It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by 2012srb
reply to post by Xcathdra
Cheap shots at people you disagree with add nothing constructive to the discussion.
Who are not comissioned officers. Secondly you voluntarily agree to the screening process by going through it. The different I am pointing out, that you missed in the academy, is you are free to leave the airport and take another form of travel if you dont want to submit to the security screening.
You are not being forced to go through the process, which means you arent seized, which means there is no 4th amendment implications. A 4th amendment violation would occur if you are forced into a car at your house, forcibly brought to the airport, forcibly placed into a screening line and forcibly searched.
In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) Justice Harlan issued a concurring opinion articulating the two-part test later adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court as the test for determining whether a police or government search is subject to the limitations of the Fourth Amendment: (1) governmental action must contravene an individual's actual, subjective expectation of privacy; (2) and that expectation of privacy must be reasonable, in the sense that society in general would recognize it as suc
Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by 2012srb
and im telling you that what the TSA does is not asault. Show your statute that supports your argument please.
Amendment IV
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.
Consent Searches.—Fourth Amendment rights, like other constitutional rights, may be waived, and one may consent to search of his person or premises by officers who have not complied with the Amendment.79 The Court, however, has insisted that the burden is on the prosecution to prove the voluntariness of the consent80 and awareness of the right of choice.
81 Reviewing courts must determine on the basis of the totality of the circumstances whether consent has been freely given or has been coerced. Actual knowledge of the right to refuse consent is not essential to the issue of voluntariness, and therefore police are not required to acquaint a person with his rights, as through a Fourth Amendment version of Miranda warnings.
82 But consent will not be regarded as voluntary when the officer asserts his official status and claim of right and the occupant yields to these factors rather than makes his own determination to admit officers.83 When consent is obtained through the deception of an undercover officer or an informer gaining admission without, of course, advising a suspect who he is, the Court has held that the suspect has simply assumed the risk that an invitee would betray him, and evidence obtained through the deception is admissible.84
Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act but which may operate in violation of law. .
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) - An Albuquerque jury has acquitted a Seattle man who refused to show his identification to Transportation Security Administration officers at a New Mexico airport.
Mocek was facing several charges, including failure to obey an officer and concealing his identity. He was found not guilty of all charges on Friday.
Originally posted by grey580
They are not LEO but they are Federal Employees who have taken an oath to uphold the constitution.
The 4th Amendment safeguards us from unreasonable searches. Now the question does come into play are the TSA searches unreasonable? Then we get into what is an unreasonable search in relation to the 4th amendment.
Originally posted by grey580
Well thanks to SCOTUS we do have a two part test to determine this.
Originally posted by grey580
So in the first part is the expectation of privacy. The test here is the evidence public. I would think that everyone would agree that your privates are private. They are not readily available to the public.
Originally posted by grey580
And in the second part... and again I'm pretty sure everyone would agree that your expectation to keep your privates private is a reasonable expectation. (if this isn't the case all women must go topless J/K)
Originally posted by grey580
I would think there is some 4th amendment implications here.edit on 4-7-2011 by grey580 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by 2012srb
reply to post by Vitchilo
I think he's an attorney. That would speak for itself.
He likes Sherlock Holmes.
Originally posted by 2012srb
reply to post by Xcathdra
Fourth degree sexual assault. Except as provided in sub. (3), whoever has sexual contact with a person without the consent of that person is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
Sub. 3 specifies intercourse.
Statute number omitted for my privacy.
Your rights end the moment they begin to interfere with others. What part of that do you not comprehend?
Originally posted by dubiousone
In most states simple criminal assault is defined as an unwelcome offensive touching.
Originally posted by dubiousone
I already know what you're going to say next (as the resident apologist for all things law enforcement, you've become so predictable on these threads):
Originally posted by dubiousone
"But the federal government has decreed that TSA agents may fondle the breasts, genitals, and buttocks of those members of the public who choose to travel by air as they, the TSA agents, deem necessary and appropriate under all the circusmnatcnes, so long as there is no sexual motivation involved. Whatever the feds decide is OK pre-empts everything any local legislature or law enforcement agency says to the contrary."edit on 7/4/2011 by dubiousone because: (no reason given)edit on 7/4/2011 by dubiousone because: (no reason given)