Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Man Wins Lawsuit Against Airport Security, Forces Them to Learn Fourth Amendment

page: 1
45
<<   2 >>

log in

join
+20 more 
posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 09:50 PM
link   
link

I thought this would put a smile on everyones face.

Way to go guy!

Now lets see if RIAS will apply what they learned when screening passengers.
One can only dream right? lol



A man who stripped nearly naked to make a point about his constitutional rights scored a victory today after forcing airport personnel to study up on the First and Fourth Amendments, reports The Wall Street Journal.
Aaron Tobey, known as the "4th Amendment Flasher," was arrested in 2010 by the Transportation Security Administration and Richmond International Airport security after stripping down to his underwear - much beyond the point mandated by protocol - with a portion of the Fourth Amendment written on his chest in black marker: "The right of the people to be secure...against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."
Though charges were ultimately dropped, Tobey sued the TSA and the airport, and following a year and a half of legal proceedings the respective organizations involved have now settled. The details of the settlement read like an civili libertarian fantasy realized, and involve Richmond's airport security personnel being forced to brush up on American Government 101:
"Richmond International Airport officials announced this week that their security officers underwent a special two-hour training course on the First and Fourth Amendment rights of passengers as a part of a settlement with Mr. Tobey," writes WSJ's Jacob Gershman.




posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Now that there is precedent, i am curious as to whether or not there will be more passengers following suit. This could be the start of something big!



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by occrest
 

Well, according to the one non-quoted paragraph, there was no money involved in the settlement. His point has been made, so there seems no particular benefit to doing it again, at least for awhile.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 





Well, according to the one non-quoted paragraph, there was no money involved in the settlement. His point has been made, so there seems no particular benefit to doing it again, at least for awhile.


How refreshing is that? Someone stands up for what they believe in to effect change and doesn't get all lusty over the coffers!

Can someone make a birthday suit joke for me? I'm tired and lazy.



edit on 23-7-2013 by Domo1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by charles1952
 





Well, according to the one non-quoted paragraph, there was no money involved in the settlement. His point has been made, so there seems no particular benefit to doing it again, at least for awhile.


How refreshing is that? Someone stands up for what they believe in to effect change and doesn't get all lusty over the coffers!

Can someone make a birthday suit joke for me? I'm tired and lazy.



edit on 23-7-2013 by Domo1 because: (no reason given)



I agree. Sometimes one needs to stand on principles alone, without filthy lucre entering the picture.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by occrest
Now that there is precedent, i am curious as to whether or not there will be more passengers following suit. This could be the start of something big!


I was thinking the exact same thing. I hope this thread gets more attention; it's an issue that certainly deserves it!

It's amazing the extreme demonstrations that people are resorting to just to remind the rest of us what our basic constitutional rights are. It's inspiring and I hope it gains enough momentum to reach every Average Joe Six-Pack out there.

I can just imagine the kids 25 years from now rolling their eyes at me "Constitutional what?! Whatever you say, gramps!"


edit on 24-7-2013 by NarcolepticBuddha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 06:36 AM
link   
remember hearing about when he was arrested .. good to see a positive outcome to events ..

it still remains to be seen if the T(errorist) S(tate) A(gents) actually follow the fourth amendment once theyve learned it ...



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


It's people like this guy who are the silent heroes in this country. I have a ton of respect for this guy, his action is really what "defending our freedom" is all about.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Good stuff. Not that these wackos at the TSA will actually apply this new knowledge they've gained and unfortunately it is only isolated to one airport (like why couldn't the court rule to force ALL TSA agents to undergo this training?). However, a victory is a victory and you got take your wins when ever you can.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Expat888
 


I hope they change the way they treat passengers, but I doubt it.
I recall flying one time and after going through the screening process an airport official was "randomly" selecting passengers to test their hands-on baggage for drugs etc. And guess who won the sweepstakes?!
I admit I looked kind of disheveled on the day and my long-ish hair and facial whiskers probably made me look like a "terrorist" or "drug mule."
But, what I found interesting was that she asked me to read the official document that authorizes them to do this. She then asked whether I chose to undergo or decline having the procedure done. In the document, however, I had read that if you refuse it you will be prevented from boarding the plane.
So I answered, "Well, what choice do I have really?!" since I wanted to get on the plane.
She actually started giggling at my response as she obviously knew that in essence I had no choice in the matter.
Anyway I reckon if more people were as informed as this guy was regarding their constitutional rights and refused these "unreasonable" and unconstitutional searches we'd be a better example to our allies and the rest of the world.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


The 4th amendment does not apply to airport security / TSA. They are NOT commissioned law enforcement for starters. Secondly the person flying can choose another method of travel if they do not want to comply with security checkpoints at the airport.

The 4th amendment has exceptions that have been established by the Supreme Court over the years. One of those exceptions is consent. Flying is a voluntary form of travel.... You are not forced to go through airport security. If you get to the airport and decide you don't want to consent to airport TSA checks, then you are free to leave and find another form of travel.

Secondly you have no expectation of privacy in public, and an airport is open to the public - whether you are flying or picking someone up.

It would be no different than going to the hospital (non emergency), being approached by security asking you submit to a search prior to entering the Hospital. If you refuse the search, you can be asked to leave.

With this being said, I( think the TSA needs to go... I point out the above so people can understand how they get away with what they do. If people want changes, then we MUST get involved and have the laws changed to effect these areas that have risen since 9/11.

GET INVOLVED
BE HEARD
KNOW WHAT YOUR GOVERNMENT IS DOING AND HOLD THEM ACCOUNTIBLE

Its no longer enough to just bitch about it.. You must take the next step and get involved.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


You make good points as usual - and you are correct. But, ever notice our elections seem to go something like this?




posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frogs
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


You make good points as usual - and you are correct. But, ever notice our elections seem to go something like this?





Only because we allow it... Apathy does that and the founding fathers warned us of its consequences -


AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)

QUOTATION:

Question to Franklin - “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

Response by Franklin - “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

ATTRIBUTION: The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention.


**I added the question to and answer from portion above**

The terrorists are getting what they wanted... They hate our freedoms.. The ability to have more than one viewpoint, more than one religious belief, acceptance, tolerance etc etc etc...

In a haste for our government to try and safeguard those freedoms, they are coming close to killing them.

Lets try this analogy - Lets say the Citizens of the US are lightning bugs, and our country is represented by a glass jar. In its haste to protect its citizens, the government has screwed the lid on tight and forgot to poke holes in the lid.

Our own government, in its haste to try and protect us, are dooming us by rash, knee jerk reactions which are not completely thought out.

All our detractors have to do is sit back and watch.
edit on 24-7-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-7-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   
First off the title is misleading, he did not win any lawsuit.

I'm also having trouble understanding the story, hopefully someone will be able to help clarify.

1. He was in the airport about to go through security
2. He stripped down to his underwear with a portion of the 4th amendment written on his chest
3. He was arrested for his behavior
4. He sued the airport and the lawsuit was eventually settled.

Am I getting this right? To me it seems like he could have been arrested for public indecency, but that still would be a stretch. There probably shouldn't have been an arrest. But I don't see in any way the TSA violated his 4th amendment rights in this case.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Again - all good points.

I think you are correct on the terrorist aspect of it. It is the "death by a thousand cuts" strategy. But, the kicker is they have us now to the point were we are cutting ourselves.

However, I think there is another part to that you didn't mention. Power and / or control once gained is seldom given up willingly.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   
I'm pretty sure the instruction TSA agents will be given about the 1st and 4th amendments will mostly be about how to get around them.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


nope. They are government employees.
The TSA is a government agency enacted by an act of congress.
They must follow the laws of the constitution.

Private security firms cannot break the law either.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by occrest
Now that there is precedent, i am curious as to whether or not there will be more passengers following suit. This could be the start of something big!


It was a settlement, and that is not precedent. Precedent arises from a final decision in a case litigated to a conclusion. Often, a party will settle to avoid an adverse decision which would be precedent. Here, the TSA gave up.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
May this be the start of many more victories over our oppressive regime.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


Excellent! Thank you for the info.


It's refreshing to know, that we're not all brain dead and willing to stand up for what they know is right. All hope may not yet be lost.









 
45
<<   2 >>

log in

join