Breaking: Libertarians Call For Arrest Of TSA Agents

Originally posted by 2012srb
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Cheap shots at people you disagree with add nothing constructive to the discussion.

Ive been saying this for some time now. As I said before though, you decided to apply to post to yourself, not me.

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.

But I thouyght this president could do no wrong...this is his party,and he is 100% responsible....where is the righteous indignation about what this country is falling into.....instead we get "the cops did....",or some such.....its ok to critize but at least go at the source,not the pawns.....s

reply to post by Xcathdra


Seriously, you use that train of thought, slavery could be made legal again, torture, murder, rape, anything goes if you say ``someone not commissioned`` can do anything they want using any pretext they want if they are on private property.

Either you're a troll, an idiot, or a fascist. Which is it? Or you could be an idiot fascist, since you have to be an idiot to be a fascist in the first place.

And airports aren't ``private property``, they are a means of transportation, controlled by the government. Doesn't matter if the companies are private. The government, or anyone for that matter, CANNOT VIOLATE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS. They do, they go to jail.

If airports were ``private property``, anyone could open an airport with no TSA at all, no body scanners, only 80s type security where they don't violate anyone's rights and they would be allowed to do so. Just try to set up that kind of airport, the feds are gonna come and shut it down before it's even open.

reply to post by Xcathdra

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.

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.

Well thanks to SCOTUS we do have a two part test to determine this.

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

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.

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)

I would think there is some 4th amendment implications here.

reply to post by Vitchilo


I think he's an attorney. That would speak for itself.

He likes Sherlock Holmes.

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.

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.

In most states simple criminal assault is defined as an unwelcome offensive touching.

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): "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."

Lets try it this way -

US Constitution - 4th Amendment

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.

In depth overview of how the 4th applies in various situations

Exceptions to the 4th Amendment -
* - Conesnt
* - Warrant
* - Plain sight
* - Incident to an arrest
* - mitigating circumstance (life or death)

Going through a security checkpoint at the airport falls under the first part - Conesent.

By going through the checkpoint, you are voluntarily agreeing to the search of your belongings and the pat down of your outter clothing. The key term is volunatarily in this case.

Your patdown -
Terry vs. Ohio
You will note in the Supreme Court decision that it applies to Law Enforcement. It falls under an exception to the exclusionary rule of the 4th amendment. The Court took notice that while the 4th amendment exists to prevent an illegal collection of evidence, a terry frisk is not geared to that goal. Instead its geared as officer safety, and since its not intended to find evidence, its not a 4th amendment violation.

Those who argue about what consent is -

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

Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act but which may operate in violation of law. .

FBI - Color of Law Explanation

Law Enforcement has the appearance of acting under the color of law, where as a civilian does not. Civilians are not empowered to make an arrest in the same manner law enforcement is. Civilians are not empowered to submit a request for a search warrant or an arrest warrant where as law enforcement is etc etc etc.

Federal Civil Right legislation that modified sections of 42 USC

A win yet a loss for those who are against the TSA -
ATS Thread - man found not guilty for refusing to provide identification to TSA

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.

The reason its a double edge sword. In that ruling it reaffirmed the argument that the TSA is not acting under color of law as commissioned law enforcement.

There are currently about 6 lawsuits pending against the TSA on 4th amendment argumens alone.

Here is the info you guys need to understand the basics. Now that you have the info and the website, including the FBI website where you can file civil righ violation complaints, its time to quit complaining.

You guys have the info and the website, do something about it instead of whining if you want the laws changed.

reply to post by Xcathdra


You say the TSA is a commissioned entity...ok. I believe are a commissioned entity too am I not right? They are put in place by federal, state, and local governments...so if the TSA is part of the federal government just as some cops are, then doesn't that mean the TSA has to obey laws as well? No matter what part of government you are, you still have to obey the laws and they continue to trample the 4th Amendment.

You bring up mall security staff...ok. Mall staff has the right to search your belongings with probable cause, they can not, CAN NOT, touch you in inappropriate places such as the TSA; the TSA still continues to do so. If a mall security staff gropes you, you can file a lawsuit for sexual harassment.

Regardless of where you are, it has nothing to searches, it has to do with sexual assault which is illegal anywhere you go in America no ifs ands, or buts.

reply to post by Vitchilo


uhm.. riiight...

Branson airport is the first fully private airport in the nation, excluding them from several federal guidelines for airport operations.

Airport Council International
Here is a breakdown of what entities won / operate the airports.

While I dont mind people partaking in the debate, I find it difficult to entertain an argument from a non American in this case. Simply making an argument using words like rights and violated and no way is not an argument base din fact, but emotion coupled with a lack of knowledge.

When I want to know how Canadaian law works, your my first stop.

Thanks though.

xcathdra, I am unsworn. Can I touch your privates just to inspect them? I want to make sure that everyone is safe. you read to be inspected by me? I will do it without gloves if you feel better.

reply to post by Xcathdra


If you need to fly, you have no choice but to be groped.

The federal government has instituted legal sexual assault via the TSA.

I don't give them consent to touch my breasts yet they do.

Fourth degree sexual assault.

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.

And the courts would disagree with your view on this. See the posts above for the link to the ATS threa dealing with the guy who was found not guilty based off of a TSA encounter. The ruling by the state court on the status of the TSA furthered the argument they are not acting under the color of law, regardless of who their employer is.

Or is the state court wrong?

Originally posted by grey580
Well thanks to SCOTUS we do have a two part test to determine this.

Which is not enough to cleary establish what they are. Sadly that task is left to Congress.

While im glad you started going through Supreme Court decisions, the one you quoted is from 1967. There is more current case law that has changed that ruling, both at the State and FEderal court levels.

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.

You dont have an expectation of privacy in public. The Supreme Court has ruled for vehicles, stating you have a marginal expectation of privacy in your vehicle, but not absolute like a house. A public area is not private, and is not applicable to his situation.

The "strip searching" is being challeneged, as that one even confused me. The only "law enforcement" grouping ive ever seen that is capable of doing a strip search is the jails / prions and only under specific guideline. Even schools have been prohibited from strip searches.

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)

Yes and no.. As I said, since you are not being forced to go through security (IE cops arent showing up at your house, placing you in handcuffs and forcing you to the airport), its consent and therefore no violation of your 4th amendment.

You have every ability to find another way to get to your destination.

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)

Consent is the key word.. Find a way to refuse consent and force the issue and go for a case law argument.

OR

You guys can research the info and applicable laws, get organized and go after the TSA and the Government in a legal forum, instead of in a chat forum.

Ron Paul's on Texas Straight Talk: Abolish the TSA, Privatize Airport Security!

Originally posted by 2012srb
reply to post by Vitchilo

 

I think he's an attorney. That would speak for itself.

He likes Sherlock Holmes.

Cop - American as aoopsed to Canadian.

and elimintate the impossible and whatever remains, however improbable must be the truth.

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.

LOL ok.. Since we are 50 states and not one big state, laws will vary state to state. So while yes, that is a statute of some kind for sexual assault, it wont apply.

A for effort though

reply to post by Xcathdra

Your rights end the moment they begin to interfere with others. What part of that do you not comprehend?

Yeah except for thug officers like you who think they have free rein to violate anyone's rights and defend fellow thugs like TSA, They are government agents but thugs claim since they are not sworn they have the right to violate your rights despite the many cases where they have charged people with a crime for refusing to be searched, People are compelled by force they do not consent the are acting as agents of the federal government enforcing supposed laws that people are compelled to obey by force intimidation harassment etc. They should all be tried and punished. Show us the contract that is disclosed when people buy thier ticket. Non-disclosure voids any contract. Force or coercion voids any contract. Acting under color of law is not acting lawfully it is pretending to act lawfully.

You are the one who has not clue what you are talking about and just keep regurgitating the bullship you were spoon fed in the academy. Officers like you with your thug attitude and complete and utter lack of knowledge and obvious low intelligence are the bane of society and will cause the blow back you will so justly deserve!

reply to post by Xcathdra


You're fighting with one of your own.

Retired. 25 years.

Originally posted by dubiousone

In most states simple criminal assault is defined as an unwelcome offensive touching.

And an assault on an officer is any unwanted physical contact.

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):

are you really that incapable of making an argument based on facts instead of resorting to the classic towing the party line collaborator BS argument? Its old and not true. As I said, jsut because you and others dont know the law, doesnt mean im the problem. I would think your more mature and intelligent than that, so try to prove me right ok?

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)

All of which is nice, but irrelevant since you are giving consent when you go through security.

As I have stated before, learn the law, arm yourselves with knowledge and fight in a real forum where you can effect chang, instead of just crying and whining in these forums and doing nothing.

4th Amendment exception - Consent.