or is attempting to commit a crime. Buying a plane ticket and showing up at an airport does not demonstrate probable cause that I am going to commit a criminal offense. Again if an individual airline wants to make this part of their own security efforts to keep their airlines safe then that is fine. If one wants to knowingly submit themselves to the invasive screening for their own personal safety that is their choice. If an airline is too loose with its security then they risk losing customers due to an increase in perceived security risk. If an airline is too invasive with its security measures or the security causes too long of a wait to get onto flights then they too risk losing customers. Our government can't just claim a right to search people for using a specific industry for travel. Unless the government shows probable cause that an individual committed or going to commit a crime the government has no right to search them. We do not have to prove our innocence to use a service, the government has to prove our guilt before they can deny it to us.

So, we shouldn't search people at our borders? Or when they want to visit a government building, e.g., the FBI, CIA, Pentagon, etc.?

[Teller]

I think this is a case that needs to be heard. And I'm not in the least offended, nor overly-concerned if a former governor and Navy SEAL wants to bring it.

[Hunter44]

A person has a right not to be molested regardless what privilege they choose to do[COLOR="Gold"]



So when a police officer pats you down he's molesting you?? Is that your point? lol

You'd be cool with letting a shoe or underwear bomber on a plane because a pat down is the same thing as being molested?? Wow.......not much else to say to that.

[Predicto]

Jesse is a lunatic and ridiculously wrong on a million issues, and I am sure he will lose this case - but I think that it is not a bad thing that he is calling attention to the excesses of the TSA. What they are doing isn't unconstitutional, but it is bad public policy. It overstates the true risks and invades our privacy for a very limited return, safety-wise. The procedures should be scruitinized much more carefully and kept as limited as possible.

But Jesse is still going to lose this case, and he is still going to be wrong about almost everything else he says. :)

[mojobo]

So, we shouldn't search people at our borders? Or when they want to visit a government building, e.g., the FBI, CIA, Pentagon, etc.?

We should search people at our borders if we have probable cause that they have committed a criminal offense. If the fbi, cia, or pentagon want to search people that enter their buildings then they have a right to do so just as the airlines have a right to perform security checks they feel are necessary on their poperty.

[Madison Redskin]

We should search people at our borders if we have probable cause that they have committed a criminal offense. If the fbi, cia, or pentagon want to search people that enter their buildings then they have a right to do so just as the airlines have a right to perform security checks they feel are necessary on their poperty.

If our federal government adopted this policy, you'd see drugs and illegal immigrants flooding into the country at record rates. It's also novel, as our government has always searched people that enter the country.

Also, many airports are owned by government entities. So, why shouldn't government authorities be allowed to search you when you enter their buildings?

[AsburySkinsFan]

But you should always have the expectation of reasonable searches and just cause for such searches.
Here's the problem with that thinking when it comes to airport security. You are already submitting to a search when you go through the metal detector, and when you send your carry-on luggage through the x-ray machine. What you're objecting to is not a search but the level of the search, that's a wholly different matter and one not so easily dismissed by claiming 4th Amendment rights, because by going to through the security in the first place you have already acknowledged the government's ability to search you without a warrant.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I'm surpised so many people think the government should not be able to search people who travel on planes. I don't know, I can think of a few good reasons why those searches should exist.

Its not an easy question, but I'm pretty sure there's case law out there that when you travel through an airport you waive some of your fourth amendment rights, and specifically agree to pat downs and x-rays.

Its an interesting case. I don't know the answer. But it really bugs me when people act like these questions are so easy, and people fail to see that there are competing, but legitimate, interests on both sides.

[DCBnG21]

In other breaking news, Jesse Ventura sues the United States public for not giving him enough attention.

[elkabong82]

Here's the problem with that thinking when it comes to airport security. You are already submitting to a search when you go through the metal detector, and when you send your carry-on luggage through the x-ray machine. What you're objecting to is not a search but the level of the search, that's a wholly different matter and one not so easily dismissed by claiming 4th Amendment rights, because by going to through the security in the first place you have already acknowledged the government's ability to search you without a warrant.

Yes, I am saying it is the level that it goes to which is the problem. The amount of cause should warrant the level of search. It is supposed to protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. Going through a metal detector is reasonable search with airport security. However, consenting to a reasonable amount of search doesn't warrant further search which is unreasonable.

Just because you consent to a mild form of warrntless search doesn't mean security then has free reign.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

Nowhere in there does it suggest that a consent to a reasonable search invalidates the amendment. You should be able to consent to reasonable searches and still retain the right against those searches becoming unreasonable.

[War Paint]

Good article

The TSA is invasive, annoying - and unconstitutional

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/26/AR2010112604290.html

[elkabong82]

Good article

The TSA is invasive, annoying - and unconstitutional

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/26/AR2010112604290.html

I agree with them that scanners which only seek out potential wens and explosives and don't record or transmit the info, like the ones they use in the Netherlands which also don't have the radiation concerns the USA ones do, then that is basically like an improved metal detector and is able to stay minimally invasive.

The current "full" pat-downs and naked body scans which can record that info and have radiation concerns, are very invasive.

[Madison Redskin]

Good article

The TSA is invasive, annoying - and unconstitutional

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/26/AR2010112604290.html

I'll grant you that the TSA is annoying and invasive. However, on what grounds is the TSA unconstitutional?

[Larry]

Loving all of the people who believe (with, apparently, the fervor that can only come from blind, unsupported, religious faith) that whenever a person does any action that is not mentioned in the Constitution, then the Constitution ceases to exist.

No, you do not have "a Constitutional right to fly on an airplane".

You have a Constitutional right not to be searched without a warrant, based on probable cause, based on sworn testimony. And "he wanted to get on an airplane" isn't probable cause. (Neither is "he had metal on him.")

The wrestling freak is right. The Constitution says "no searches".

Now, that said. Anybody here really want to do away with all airport searches of any kind? Anybody? No metal detectors. No bags through the x-ray.

What? You mean the only people who support something like that are loony Libertarians like me? And here I thought I was in the mainstream on this.

----------

On a (only slightly) more serious way of looking at things:

Suppose that Larry's interpretation of the Constitution stands. No airport searches.

Suppose that some airline decided that it's going to search the passengers. "Fly Southwest. We search our passengers." Obviously, no Constitutional issue, there. Every person who buys a ticket on Southwest, consented to being searched. They knew it was going to happen when they paid for the ticket.


IMO, the reason airport screeners aren't airline employees is because the airlines want the passengers to be pissed at the government, instead of at the airline. The airlines want the searches. They just don't want it done by people wearing the airline's uniform. After all, nobody has a better interest in keeping airline travel as safe as possible, than the airlines.

By that same reasoning, everybody who buys an ticket on any airline, knows they're going to be searched.

I don't like the fact that the government's doing it. It's clearly unconstitutional. But I also firmly believe that if the government stopped doing it tomorrow, the searches would still continue anyway. They'd just be done by different people.

[Madison Redskin]

Loving all of the people who believe (with, apparently, the fervor that can only come from blind, unsupported, religious faith) that whenever a person does any action that is not mentioned in the Constitution, then the Constitution ceases to exist.

No, you do not have "a Constitutional right to fly on an airplane".

You have a Constitutional right not to be searched without a warrant, based on probable cause, based on sworn testimony. And "he wanted to get on an airplane" isn't probable cause.

The wrestling freak is right. The Constitution says "no searches".

I don't like the fact that the government's doing it. It's clearly unconstitutional. But I also firmly believe that if the government stopped doing it tomorrow, the searches would still continue anyway. They'd just be done by different people.


According to several federal court decisions, neither the 4th Amendment, nor any other provision of the U.S. Constitution, prohibits the U.S. federal government from subjecting everyone who desires to travel on commercial airplanes to warrantless searches of their persons and possessions.

That's not to say these particular searches are unquestionably Constitutional. That's to say that your understanding of the 4th Amendment and it's application to airport screening procedures flies in the face of established caselaw.

[Larry]

According to several federal court decisions, neither the 4th Amendment, nor any other provision of the U.S. Constitution, prohibits the U.S. federal government from subjecting everyone who desires to travel on commercial airplanes to warrantless searches of their persons and possessions.

Really? I didn't know that. :)

The 4th Amendment prohibits all governments from all searches. It contains no exceptions whatsoever for "unless said citizen is performing an action which we forgot to list, in advance".

Those decisions are wrong. Every single one of them.

----------

And, to respond to the next false reasoning thrown up, yes, I'm quite aware that the 4th contains the word "unreasonable".

Anybody really want to claim that the Framers included the word "unreasonable", because they intended to pass a Constitutional Amendment which stated that it could be ignored any time Congress wants to, via a simple majority vote? A Constitutional Amendment which did not restrict the government in any way, because anything that the government decided to do was "reasonable", and therefore exempt from this Amendment?

[Madison Redskin]

The 4th Amendment prohibits all governments from all searches.

Wrong. It prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures. The Founding Fathers did not take a cavalier attitude in drafting the Constitution. Acknowledging that fact, and the basic principle of legislative interpretation that legislation should be construed in a manner so as to give every word and provision effect, why do you think it is they included the word "unreasonable" in the text of the 4th Amendment? Had they wanted to prohibit all searches and seizures by government authorities (save those authorized by warrants or based on probable cause), they could have omitted the word "unreasonable."

They inserted that qualification for a reason. If I recall the old cases I read in law school correctly (and perhaps I don't), they inserted that text because they believed that, in certain circumstances, government authorities should have the right to search and seize without a warrant or probable cause. That is why various courts have created exceptions to the general prohibition against government searches and seizures (absent a warrant or probable cause), e.g.:

*The government can search and seize people and their possessions upon their entry into this country, even without a warrant or probable cause.
*The government can fly helicopters and aircraft over private property and visually search such property, even without a warrant or probable cause.
*The government can set up roadblocks and ask people to blow into a breathalyzer, even without a warrant or probable cause.
*The government can search people in airports, even without a warrant or probable cause.

Now, all those searches and seizures have to be conducted in a "reasonable" manner. However, they are not "unreasonable" simply by virtue of the fact that they are conducted without a warrant or probable cause.


Anybody really want to claim that the Framers included the word "unreasonable", because they intended to pass a Constitutional Amendment which stated that it could be ignored any time Congress wants to, via a simple majority vote? A Constitutional Amendment which did not restrict the government in any way, because anything that the government decided to do was "reasonable", and therefore exempt from this Amendment?

I never said or implied that Congress can effectively immunize government searches from judicial review by passing laws that declare such searches "reasonable." Congress can pass laws authorizing warrantless searches and seizures and, if they are "unreasonable," people have the right to petition the courts to have such legislation overturned on the basis that they violate the 4th Amendment.

I only cited the fact that the 4th Amendment refers to "unreasonable" searches and seizures to rebut your assertion that the text of the 4th Amendment prohibits all searches and seizures (save those authorized by a warrant or based on probable cause).

So, let me repeat the question. Why do you think the Founding Fathers included the word "unreasonable" in the 4th Amendment?

Finally, do you think the Founding Fathers intended that U.S. customs officials obtain a warrant prior to searching a vessel entering a U.S. port?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yes, I am saying it is the level that it goes to which is the problem. The amount of cause should warrant the level of search. It is supposed to protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. Going through a metal detector is reasonable search with airport security. However, consenting to a reasonable amount of search doesn't warrant further search which is unreasonable.

Just because you consent to a mild form of warrntless search doesn't mean security then has free reign.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

Nowhere in there does it suggest that a consent to a reasonable search invalidates the amendment. You should be able to consent to reasonable searches and still retain the right against those searches becoming unreasonable.

And the reasonable-ness will be determined by SCOTUS not us.

[elkabong82]

And the reasonable-ness will be determined by SCOTUS not us.

Yes sir. And hopefully since it's been almost a decade since 9/11, those tragic events won't influence them to side with the overboard/invasive security/search methods whenever such a case is brought to them (will happen sooner than later IMO)

[mojobo]

If our federal government adopted this policy, you'd see drugs and illegal immigrants flooding into the country at record rates. It's also novel, as our government has always searched people that enter the country.

Also, many airports are owned by government entities. So, why shouldn't government authorities be allowed to search you when you enter their buildings?

I doubt we'd see significantly more illegal immigration and drugs coming into the country and the best way to deal with those problems isn't hiring more big brothers to watch over peoples actions but thats another debate.

The fact that airports are publicly owned still doesn't give governments the right to search just as it doesn't give them the right to search if you were at a public park. The government owns that park, but the fact that it is publicly owned doesn't give it the right to search people who wish to use the park.

[Larry]

Finally, do you think the Founding Fathers intended that U.S. customs officials obtain a warrant prior to searching a vessel entering a U.S. port?

Actually, I agree with what I understand of the case law in that case.

That people crossing national borders have always been subject to search by national authority, for lots of reasons.

But that's a case of an already-existing exception being "grandfathered in", based on long-standing precedent. Not a case of a brand-new exception being invented.

---------- Post added January-27th-2011 at 08:57 AM ----------

A bit of a counter-argument, to the folks arguing that metal detectors are constitutional, but that body scanners aren't.

The reason why the government has the authority to check for pistols, knives, and box cutters, but not for crotch bombers, is . . . ?

After all, neither possession of car keys, nor possession of a crotch, establishes probable cause.

[Special K]

I'd be very happy if everyone whining about the constitutionality of TSA searches would just stop flying. It'd make life much easier for the rest of us travelers. :D

As per the topic, I think there is significant precedent for these searches and they will hold up when challenged in court. My problem with TSA is that I don't think the security measures they have implemented will effectively weed out security threats.

[Kosher Ham]

Eh...TSA does their job when they want to.
That is the problem. They simply are not typically very good or consistent.

[Prosperity]

all warrant less searches are presumed unreasonable w/ a few exceptions, airports are probably one... and not to nit pick but flying over someone's property and looking down is not a search, that's just observation

course it seems like the Fed courts haven't given a **** about 4th amendment rights for about a decade, I doubt that'll change. So it'll probably remain "Constitutional" for a long time.

The problem w/ these "Searches" though isn't really that they are searches or that they violate privacy. The problem is that they don't prevent anything, they're just a show to make people think we have everything under control. I guess the show itself might scare away a few who would attempt something but I doubt it.

[DRSmith]

Does anyone ever stop to think that the constitution was written under the influence of the times they were living in and that we live in far different times and that things have to be looked at in light of the times we live in?

I mean do you think if people were walking in and shooting up places of work, malls and schools they may have written the 2nd ammedment a bit different or if people were strapping bombs to themselves and walking in confined areas there may have been a differing views on reasonable search?

We already have the thread about health insurance and the government mandating it during the time the founders were alive, there was the whiskey tax enacted involvement in foriegn wars maybe we should look at the actual actions they took and the world events at the time to understand things a bit better.

Getting searched when I enter the country or at the airport and having my phone conversations watched for terror threats to me is not the same as the police busting into my houae and looking to see if maybe I have something illegal

[Madison Redskin]

Actually, I agree with what I understand of the case law in that case.

That people crossing national borders have always been subject to search by national authority, for lots of reasons.

But that's a case of an already-existing exception being "grandfathered in", based on long-standing precedent. Not a case of a brand-new exception being invented.

True. The Founding Fathers did not expressly provide that government officials could subject people who wish to travel on airplanes to X-rays, pat-downs, body scans, etc. However, I think the plain language of the 4th Amendment strongly suggests that the Founding Fathers intended that they engage in such warrantless searches and seizures under certain circumstances and in a reasonable manner (which are all subject to judicial review).

Personally, I do not mind being subjected to a body scan when I try to board an airplane. I do not think it is a big inconvenience or source of embarrassment, and so I am willing to deal with it even if it only reduces the risk of a terrorist attack ever so slightly.

Unfortunately, however, the courts will not base the reasonableness of such scans on my personal opinion. The courts will have to decide whether the TSA’s body scanning protocols are reasonable in light of various factors, e.g., the degree to which a reasonable person should expect privacy during the pre-boarding screening process, the threat posed by terrorists seeking to hijack or destroy airplanes, whether there are less-invasive and equally effective alternatives to body scans, etc.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Really? I didn't know that. :)

The 4th Amendment prohibits all governments from all searches. It contains no exceptions whatsoever for "unless said citizen is performing an action which we forgot to list, in advance".

Those decisions are wrong. Every single one of them.

----------

And, to respond to the next false reasoning thrown up, yes, I'm quite aware that the 4th contains the word "unreasonable".

Anybody really want to claim that the Framers included the word "unreasonable", because they intended to pass a Constitutional Amendment which stated that it could be ignored any time Congress wants to, via a simple majority vote? A Constitutional Amendment which did not restrict the government in any way, because anything that the government decided to do was "reasonable", and therefore exempt from this Amendment?

This is the last time I'll try to explain this, but here goes:

The Fourth Amendment says that, but the Fourth Amendment is not the entire Constitution. Other clauses, specifically the Interstate Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, give the government powers that conflict with the Fourth Amendment. The conflicts are intentional, and are not easy. But, those other clauses say that the federal government can perform these functions.

By memory only, I believe the case law is established that when you got an airport you waive your Fourth Amendment rights, as a matter of law.

These questions are not easy. Pointing to 5 words in one Amendment is not "the answer." If you don't take the time to read the entire Constitution, and the progeny of case law regarding it (which I'm sure is 1000's and 1000's of pages) then don't come in with "the answer" as to whether this is Constitutional or not.

And I'm not just picking on you Larry. You are, by far, one of the best posters on these issues.

[Madison Redskin]

all warrant less searches are presumed unreasonable w/ a few exceptions, airports are probably one... and not to nit pick but flying over someone's property and looking down is not a search, that's just observation

It's an inspection that triggers 4th Amendment concerns. In fact, a number of courts wrestled with that very issue and some suppressed photographs (taken from airplanes and helicopters flying above criminals’ property) of defendants engaging in illegal activities. The Supreme Court eventually intervened and ruled that, although flyovers constitute searches, they were not “unreasonable” searches because people do not have a reasonable expectation of being shielded from such searches.

[Larry]

The problem w/ these "Searches" though isn't really that they are searches or that they violate privacy. The problem is that they don't prevent anything, they're just a show to make people think we have everything under control. I guess the show itself might scare away a few who would attempt something but I doubt it.

I'll agree with you that airport security isn't 100% guaranteed effective. No system is perfect.

But I think it's one heck of a leap from there to "they don't prevent anything".

I'll observe that before the installation of metal detectors and x-rays, that "plane hijacked to Cuba" seemed to be occurring a few times a month.

Now it happens, what, once every five years?

I'd assert that history says that airport security isn't 100% effective, but it sure has cut back on it a lot.

[Texasaurus]

MINNEAPOLIS – Former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura sued the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration on Monday, alleging full-body scans and pat-downs at airport checkpoints violate his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Ventura is asking a federal judge in Minnesota to issue an injunction ordering officials to stop subjecting him to "warrantless and suspicionless" scans and body searches.

More at link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_ventura_airport_security

As long as he continues to fly from state to state..he is going to be subject to the random singling process used at airports
to check for anything that is used in terrorism attacks

[Madison Redskin]

I doubt we'd see significantly more illegal immigration and drugs coming into the country and the best way to deal with those problems isn't hiring more big brothers to watch over peoples actions but thats another debate.

People who attempt to cross the border are effectively detained, their vehicles are subject to searches, and contraband is subject to seizure. It appears that you think that people should not be detained or subject to any searches, unless the authorities have a warrant or probable cause to do so. If that's the case, the number of people and drugs who could be smuggled into the country would skyrocket. People could simply stash illegals in their trunks and drive across the border without being stopped, questioned, and searched.


The fact that airports are publicly owned still doesn't give governments the right to search just as it doesn't give them the right to search if you were at a public park. The government owns that park, but the fact that it is publicly owned doesn't give it the right to search people who wish to use the park.

I agree, but you said in a previous post that the government has the right to search people who enter the FBI, CIA, etc. because they own those buildings (see below). So, I'm confused as to why that line of logic doesn't work for airports owned by the government.


If the fbi, cia, or pentagon want to search people that enter their buildings then they have a right to do so

I'm not trying to be obnoxious. I'm just trying to figure out when you think it okay for the government to conduct warrantless searches.

[mojobo]

People who attempt to cross the border are effectively detained, their vehicles are subject to searches, and contraband is subject to seizure. It appears that you think that people should not be detained or subject to any searches, unless the authorities have a warrant or probable cause to do so. If that's the case, the number of people and drugs who could be smuggled into the country would skyrocket. People could simply stash illegals in their trunks and drive across the border without being stopped, questioned, and searched.


With such a greater standard of living on this side of the border and the margin that people can make on drugs with them being illegal will cause these things to be prevalent whether we have a ton of checkpoints and border watchers. If we were able to stop every single import of illegal drugs the price of drugs would be very high and we would see huge drug war and gang violence on this side of the border. I don't think it would even be possible to completely stop illegal immigration and drug smuggling but the more road blocks you put in the way of them the more profitable you make it for people who can find a way to get people across. To completely stop this problem we would end up putting more and more people on border and search patrol and would end up making illegal activity and gang violence more and more profitable.


I agree, but you said in a previous post that the government has the right to search people who enter the FBI, CIA, etc. because they own those buildings (see below). So, I'm confused as to why that line of logic doesn't work for airports owned by the government.

The FBI, CIA, etc. are not open to the general public. They are agencies that operate as part of the executive branch of the government. They don't function to be a public area for people to gather like parks do. I don't think government should be involved in the ownership airports, but unfortunately doesn't change the fact they do. Since the area is open to the public, the public should have the right to be assumed innocent unless there is a reason to assume otherwise. Again the airports have the right to search you and deny any items they want from being on their planes. If I don't like it I can choose another airport that may have looser security restrictions that aren't as invasive. This may increase my risk of being a victim of a terrorist attack but it would still be my decision to make when weighing the pros and cons of the security measures.



I'm not trying to be obnoxious. I'm just trying to figure out when you think it okay for the government to conduct warrantless searches.

I don't think you are obnoxious, just completely wrong on this issue and I'm sure you feel the same way towards my opinions. If you think I'm wrong or being hypocritical call me out and I'll either defend what I said or agree with what you said.

[SkinsHokieFan]

One of the strangest coincidences to me is that in all of the flying I have done after 9/11, I have never been subjected to more then a routine metal detector

It has been a little too easy

:ols:

[Prosperity]

One of the strangest coincidences to me is that in all of the flying I have done after 9/11, I have never been subjected to more then a routine metal detector

It has been a little too easy

:ols:

neither have I actually

---------- Post added January-27th-2011 at 10:16 PM ----------


It's an inspection that triggers 4th Amendment concerns. In fact, a number of courts wrestled with that very issue and some suppressed photographs (taken from airplanes and helicopters flying above criminals’ property) of defendants engaging in illegal activities. The Supreme Court eventually intervened and ruled that, although flyovers constitute searches, they were not “unreasonable” searches because people do not have a reasonable expectation of being shielded from such searches.

The way I read the Ciraolo decision: it did not hold that it was a search and that it was reasonable, the court held that the observation was not an unreasonable search. That doesn't mean it was a reasonable search, it could also mean it wasn't a search at all. The language of the opinion refers to aerial observation as "observation" instead of "search" from the start to finish.

Doing this research for moot court (only reason I brought it up), though

[Madison Redskin]

The Ciraolo decision did not hold that it was a search and that it was reasonable, the court held that the observation was not an unreasonable search. That doesn't mean it was a reasonable search, it could also mean it wasn't a search at all. The language of the opinion refers to aerial observation as observation instead of search from the start to finish.

You're right about the SCOTUS. My bad. The lower courts treated the "observation" as an unreasonable search in violation of the 4th Amendment.

[Prosperity]

The lower court treated the "observation" as an unreasonable search in violation of the 4th Amendment.

this is what the lower court said about the "observation":

In short, we are not dealing with the observation of an open corn field which also contains a cannabis crop. We are confronted **98 instead with a direct and unauthorized intrusion into the sanctity of the *1090 home.

People v. Ciraolo, 161 Cal. App. 3d 1081, 1089-90

The lower court did do that. And that was the only time the word "observation" was used in the lower opinion, but SCOTUS referred to it as an observation over a dozen times.They held that it was not unreasonable search in the holding specifically that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy. Course if there's no expectation of privacy then there's no reason to consider whether it's an actual search or not.

[twa]

neither have I actually[COLOR="Gold"]


Not fair, I get extra processing half the time

Jesse needs to go with the flow like this dude

Man arrested after ejaculating during -
Yes, during TSA pat-down..
http://curmudgeonlyskeptical.blogspot.com/2011/01/man-arrested-after-ejaculating-during.html

[China]

Not fair, I get extra processing half the time

Jesse needs to go with the flow like this dude

Man arrested after ejaculating during -
Yes, during TSA pat-down..
http://curmudgeonlyskeptical.blogspot.com/2011/01/man-arrested-after-ejaculating-during.html

Arrested for ejaculating during a patdown, and his name was Percy Cummings. You can't make this stuff up.