Is there any list or guidelines of what TSA considers appropriate patdown?

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
Load up on cabbage, beans, Taco Bell, and LOTS of heavily garlic~laced foods for at least a week before flying. You'll know it's enough when you can smoke yourself out of your own car, despite the windows being rolled down.


Then retaliate. :)
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Here's a pretty good discussion on it: http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyin...tsa-legally-circumvents-the-fourth-amendment/

A constant complaint from those opposed to the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) new ‘enhanced’ pat down searches is that these pat downs violate a traveler’s Fourth Amendment rights.

For those unfamiliar with the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution it reads “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.”

While the new TSA enhanced pat downs may violate the Fourth Amendment on the surface, what most people are not aware of is that the 9th Circuit Court of the United States ruled on the search of passengers in airports back in 1973, which effectively suspends limited aspects of the Fourth Amendment while undergoing airport security screening.

In 1973 the 9th Circuit Court rules on U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908, there are key pieces of wording that give the TSA its power to search essentially any way they choose to. The key wording in this ruling includes “noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.”

U.S. vs Davis goes onto to state “[an administrative search is allowed if] no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.”

U.S. vs Davis was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court in 1986 in U.S. vs Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d 899, 901 with this ruling “To judge reasonableness, it is necessary to balance the right to be free of intrusion with society’s interest in safe air travel.”
These 9th Circuit Court ruling laid the path for the creation of Public Law 107-71, the Aviation Transportation and Security Act, which was virtually unopposed by legislators when it was it was signed into law on the 19th of November 2001 by President George W. Bush. This law laid the groundwork for the Transportation Security Administration and the evolution of its current security procedures.

These laws give the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Transportation Security Administration significant legal latitude to perform the searches utilizing their current procedures without fear of violating the Fourth Amendment. Any attempt to oppose TSA searches citing the Fourth Amendment would be rebuffed unless done through the proper legal channels.

In order to create an effective change of the TSA’s policies, those who oppose current procedures should organize and file a legal action seeking to overturn or alter the U.S. vs David ruling by the 9th Circuit Court.

Presently the TSA has what appears to be a “blank check” in writing out what is “no more intrusive or intensive than necessary” and what is “confined in good faith to that purpose.” With the latitude the agency has been granted … not only does a legal precedent need to be set that challenges U.S. vs Davis, but further oversight of the TSA needs to be created by the House & Senate committees responsible for overseeing and funding the agency.
 

peonyu

Platinum Member
Mar 12, 2003
2,038
23
81
Aka do they follow the constitutionally allowed pat downs that LEOs conduct?

The TSA website doesn't have shit on what they consider reasonable pat down and I am certainly not letting anyone put their hands down my pants...

http://gothamist.com/2010/11/22/3_women_say_tsa_screeners_groped_va.php

Dress like a Sheik and chant "Allah is great" while waiting to get booked for your flight. The TSA will just smile and let you pass through since your a member of the religion of peace.
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
Sounds to me like it's time the SCOTUS weighed in and this ruling was challenged again.

Especially in light of the fact that the key reasoning:
noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.
essentially boils down to this:
"These searches are not subject to the limitations of the fourth amendment because we do them A LOT."
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,163
136
Love how the press (bored again) is making a big deal about this.
Reality vs hype doesn't add up.
I just flew back from NASCR in Florida and NO ONE was complaining
about security checks at the airport, not to mention the illusion of security rape
the press has everyone believing is now common place.
I really wish the news media would get back to reporting news and not making-up news.
I miss the old days of when Huntley Brinkley, Cronkite and Chancellor gave us the news.
And FOX was a furry animal that you found in the woods, or hunted by Brits on horses.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Love how the press (bored again) is making a big deal about this.
Reality vs hype doesn't add up.
I just flew back from NASCR in Florida and NO ONE was complaining
about security checks at the airport, not to mention the illusion of security rape
the press has everyone believing is now common place.
I really wish the news media would get back to reporting news and not making-up news.
I miss the old days of when Huntley Brinkley, Cronkite and Chancellor gave us the news.
And FOX was a furry animal that you found in the woods, or hunted by Brits on horses.

Huh, I have need more coverage of this on CNN than I have on Fox.
 

zod96

Platinum Member
May 28, 2007
2,872
68
91
I would rather be padded down on the ground then blow up in the air......
 

Xellos2099

Platinum Member
Mar 8, 2005
2,277
13
81
Think of it another way, do YOU honestly think TSA agent "enjoy" padding down on on pants? It fracking stink! Or do you truly believe TSA is fill with Gay and rapist?
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
Proper TSA patdown

minivan.jpg
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
I would rather be padded down on the ground then blow up in the air......

Wrong answer. Didn't you get the memo? It's cool to act like TSA is evil and unnecessary now. Just like it was cool to blindly follow GWB after 9/11.
 

zod96

Platinum Member
May 28, 2007
2,872
68
91
Then I'll tell what. Why don't we have 2 lines at the airport. 1 with almost no security like what you want and 1 with all the pat downs and body scanners. Then lets see which one doesn't explode mid air :) Their is a reason no Israeli airline has every been blown up, we should take a que from them....