My email to TSA and their response about searching my suitcase
What do you guys and gals think?
Name: Jeremy ******
Email: jrb24@cox.net
Complaints: Civil Rights
Flight Info (If applicable. Enter Flight#/Airline/Terminal/Airport/Gate/Etc): Orlando- Flight 2630- Southwest
Comments: U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment
Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure
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.
Ever heard of the Constitution?? Stay out of my bags. You have NO RIGHT to search my bag without my permission. The Constitution is the surpreme law of the land and will not continue to be trampled upon. We the people are waking up and will not give up liberty for false security. Pouring out my 68 year old mother's soap is not going to save us from "terrorists." You did not have probable cause to search my bag and I will not be subjected to this again.
Thank you for your e-mail.
The Fourth Amendment functions on two levels, first prohibiting the government from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures of people, places and things, and second, requiring that warrants may only be issued upon a showing of probable cause. The Supreme Court has held, with a few notable exceptions, that searches and seizures without a warrant are per se unreasonable.
One such exception to the warrant requirement is the administrative search in the airport context. Courts have held that these searches are acceptable so long as they are limited in scope to detect weapons, explosives, and incendiaries. Searches at airport checkpoints and at the boarding gate pass constitutional muster because of their limited purpose in detecting anything that could be a danger to the security of the aircraft and the traveling public.
We encourage you to check the latest information at www.tsa.gov.
TSA Contact Center
What are the court cases?
Why does the TSA figure it responsible for using federal money and federal employees to do searches for "for profit corporations". Why is this not left to the carriers with the condition they may and there luggage may be checked or search for items that could interfere with the operations of the aircraft?
The Federal Government can do very little things right. Do we really won't the Federal government in charge of safety.
It's legal. Sorry.
I used to think that the 4th Amendment protected me and other travelers from searches. But this does not apply to airports, or other travel departure/arrival cites. Nor does it apply to the U.S. Coast Guard, which can board, and search, any boat or ship - under the guise of a 'safety inspection.'
If you want to travel, it's part of the indignity of no longer living in the Good Old U.S.A. The is the Bad New U.S.A., and we have read many stories about people being detained, searched, stripped, you name it. 60 Minutes did a piece on this - I think it's on YouTube. Leslie Stahl was the interviewer.
We have seen the 4th Amendment eviscerated by Supreme Court rulings; Border Patrol officers routinely searching vehicles at checkpoints, and numerous other violations.
What makes all this especially lamentable is that these draconian measures grew out of 9/11 and its aftermath. Many of us believe that 9/11 was staged in order to bring about the New World Order, and we are getting it in our faces every time we go to the airport.
Sorry.
Just curious to know why if
Just curious to know why if the exception is for weapons why the gov't also is okay to search for agricultural items and prohibited items such as ivory, forbidden goods.
You know air travel
is not an unalienable right...?
CHA-CHING!
CHA-CHING!
Neither is riding a bus, but the feds don't search you first
If United Airlines wants to search passengers thoroughly, that's their right. If AirBus wants to let water bottles and lighters on board, that's their right. Ever fly El Al?
The 4th Amendment is SUPPOSED to protect against the government performing unreasonable searches. If a private company wants to make people get naked and take a shower while staff rummages luggage before boarding, it's their right. The government has no say in the matter.
Explore Orthodox Christianity
I'm undecided about this
I'm undecided about this specific issue.
But aside from that, imagine if the government started making "exceptions" to the warrant requirement in other areas of our lives. For example, let's say police can search your cars or homes without a warrant if they are looking for only a specific limited set of items. That would be crazy.
...
I thought I saw a post on DP
I thought I saw a post on DP about the FCC being able to search without a warrant if they believed you were emitting pirate radio signals from your premises.
The TSA and every person in the world
Needs to know that with very few exceptions the people we trust to run our govt are by and large responsible for all the bombings. Of these the CIA comes foremost to my mind. This is the method they have used to create the police state that we currently enjoy. It's the same game plan used by this trash the world over. A good current example is the work they are doing in Pakistan, creating turmoil to gain control over the govt there. A precursor was the murder of Benazir Bhutto. Gain control over the govt, gain control of the economy, create the central bank and bankrupt the nation to further control the population alah the current situation in the United State...Kids the chickens are coming home to roost..If you never gave a rats ass for all the people the world over that we have killed through CIA terrorism...Your likely to see it here up close and personal..Maybe that's the wake up call we all need.
Just one last kick in the nuts, then a final deathblow
bag searches > airline explosion
Don't like it, don't fly.
And before you say "common sense, don't pour out 68-year-old's soap" know that you don't compromise. If you consistently display a weakness in security it will be exploited.
And also before you say "well the searches don't do anything anyway", know that that statement sounds like a really good arguement for more security...
CHA-CHING!
CHA-CHING!
oookkkkaaaaayyyyy
there is something called implied consent which at the security checkpoint means once you submit your luggage to the airline agent to be loaded onto the aircraft, you put your bag on the xray convayer belt, or you walk through the medal detector you are implying that it is ok that the tsa search you and your property. which is in other words giving your permission....... All of this is amongst the amendments. the tsa would have not one right to search your belongings if you did not give the implied consent. befor you buy your ticket you know of the tsa and that you are subject to screening befor you enter the gate area, every airline is mandated to let you know and if they didnt you should bring it up to them. litaraly you could walk around the airport a hundred times and the tsa can not bother you as long as you are befor the check point, now the law enforcement in another story they have the right at any point and time to search you with probable cause
Thanks for the Bill of Rights 101 class. I`ll leave my copy in
the terminal parking lot next time I fly.
"We have to spend money to keep from going bankrupt"
Joseph Biden VP , USA
"Since 1789 the only government on Earth that has the power to crush the American people`s liberties across the board is the government of the United States"
Robert Higgs
Let us not
rationalize obsequience such that we develop it as a habit or "politically correct" social trait.
Did they find your vibrator ?
It is far less painful to voluntarily adopt a fundamental attitude of humility than to have it thrust upon oneself as the painful consequence of ineptitude. - David R. Hawkins
Drop it
.
They have the guns and will do what they want. Same with boarding boats in U.S. waters - the Coast Guard can board any boat at any time and say it's for safety.
You're wasting your gas and you can't win this one.
Good try, however.
2 sides
First of all I think it is silly that people get pissed off that there are security checkpoints at the airport. Every time I fly I go there with the understanding that my bags can be searched. I also know that I don't have anything illegal in my bags so I am not concerned. I don't understand how people can say it's illegal or violates their rights. You have the right to freedom, but so does everyone else. So in order to protect the people on the planes they check suspicious people out and they also randomly check people. I probably fly 4 or 5 times per year and I get randomly searched about 70% of the time. It never takes more than a few minutes and they are usually very polite to me. (all but one experience i had in Salt Lake City, but that's another story).
Now on the other side of that I think our security checkpoints are incredibly weak. I think the rule about 3oz bottles of liquid is stupid considering I can take as many 3oz bottles as I want. Meaning I could put 30oz of liquid in 10 bottles and that is fine, but one 30oz bottle is not. The other thing is that I I don't think it would actually be that difficult to sneak stuff on a plane that you weren't supposed to have on there. I think the security checkpoints are merely a means of making people feel comfortable getting on the plane and don't provide any real security. If someone really wants to get something on the plane they are going to do it. Stopping me from taking a lighter or pocket knife with a 3 inch blade on it is not going to stop terrorism. Especially since many weapons can be made out of not metallic items and could easily get through metal detectors. The other funny thing is that in southern California (and other places too i am sure) i hear commercials on the radio advertising new careers in security for the airports specifically targetting people right out of highschool. So they aren't really looking for highly educated people to run these checkpoints either. Just looking for people who will make sure people don't bring 4oz of shampoo on the plane.
Thats not the point...
the point is not "I have nothing to hide." The point is, they DID NOT check my suitcase in front of me. Sorry, but that is a violation of privacy. What is their reason for this?? Like I said before, my suitcase had already been through xray and past the dogs, there was NO reason for them opening it. How much will you take from them? How far will you let them go before you say enough??
"Every time I fly I go there
Yes, everyone should realize that when they talk on the phone, their conversation will be monitored. And since they aren't talking about doing illegal things, they shouldn't worry about someone listening in.
Also, people should realize that when you buy a house and live in it, the police will enter it at will. I mean, this comes with the territory. What do you expect when you live in a house? Besides, you're not doing anything illegal in the house, are you? Well, are you?
Good point
His way of thinking is very dangerous and more and more Americans are starting to get the "its no big deal, Im not doing anything illegal," which totally misses the point. Soon enough they will get what is coming to them, then you will hear them screaming about it.
They are correct
The 4th amendment does not outlaw all searches and seizures. It never did. And only until about 1918 was there a legal standard requiring warrants for seized evidence to be admissible in court.
Sorry to break this to you, but most of the Bill of Rights is quite flaccid when it comes to protecting your rights and in some cases prescribes the manner by which your rights should be violated.
For example the 5th amendment prescribes that your property rights should only be violated when you have received some undefined "just compensation."
Just the same, your right to privacy can be violated, according to the 4th amendment, if the violation is deemed "reasonable."
This is your constitution at work.
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 issues, 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."
rn
Liberty = Responsibility
Liberty = Responsibility
Shouldn't
the airlines control the security if they are private?
Remember GWBush? He federalized the security at all airports
because some persons legally carried box cutters on airplanes. At least that is what I read in the media. I believe they should federalize all convience market managers because some of them use box cutters. Also federalize all hardware store employees , they SELL box cutters.
"We have to spend money to keep from going bankrupt"
Joseph Biden VP , USA
"Since 1789 the only government on Earth that has the power to crush the American people`s liberties across the board is the government of the United States"
Robert Higgs
Federalize the health care system they have scapels and box
cutters!!
"We have to spend money to keep from going bankrupt"
Joseph Biden VP , USA
"Since 1789 the only government on Earth that has the power to crush the American people`s liberties across the board is the government of the United States"
Robert Higgs
right to travel
Playing devil's advocate here...
We have a right to travel. Restrictions on rights means it's no longer a right. It could be argued that it's the equivalent of government banning the sale of all ammunition because we only have a right to bear arms, not to buy ammo.
There are limitations
Your right to travel ends at someones private property line, in this case, the door of the aircraft. You see, in order to fly, in the manner suggested by the original poster, you must board someone else's private property. In this case it is a privately owned aircraft for which the airline paid a hefty sum and has a right to protect (including the aircraft itself, the crew and any passengers which it assumes the safety of by allowing to board). You do not own the aircraft and therefore have no say in any manner of it's operation, nor restrictions on it's use. That is up to the owner. Your rights END where the next person's rights begin, and that includes your "right to travel" on board a privately owned commercial aircraft owned by someone other than yourself. Refuse a search and they refuse entry to the craft. Any challenge will be met with a swift dismissal in court, at your expense, including all attorneys fees on both sides and maybe even the cost of using the court. Don't believe me? Try it and prepare to open yur wallet.
Paul.
Good analysis
Good analysis. I agree with the idea of private property. (I see you covered some of these points in other posts.)
Government employees must abide by the Constitution including the Bill of Rights I think that this is the way to approach Congress. We can use this travesty to hone our Constitutional arguments. Countless have suffered under selfish and or vindictive agents. What arguments can we present?
A 79 year old female family member was detained and searched because she said something snotty to the federal agent. When agents of the government are able to use the force of government to settle private scores it is definitely criminal.
Yet there is no redress for their grievances as you pointed out in your last paragraph. Because of this the TSA reply in the original post is totally meaningless. The Supreme Court set a (questionable) standard that no court will enforce.
My sister and I have not flown for fifteen years or ever. Why are we paying for these government squads? If the airlines want to protect their private property or the airport then let them do so at their own cost. It’s a sure bet that the private guards will be instructed to treat the customers with all due respect. What we have now is Corporate Welfare in the form of government guards.
So, why have all these agents? It acts in the place of proof that the world is a terribly dangerous place.
It also works to show us that government agents are the masters and we must serve them with our unquestioning actions. Maybe there should be a open private website where people can relate their own stories?
Should we all go and buy tickets then demand a refund because of the gatekeepers in protest.
No fly zone...
My profession dictates that I must fly at least once a year. I however choose never to fly or for that matter set foot in a federal building.
I asked this question of a
I asked this question of a TSA supervisor at the airport and his answer was that case law allowed the check points. I then asked him why/how case law could trump the Constitution. He replied that I should talk to my elected representatives and declined to answer any more questions.
Find out who killed the Constitution
The government has a monopoly on interpreting the law. Why wouldn't the government rule in its own favor?
When the government is the sole arbitor of what is, and what is not Constitutional -- it will broadly interpret its delegated powers and it will narrowly interpret our natural rights
Who Killed The Constitution
Hmmmm.
How could it trump the constitution? All laws have been subverted AWAY from the constitution. Check into the UCC. UCC is the law of commerce. The last time I checked, commerce does not have constitutional liberties.They have just been keeping the illusion going with organizations such as the A_LU.