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.
–4th Amendment, U.S. Constitution
It appears that too many Americans today either don’t know they have this right, or are far too willing to give it up for some false sense of security.
All that being said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
He who trades his liberty for security deserves neither
B Franklin
I wish NOT flying was an option for me. I’ll be flying to New York for Christmas and my father’s 86th birthday. Probably won’t have any trouble in Peoria, but likely my “choice” upon return will be to have a pornographic picture of me taken (that may give me cancer), or be sexually assaulted. And I’m more likely to die driving through the mountains of Pennsylvania this time of year than I am at the hands of an airplane terrorist.
Given the choices, which would you choose?
Didn’t Bush/Cheney through out this Right when they dreamed up the Patriot Act? Among others.
Vonster: False dichotomy. The choice is NOT to live up to the Constitution or die. Silly man. Because America is a Constitutional republic, we die when we stop following the constitution.
Lots of histrionics on this issue. You do have a right to protection for unlawful search and seizure but you have NO constitutional right to fly without screening. I travel weekly for work and while think many of our “precautions” that the TSA have imposed provide a false sense of security — it’s not a difficult screening process. I’ve been in many courthouses where the screening process was more intrusive and time consuming. The new system does not take a “pornographic” picture Anne — if your view is that puritanical — you’d be better off traveling by horse and buggy.
“From time to time each society must negotiate with itself on how far it is willing to bend it’s own rules in order to preserve it’s existence.”
Charlie: Frankin didn’t live in our age.
Peo Proud — Nevertheless, airport screenings are still subject to fourth amendment protections, as multiple court decisions have affirmed (for instance, U.S. v. Marquez [9th Circuit Court of Appeals]: “However, even with the grave threat posed by airborne terrorist attacks, the vital and hallowed strictures of the Fourth Amendment still apply: these searches must be reasonable to comport with the Constitution”). Furthermore, the Supreme Court said in Shapiro v. Thompson that, “This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement.”
So ultimately, the question is whether these new TSA screenings (virtual strip searches, “enhanced” pat-downs) are “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment. I believe they are not.
vonster: Neither did the writers of The Bible.
““From time to time each society must negotiate with itself on how far it is willing to bend it’s own rules in order to preserve it’s existence.””
Whose “survival”… The Oil Industry and The Banking Industry?
The Rutherford Institute recently filed a Fourth Amendment lawsuit against Janet Napolitano in Federal Court on behalf of three passengers subjected to invasive body searches by TSA agents
vonster, you know better. You give up the Bill of Rights for this phony “security” system and it’s all over. We will be living in a police state (it’s getting darn close). As Patrick Henry said, “Give me Liberty or Give Me Death”
Somehow I figured Emtronics would blame it all on Bush. Obama has been doing that for two years. Follow the leader. Ho Hum.
Well POO? Didn’t Bush trow this right out or not with the Patriot Act? The fact that Obama is following suit doesn’t make it any better.
With the advise and consent of Congress.
CJ — All good points. However, I don’t think the Supreme Court has ever indicated that an individual has a right to their preferred method of travel with whatever limitations/restrictions/security measures they choose to allow. I don’t disagree with most of your point — however, perhaps my viewed is skewed due to frequent travel — but I have yet to feel that any rights granted to me by the constitution have been impacted by the minor restrictions / precautions imposed on me by TSA to get through security. I’m not asked for anything other than my name, a valid ticket, and to comply with a minor search (that doesn’t deprive me of anything) to ensure that I’m not carrying explosives or other illegal items. I’m not so my freedom of movement is not impinged. So i guess I do believe they are “reasonable” given that nothing is taken from me, none of my rights are infringed, and I have the choice not to be subjected to me. Now if they imposed these requirements on every method of travel — train, car, etc…..such that they severely impacted freedom of movement — I’d begin to agree more with you.
I love the founding fathers — but I think you’re misapplying their concept of the right “that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement.” Nothing at all about current regulations affect my right to do so. Yes I have to deal with poorly trained, superficial, and (in many cases) meaningless requirements, but I still get to go coast to coast in under 5 hours.
Peo Proud — When you say “a minor search,” are you referring to being treated as a criminal, being required to remove your shoes, having TSA agents rifle through your bags and seize nail clippers and other hygiene products, having agents touch a person’s groin and breasts with their hands or look at your virtually naked body through a scanner, etc.? When you say “that doesn’t deprive me of anything,” do you mean, besides your dignity?
Well, “Peo Proud” imposing radiation or molestation on all forms of travel is exactly what the “security” (read “Police State”) crowd are after. Getting their boot in the door at airports (and courthouses and govt. buildings) is just the beginning. Until we stand up and say “NO!” they will keep pushing. It has nothing to do with “keeping us safe”
CJ:
With over 100,000 miles logged in airflight travel comprising over 45 flights in the last year, I have yet to:
1) Be treated like a criminal;
2) Have TSA search my bags (other than xray);
3) Have them Seize nail clippers — you can travel freely with them;
4) Been deprived of my hygiene products (though I have to carry smaller sizes);
5) Be patted down – let alone groped;
But I’ll grant you that I have to take my shoes off. What indignity?!?!?
Mouse:
The sky is falling the sky is falling. There’s no conspiracy here to take over the country. I grant you the approaches employed are designed for a false sense of security in many cases — the American public wouldn’t stand for the measures necessary to truly keep them safe — though they expect it of their government.
Fear, panic, insecurity, and paranoia…
Now we are living the GOOD LIFE!!!
Sigh.
If you don’t like the airport screenings, don’t fly. The government isn’t forcing everyone to get an invasive full-body scan to get from one city to another; they’re mandating the practice for those who choose the convenience of flying.
There are plenty of other transportation options available for intercity travel. You don’t need a pat-down before getting on an Amtrak train (although the railroads do have the right to do that); you don’t have to go through a full-body scan before getting on a Peoria Charter or Greyhound intercity bus; and you definitely don’t have to walk through a metal detector before pulling onto I-74. There are plenty of viable alternatives to flying — just none quite as convenient.
If you’re unwilling to go through a two-minute screening to shave literally days off your travels, there are plenty of alternatives to flying. In fact, there’s a strong argument to be made that by choosing to fly, rather than travel by train, bus, or car and being fully aware of the screening processes in place, travelers have decided that said screenings are not unreasonable. Our freedom to travel does not necessarily guarantee us the right to the fastest possible means of travel.
And (unfortunately?) I’ve never seen this in my travels either:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/12/after-failing-tsa-screening-flier-in-wheelchair-and-her-underwear-leaves-okla/1?csp=obnetwork
ex Playboy model/Dentist Tammy Banovac…a publicity stunt.
I would rather go through the more rigorous screenings and not be found to be a terrorist, than have the person in front of me not be thoroughly screened, and turn out to be a terrorist with a bomb.
Dennis in Peoria: fear, anxiety and paranoia…
And what keeps you from fearing a terrorist flying a private plane into your jet? Or shooting it down with a shoulder rocket?
Charlie, not much you can do about that anymore than the jet you are flying in suddenly gets hit by a lightening bolt or sudden upsurge of winds, or an engine catching fire. But I know in those scenarios, the jet can most likely land safely in such an emergency.
Good news today on another constitutional issue. A judge found that certain parts of Obamacare are unconstitutional. He doesn’t see how the federal government can force you to buy health insurance. Maybe we don’t have to go down the socialist path after all.
“He doesn’t see ”
I guess we can all stop our tax withholding from our paychecks!!!!
Peo Proud: What’s your point? That because it’s never happened to you, then it’s never happened to anyone? I suppose it’s possible that the people claiming to have been subjected to invasive pat-downs or required to go through x-ray scanners, etc., could be suffering from a mass hallucination. Come to think of it, I’ve never had my luggage lost by an airline; does that mean they’ve never lost anyone’s luggage?
Sterling, Dennis, et. al.: I’m just curious (and I mean this as a serious question), what would have to happen before you would say the government was crossing the line? E.g., what if they required actual strip searches? Would you think that was going too far, or would you submit to them as a reasonable price to pay for promised security in flight? Or what if some suicide bomber someday sticks explosives up his butt, and then the TSA decides that all passengers must henceforth undergo a body cavity search before boarding? Would you bend over and say, “I would rather go through the more rigorous screenings and not be found to [have explosives up my butt], than have the person in front of me not be thoroughly screened, and turn out to be a terrorist with a bomb”? Would you say, “If you don’t like the airport screenings, don’t fly”? I respect that you don’t find the current requirements onerous like I do — we all draw our lines in different places. But I’d really like to know, where do you draw your line? Where is that point that you say “this far and no farther”?
“The only good cavity search is the one performed on the Thanksgiving turkey.” Benji Franklin
The real travesty here is that all this screening is political correctness run amok. The Obama administration lacks the political courage to target only those most likely to commit a terrorist act.
CJ and nontimendum: Amen.
Dennis: “I would rather go through the more rigorous screenings and not be found to be a terrorist, ..” Thanks but no thanks, I already know that I am not a terrorist.
I received this email link …. interesting items that can disrupt the screening process ….
http://astrology.yahoo.com/channel/life/8-surprising-items-that-set-off-security-alarms-2415551/?pg=2
What if or when someone invents some type of explosive which can be molded to a person’s body and avoid detection, what then? Maybe not in my lifetime yet there are constantly ‘innovations’ …. what then, no more flying?
Not sure where I draw the line, but yes, a cavity search would be too much for me. Strip Search? Perhaps, if the TSA agents are female.
(Joking!)
Look, if you don’t appear nervous or do anything suspicious….don’t look like you’re trying to hide anything under your clothing, or try to refuse
certain security rules…chances are you will just have to go through the standard metal detectors and wand waves (perhaps a bag search)…and nothing else. Also, I believe these ‘body scanners’ are only at the bigger city airports, not Peoria? (Correct me if I am wrong)
CJ – I’d draw the line on an invasive body search but not the superficial ones currently in place. I’ve been through the body scanner about 25 times. Frankly, I doubt anyone is enjoying looking at the pics but it seems to be the only measure they’ve put in place that has a real chance of detecting individuals attempting to board with dangerous items. I’m not a government is right at any level type of person (really I’m not) — we just differ where the line is drawn. I believe that we all must sacrifice some “liberties” (if you classify being screened as sacrificing liberty granted by the constitution) as individuals to protect the liberties of us as a collective body.
Just like the courts have defined reasonable search and seizure for the police, they will define them for air travelers. I think many of the other policy choices implemented in the last 8 years by 2 different administrations are a MUCH greater potential threat to our individual liberties than the screening process.
Dennis:
Here is a link for a list of airports with scanners … for whatever this information is worth …. the pictures are worth a thousand words…
According to the TSA, there are currently 385 full body scanners in 68 different US airports. Check to see if your local airport is using these scanners to sneak a peak at your goodies.
Chicago Midway International Airport, Houston William P. Hobby Airport, and Saipan International Airport are supposed to receive their full body scanners soon. Given that many of the airports in the list are major destinations, chances are someone’s going to get a real good look at you the next time you fly (which could very well be this holiday season). Supposedly, TSA’s goal is to up the amount of full body scanners to a 1000 by the end of 2011 too. [TSA via Geekosystem]
http://gizmodo.com/5694997/heres-a-list-of-us-airports-currently-using-full-body-scanners?skyline=true&s=i
Peo Proud:
For whatever the value of this paper about the potential cancer risks associated with the scanners …
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3685/cancer-ray-opt-out.pdf
Back to the success story, the person who wrote the piece printed this letter addressing the cancer risks of the naked body scanners. He handed copies to the people behind him in line, they all opted out at once. I guess it’s hard to do massive gropings of passengers, so they all skated through security. If there’s one thing government employees don’t want to do it’s a lot of extra work.
http://lonelyconservative.com/2010/11/list-of-airports-using-full-body-scanners/