# The TSA Vs. The Fourth Amendment



## CHamilton

The TSA Vs. The Fourth Amendment: You're Free To Board A Plane, But You're Not Free To Leave The Screening Area



> ...extenuating circumstances, dating back to the 1970s, have turned an airplane ticket into a waiver of Fourth Amendment rights. ...
> 
> Although they aren't told explicitly, simply entering the screening area is giving consent to the TSA to search you and your belongings. Should you wish to revoke this consent, you would need to make that decision before reaching the screening area. Practically speaking, this means finding another way to reach your destination. There's no way to assert your rights and still board a plane, even if you haven't broken any laws and aren't planning to.
> 
> Caselaw (and some common sense) supports the TSA's claim that travelers are not free to leave the screening area. But the TSA should be honest about it, rather than simply expect all travelers to be perfectly fine with waiving their rights for the "privilege" of boarding a plane. And the courts should be wary of issuing more caselaw supporting the expansion of "constitution-free zones" to anywhere the TSA (or other government agencies) might be operating.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

CHamilton said:


> The TSA Vs. The Fourth Amendment: You're Free To Board A Plane, But You're Not Free To Leave The Screening Area
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the courts should be wary of issuing more caselaw supporting the expansion of "constitution-free zones" to anywhere the TSA (or other government agencies) might be operating.
Click to expand...

Geeze, this line of reasoning might almost make one think that The Constitution has at least something to do with defining the role of the Federal Government in the lives of average citizens. :blink: :blink: :blink:


----------



## Shawn Ryu

I suppose right to travel on air is not guaranteed in the Constitution and I would imagine airlines would want their passengers searched before they board anyway.


----------



## jis

So the _No Fly List_ got ruled unconstitutional for transgressing due process - _5th Amendment_. This should get interesting.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/no-fly-list-blog

Who knows, this might even lead to a serious _4th Amendment_ challenge to the whole TSA search thing, or at least the details of the process.


----------



## jis

So TSA came up with a Christmas gift for the nation

http://www.slashgear.com/now-the-tsa-can-force-you-to-go-through-the-body-scanner-22419599/

and there are people trying to do something about it.....

http://professional-troublemaker.com/2015/12/24/corbett-sues-tsa-over-new-policy-to-refuse-opt-outs/


----------



## Bob Dylan

According to a HLS Report to Congress, in the last quarter of Fiscal year 2015, the crack TSA Screeners failed to ID 67 out of 70 weapons that the Undercover HLS agents had in their carry on luggage during screening tests.

The Airports involved were redacted.

More Security Theater from the Modern Keystone Cops, aka the Clowns in Blue!


----------



## rickycourtney

Setting aside their enormous price tag and their (overblown) privacy concerns... I've grown to like the full body scanners.

They're less susceptible to the common mistakes infrequent travellers make.

Example:

John Q. Hasntflownsince1999 leaves a handful of change in his pocket because he doesn't understand the concept of "take _everything_ out of your pockets" and goes through security.

If he goes through a magnetometer... they have to give him a full body pat down... slowing the line down for the rest of us that can understand basic instructions.

If he goes through a full body scanner... they get a cartoon image that tells the agent to pat down his pocket. It takes like 10 seconds.

Even better than that... they're good at determining if you've left something benign on your body. They typically don't trigger for belt buckles, a single coin, your watch or that piece of wire you're using to hold your glasses together.



Bob Dylan said:


> According to a HLS Report to Congress, in the last quarter of Fiscal year 2015, the crack TSA Screeners failed to ID 67 out of 70 weapons that the Undercover HLS agents had in their carry on luggage during screening tests.


That's carry on luggage... the article Charlie linked to has nothing to do with the baggage scanners.

But yes, we're all players in the world's biggest theater performance.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Really? I actually don't mind the TSA and haven't run into a problem with them. People have too much time on their hands these days.


----------



## Ryan

No, some of us have a vague notion of what our Constitutional rights are and don't like seeing them whittled away for no reason.


----------



## Railroad Bill

Ryan said:


> No, some of us have a vague notion of what our Constitutional rights are and don't like seeing them whittled away for no reason.


Since I do not fly anymore, it is rather a moot issue for me, but if and when I decide to get on an airplane again, I am hopeful that everyone on the plane has been thoroughly searched.

I guess my constitutional rights would not be worth much when my plane gets blown out of the sky at 40,000 feet.


----------



## BCL

The key word in the 4th Amendment is "unreasonable". Many couch entering an airport as a voluntary action and one where the visitor should understand that they may have to submit to certain rules that wouldn't apply on a sidewalk. There's plenty of case law that 4th Amendment protections don't apply (to some effect) in certain places such as airports. So the question is whether or not blanket searches of everyone are unreasonable or not.


----------



## Ryan

Railroad Bill said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, some of us have a vague notion of what our Constitutional rights are and don't like seeing them whittled away for no reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Since I do not fly anymore, it is rather a moot issue for me, but if and when I decide to get on an airplane again, I am hopeful that everyone on the plane has been thoroughly searched.I guess my constitutional rights would not be worth much when my plane gets blown out of the sky at 40,000 feet.
Click to expand...

That argument makes the (invalid) assumption that the searches are reasonable and actually do something to prevent weapons from getting on the plane.


----------



## BCL

Ryan said:


> Railroad Bill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, some of us have a vague notion of what our Constitutional rights are and don't like seeing them whittled away for no reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Since I do not fly anymore, it is rather a moot issue for me, but if and when I decide to get on an airplane again, I am hopeful that everyone on the plane has been thoroughly searched.I guess my constitutional rights would not be worth much when my plane gets blown out of the sky at 40,000 feet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That argument makes the (invalid) assumption that the searches are reasonable and actually do something to prevent weapons from getting on the plane.
Click to expand...

I forgot I had a pocket knife on me the last time I went to an airport. I had a gate pass and got through all the shoe removal and jacket off. Somehow they found it - a Swiss Army Officer Classic. So at the very least they managed to find that.

Granted - back in the late 90s I openly carried a similar sized knife at an airport and onto the plane. I mean - it was hanging from a beaded chain around my neck. I just dropped it in the basket with my watch and coins and I didn't get anything other than "Oh - it's just a pocket knife). Since it was less than a 4" blade it was OK under the rules at the time.


----------



## jis

TSA's own records suggest that they fail to detect upto 70% of hidden bad stuff during their own tests. I don't know quite what to make of it in terms of how effective they really would be against an organized concerted effort to cause harm. They have never come across as upto what one experiences say in Tel Aviv where it is known that multiple concerted effort to cause harm has been successfully thwarted.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Railroad Bill said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, some of us have a vague notion of what our Constitutional rights are and don't like seeing them whittled away for no reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Since I do not fly anymore, it is rather a moot issue for me, but if and when I decide to get on an airplane again, I am hopeful that everyone on the plane has been thoroughly searched. I guess my constitutional rights would not be worth much when my plane gets blown out of the sky at 40,000 feet.
Click to expand...

Do you not realize that the TSA waiting lines in major airports routinely offer unprotected crowds that can exceed what even the largest of passenger aircraft can carry? Are you somehow unaware that the TSA folks routinely miss all sorts of restricted items? As you said yourself you don't fly anymore, so what exactly is your position based upon?


----------



## jis

Here is an article on the subject from the Boston Globe:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/11/10/time-close-tsa/Y7RHFtY3UKnu2vTOoi6JnO/story.html


----------



## jis

Railroad Bill said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, some of us have a vague notion of what our Constitutional rights are and don't like seeing them whittled away for no reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Since I do not fly anymore, it is rather a moot issue for me, but if and when I decide to get on an airplane again, I am hopeful that everyone on the plane has been thoroughly searched.I guess my constitutional rights would not be worth much when my plane gets blown out of the sky at 40,000 feet.
Click to expand...

Seems like the act of searching is more important to you than the effectiveness of securing the plane (or the airport for that matter) and you are willing to give up your rights just for enabling the search theater! I bizarre position to take. But I guess whatever rocks ones boat.  
Here is an article from 2013 that gives some useful insights into the whole issue of air transport security:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/7-reasons-tsa-sucks-a-security-experts-perspective/


----------



## Railroad Bill

Based on the articles cited in the thread, it would seem that the general consensus is that the TSA and other government security organizations are so incompetent that they are just wasting our time by screening, scanning, searching, etc of passengers at airports. I would agree that the evidence presented by these critics would indicate this to be so.

But in lieu of major changes in the present system being made, what alternative does one have to continue to fly out of US airports.

The present system may be a joke, but at least there seems to be some evidence that some degree of effectiveness has taken place. There have been no known successful bombings at airports or planes flying out of US airports since 911.

I await the "bomb throwing" at my comments..


----------



## Ryan

Railroad Bill said:


> The present system may be a joke, but at least there seems to be some evidence that some degree of effectiveness has taken place.


I carry in my pocket a small rock to ward off tigers, so that I am not eaten by one as I go about my daily business.

Since I haven't been eaten by a tiger (so far as I know), the rock is obviously imbued with magic tiger-repelling properties.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Railroad Bill said:


> The present system may be a joke, but at least there seems to be some evidence that some degree of effectiveness has taken place. There have been no known successful bombings at airports or planes flying out of US airports since 911.


----------



## Railroad Bill

Thank you for offering your usual attempts at humor instead of addressing the issue. I am always open to hearing evidence for an argument but personal attacks are much easier. Since I do not wish to continue down the road to an argument I will move on to a more enlightened conversation with those who have something more concrete to offer on the subject of personal rights vs. security.


----------



## Ryan

Actually, the tiger repelling rock perfectly addresses the issue.

Correlation in no way equals causation. You claimed that there was evidence that the TSA was effective. The lack of a successful attack is not evidence of that. If you have more concrete evidence to offer on the topic, I'm all ears.

In the absence of any new evidence, the position that the TSA is an unreasonable, ineffective waste of taxpayer dollars seems to be the logical one.


----------



## Railroad Bill

Ryan, I do not have any concrete evidence that the TSA is effective and certainly agree that there are things that need to be changed to make it more efficient. My point was only that in lieu of any change that may take place down the road, what we have may have had some deterrent effect on keeping the airways safe. As opposed to doing nothing.  . Have a good evening. I think I will stick to riding trains..


----------



## Ryan

That's not exactly what you said originally.



Railroad Bill said:


> The present system may be a joke, but at least there seems to be some evidence that some degree of effectiveness has taken place.


No be clear, there is no evidence whatsoever that the TSA has been anything other than a waste of time and money. On the contrary, there is an ample body of evidence that they're almost completely ineffective in preventing contraband from making it onto the airplanes that you don't fly in. In the process of doing so, they've created massive vulnerabilities in the form of helpless crowds queued up to go through their theatrical checkpoints.

Doing nothing (past what existed pre-9/11) would leave us with more money in our pockets, more time in our hands, and less chance of getting blown up. If the TSA magical ceased to exist, a repeat of 9/11 would still be completely impossible, prevented by a secured cockpit door and airline passengers that will fight to the death to prevent their aircraft from being turned into a guided missile. Heck - this kind of attack wasn't possible by noon on that day, when the passengers of flight 93 took matters into their own hands to prevent further damage.


----------



## jis

rickycourtney said:


> Setting aside their enormous price tag and their (overblown) privacy concerns... I've grown to like the full body scanners.
> 
> They're less susceptible to the common mistakes infrequent travellers make.
> 
> Example:
> 
> John Q. Hasntflownsince1999 leaves a handful of change in his pocket because he doesn't understand the concept of "take _everything_ out of your pockets" and goes through security.
> 
> If he goes through a magnetometer... they have to give him a full body pat down... slowing the line down for the rest of us that can understand basic instructions.
> 
> If he goes through a full body scanner... they get a cartoon image that tells the agent to pat down his pocket. It takes like 10 seconds.


But if he goes through a whole body scanner it takes about three to four times the time it takes to go through a magnetometer irrespective of whether he has coins or not. That is the reason that during heavy traffic airports try to avoid using body scanners, or more often, use them very selectively for randomly picked persons, while processing most of the people through Manetometers. What is worse is that there apparently are techniques that makes plastics very hard to distinguish from clothing by the much vaunted scanners. And even a pat down is pretty useless. So if someone is really hell bent on doing something they still can, unless one uses the Israeli technique of determining the person's intentions as opposed to just looking for materials.

One of the reason that body scanner were sold to TSA as the solution to all problems was because Michael Chertoff had money to make out of that whole scheme. Of course the specific ones he sold were the ones that did not work at all, and have since been withdrawn completely after Chertoff and his cronies pocketed the taxpayer money. Now those are sitting in warehouses eating up more taxpayer money for storage space occupied. Seriously, one could not make these things up if one wanted. Real life is sometimes stranger than fiction.


----------



## Bob Dylan

As usual Ryan and jis have posted realistic explanations of why the TSA, aka The Keystone Cops, are a total waste of money with their Security Theater @ our airports and increasingly @ Amtrak Stations!


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Railroad Bill said:


> Thank you for offering your usual attempts at humor instead of addressing the issue. I am always open to hearing evidence for an argument but personal attacks are much easier. Since I do not wish to continue down the road to an argument I will move on to a more enlightened conversation with those who have something more concrete to offer on the subject of personal rights vs. security.


If you're open to accepting new information and reevaluating prior assumptions then how on earth did you ever come to the erroneous conclusion that correlation implies causation? We're talking about fundamental logical fallacies here, not fluid dynamics or quantum mechanics.


----------



## Railroad Bill

Since I have apparently ruffled Ryan's, DA's and Jim's feathers over this issue let me try to state my thoughts on the subject of airport security.

1) after reading Jis' links and those of others who have contributed articles to the TSA problem, I therefore must conclude that my assumptions about the effectiveness of the TSA must be totally wrong..

2) Since we have not had a known terrorist event on our planes since 911, I must therefore conclude that there is some other extraneous reason that terrorists have not decided to attack our planes, airports during the last 15 years. I am open to those who wish to reflect on what those reasons might be.

3) We need to replace the TSA system currently used with a psychological profiling system used by the Israeli government to check the body actions of potential terrorists at airports and not pull little old ladies out of line for full body scans. or old people like me who look like a midwestern hillbilly 

4) I personally do not care if someone scans my body, my personal belongings, before I get on an airplane. That is my constitutional right to chose how I live my life. If others disagree, then they too have a right to either work to change the law, or not fly..

5) I still prefer to take a train.. 

Have a nice day gentlemen.. :hi:


----------



## Ryan

Please don't confuse pointing out the factual errors in your arguments with any ruffled feathers. Feelings don't really have anything to do with it.

If you're going to hold a position about the effectiveness and Constitutionality of the TSA, that position should be based on facts, not faulty assumptions.

1) Excellent that you've come around to reality on the matter.

2) I've already speculated on that. The window for using airplanes as guided missiles against land targets has closed. As far as attacks on our planes, you may want to look into who Richard Reid and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab are.

3) There is no reason that little old ladies or people "who look like a midwestern hillbilly" should get a pass on security. There are plenty of people "who look like a midwestern hillbilly" who have perpetuated terrorist attacks.

4) The fact that you're willing to toss away your Constitutional rights doesn't really have any bearing on the matter. For some of us flying isn't an option. I do appreciate your permission to try and work towards changing the laws to be more aligned with our Constitution.

5) That makes it mighty easy to say that you're willing to have your privacy violated, since you don't actually have any skin in the game.


----------



## Railroad Bill

Ryan said:


> Please don't confuse pointing out the factual errors in your arguments with any ruffled feathers. Feelings don't really have anything to do with it.
> 
> If you're going to hold a position about the effectiveness and Constitutionality of the TSA, that position should be based on facts, not faulty assumptions.
> 
> 1) Excellent that you've come around to reality on the matter.
> 
> 2) I've already speculated on that. The window for using airplanes as guided missiles against land targets has closed. As far as attacks on our planes, you may want to look into who Richard Reid and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab are.
> 
> 3) There is no reason that little old ladies or people "who look like a midwestern hillbilly" should get a pass on security. There are plenty of people "who look like a midwestern hillbilly" who have perpetuated terrorist attacks.
> 
> 4) The fact that you're willing to toss away your Constitutional rights doesn't really have any bearing on the matter. For some of us flying isn't an option. I do appreciate your permission to try and work towards changing the laws to be more aligned with our Constitution.
> 
> 5) That makes it mighty easy to say that you're willing to have your privacy violated, since you don't actually have any skin in the game.


Since I have had a good time playing this game with you all, I will move on to discussing trains. But you all really need to mellow out some. It is really better for your blood pressure. As I said, please have a really nice evening..


----------



## Ryan

It's pretty distressing to hear you consider upholding our Constitution to be a game. Having sworn an oath to uphold and defend it on multiple occasions, it's somewhat more serious than that.

Let's take away some rights that you care about and tell you to just mellow out some.

No issues with my blood pressure here, though, thanks for the kind thoughts.


----------



## Ryan

On a more substantive note, what does the collective think about this one:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/tsa-may-soon-stop-accepting-drivers-licenses-from-nine-states/



> The citizens of several US states may soon find that they can't use their drivers' licenses to get into federal facilities or even board planes.
> 
> Enforcement of a 2005 federal law that sets identification standards, known as "Real ID," has been long-delayed. But now Department of Homeland Security officials say enforcement is imminent. The "Real ID" law requires states to implement certain security features before they issue IDs and verify the legal residency of anyone to whom they issue an ID card. The statute is in part a response to the suggestion of the 9/11 Commission, which noted that four of the 19 hijackers used state-issued ID cards to board planes.
> 
> Real ID also requires states to share their databases of driver information with other states. The information-sharing provisions are a big reason why some privacy groups opposed the law, saying it would effectively be the equivalent of a national identification card.
> 
> The federal government can't force state licensing agencies to change their practices to conform to Real ID standards. But it can stop those with state-issued IDs from using them to enter federal facilities, such as military bases, or to board commercial planes. The renewed push for compliance comes at a time when concerns about terrorism are again high due to recent bloody attacks in Paris and California.


Hopefully y'all from those states have passports or something else that can be used for travel. The whole RealID things seems to be a solution in search of a problem to me, but that can be said about most of our security efforts.


----------



## jebr

Re: RealID:

I agree that it's a solution in search of a problem. Honestly, I wish that our state (MN) would hold our ground with the regular IDs. If someone needs an ID for air travel, an enhanced driver's license is available for an additional $15 which includes the chip to do ground travel to/from Canada and Mexico. I have one now, though I'll probably switch back once it expires (I have a NEXUS card that does the same thing and more.)


----------



## Bob Dylan

Perfect example of the giving the government an inch and they want to go a mile!

If anyone can provide evidence that an ID ( a piece of paper and/or plastic) can prevent an act of terrorism, or ID a terrorist, I'm willing to be convinced that overeach like this might prove effective!

But I wouldn't bet my house on it! YMMV


----------



## Bob Dylan

Bill: as an old Southwestern Hillbilly, I assure you that you didn't ruffle my feathers with your post!

I just disagree with you since REAL Security is not the Theatrical Show that the TSA puts on!

I also would hope that you agree that they are NOT needed @ Amtrak Stations, (but are starting to show up more and more @ Rail Stations), and also agree that their Management's attempts to expand their jurisdiction so as to hire more agents with the accompaning increase in the budget should be a non-starter for this Smoke and Mirrors outfit!

Real Security! Were all for it! Dog and Pony Shows? Save them for Congress!!


----------



## JayPea

Washington is one of those non-compliant states. I fortunately have an enhanced drivers license which will work just fine.


----------



## jis

These days I just use my Global Entry Card with TSA anyway. So I don't worry too much about Drivers Licenses.


----------



## Anderson

I'd love to weigh in on this...but I generally find that if I get started on this topic the post sprawls to several pages, loses focus, and has a propensity to get sufficiently bitter and angry that I tend to self-censor as a result.


----------



## MARC Rider

Not TSA, but just to show you the effectiveness of some of the security theater:

I was up in NYC last Saturday and decided to drop into the main branch of the New York Public Library, mostly to gawk at the architecture and take a look at the Gutenberg Bible. So they have a security system whereby you have to let them inspect your bag before you enter (presumably to make sure you don't have any bombs or whatnot) and when you leave (presumably to make sure you aren't going home with any unauthorized library materials, such as Gutenberg Bibles). So I present my backpack to the guard, he zips open the compartment, shines his flashlight, and I'm good to go. The only problem? My backpack has THREE zippered compartments. Leaving, it was even worse, as the exit guard unzipped only the smallest compartment (the one designed for my tablet). I was thinking of maybe suggesting to him that he check the other compartments, but I didn't want to embarrass him.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Maybe he can't count that high?

Just kidding( sort of/ Wanna be Cops generally aren't Rhodes Scholars!)


----------



## MARC Rider

Ryan said:


> That's not exactly what you said originally.
> 
> ... On the contrary, there is an ample body of evidence that they're almost completely ineffective in preventing contraband from making it onto the airplanes that you don't fly in. ...
> 
> ...Doing nothing (past what existed pre-9/11)....


Surely TSA has prevented SOME contraband from making it on the planes? I read that they have a warehouse in Harrisburg where you can go buy at deep discount knives, swords and other sharp objects that have been confiscated. You are correct, however, in pointing out that even the highly intrusive screening being done now cannot prevent all contraband from being carried aboard planes.

They didn't have "nothing" pre-9/11. They had contract screeners. I'm not sure how effective they were, but you did have to go through a metal detector. You didn't have to show any ID, however, and non-passengers could pass through security and meet their parties at the gate. They also let you keep your shoes on. My recollection is that security screening started in 1973, perhaps in response to D.B. Cooper, the hijacker who extorted money and then parachuted out of the plane in the dark.

Here's an NPR page from 2000, right before 9/11. The 4th Amendment issue was raised even before 9/11, and apparently the courts said the searches were OK if (1) they were universal, and (2) they search was limited to weapons and explosives.

http://savvytraveler.publicradio.org/show/features/2000/20000915/security.shtml


----------



## jis

jebr said:


> Re: RealID:
> 
> I agree that it's a solution in search of a problem. Honestly, I wish that our state (MN) would hold our ground with the regular IDs. If someone needs an ID for air travel, an enhanced driver's license is available for an additional $15 which includes the chip to do ground travel to/from Canada and Mexico. I have one now, though I'll probably switch back once it expires (I have a NEXUS card that does the same thing and more.)


Yup, a NEXUS or a Global Entry card works just fine as an approved ID card for TSA. 
Incidentally, if you are a registered Clear customer, at airports with Clear facility (e.g. Orlando) you don't even need an ID Card. Your biometric, typically finger print, is your ID. You bypass the ID checking line and go straight to the pre checkpoint after verifying your biometric to match with the name on the boarding card.


----------

