Woman @ KAUS arrested for refusing a TSA pat down

ScottM

ScottM

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
42,530
Location
Variable, but somewhere on earth
Display Name
iBazinga!
Home Airfield
3CK
http://www.kvue.com/news/local/Woma...ter-refusing-enhanced-pat-down-112354199.html

"I can't go through because I have the equivalent of a pacemaker in me," she said.
Hirschkind said because of the device in her body, she was led to a female TSA employee and three Austin police officers. She says she was told she was going to be patted down.
"I turned to the police officer and said, 'I have given no due cause to give up my constitutional rights. You can wand me,'" and they said, 'No, you have to do this,'" she said.
Hirschkind agreed to the pat down, but on one condition.
"I told them, 'No, I'm not going to have my breasts felt,' and she said, 'Yes, you are,'" said Hirschkind.
When Hirschkind refused, she says that "the police actually pushed me to the floor, (and) handcuffed me. I was crying by then. They drug me 25 yards across the floor in front of the whole security."
Click to expand...


And the kicker....


"I understand her side of it, and their side as well, but it is for our protection so I have no problems with it," said Gwen Washington, who lives in Killeen.
"It's unfortunate that that happened and she didn't get to fly home, but it makes me feel a little safer," said Emily Protine.
Click to expand...

We are doomed.

I also saw that Sec DHS stated today that the current level of instrusive security is not going to change.
 
She needs to tearfully go before Congress. Our government, driven by spectacle and appearance. If enough do this, we have a chance.
 
Morons.

Absolute. F%$#ing. Morons.


I agree with Doc. That's the only way this crap will stop.
 
One missing piece:

An ABIA spokesman says it is TSA policy that anyone activating a security alarm has two options. One is to opt out and not fly, and the other option is to subject themselves to an enhanced pat down. Hirschkind refused both and was arrested.
Click to expand...

If she was informed that if she wanted to fly, she must consent to the groping, I don't see that her argument has any merit.

If you want to fly without being groped, charter your own plane.
 
Steve Foley said:
If you want to fly without being groped, charter your own plane.
Click to expand...

Are you sure that you can aviod being groped by chartering an aircraft? I thought the part 135 guys had to do some security too. Of course, the TSA groping and nude-o-scans don't provide actual security, but the morons in charge of TSA can't figure that out.
 
Bob Noel said:
Are you sure that you can aviod being groped by chartering an aircraft? I thought the part 135 guys had to do some security too. Of course, the TSA groping and nude-o-scans don't provide actual security, but the morons in charge of TSA can't figure that out.
Click to expand...

If Big Sister has her way, children waiting to "fly" the toy airplane rides at amusement parks will have to be groped and fondled first.

-Rich
 
Steve Foley said:
One missing piece:



If she was informed that if she wanted to fly, she must consent to the groping, I don't see that her argument has any merit.

If you want to fly without being groped, charter your own plane.
Click to expand...

Folks will say one consented to the search when they purchased a ticket; have you ever read that language? Is one in any kind of 'fair' bargaining position here? One either agrees or doesn't fly. We have a fundamental document in this country that allows us to 'assemble' (travel). Searches must be reasonable. We either need a less invasive technology, or this will continue to escalate. They now intend to extend this to malls and mass transit stations. So, one can consent or not shop or take the bus/train in the future.
I DO understand the need, but this has to be REASONABLE. We cannot continue to step on the rights of the masses to find a few of ill purpose. I don't agree to be treated like a suspected terrorist every time I enter an airport (or other facilities soon).

Best,

Dave
 
bbchien said:
She needs to tearfully go before Congress. Our government, driven by spectacle and appearance. If enough do this, we have a chance.
Click to expand...

DHS is an agency of the Federal Executive Branch. Executive agencies have broad powers, granted by Congress, to promulgate their own regulations and procedures within broadly-defined parameters. Congress may want to hold tear-filled hearings for the show value, but I really don't think they're going to enact any legislation micro-managing the activities of DHS / TSA, and they're certainly not going to abolish them. Though the agencies have existed for less than a decade, somehow they've already become "essential" in the minds of the ignorant masses.

Of course, the fact that DHS is an Executive agency does beg the question, "Does President Obama endorse all this nonsense?" Apparently so, seeing as how Big Sister works for him. So does Obama also endorse Big Sister's reported plans to extend the Stasi's authority to malls, mass transit terminals, and possibly other locations where people congregate? Again, because she works for Obama, it's hard to argue that he doesn't at least implicitly endorse the planned expansion.

If I were in Congress, I think the tack I would take would be to sponsor legislation stripping any indemnification or other protections from DHS / TSA and its employees, so they could be held personally liable for damages if sued. Then let our national army of tort lawyers do the dirty work. DHS has already become too entrenched to simply be abolished, which would be my first preference.

-Rich
 
Mostly good post Rich though I would add that DHS is much more than simply an " agency " it is a cabinet level department.

As for stripping immunity that is a complicated issue. There is little to no personal indemnification or immunity for intentional misconduct or abusing constitutional protections. Problem is in this climate there are no protections to abuse.
 
"Security is not optional".
Wow.
Has quite a ring to it, like "work sets you free" or "history is bunk". :frown2:
 
RJM62 said:
If I were in Congress, I think the tack I would take would be to sponsor legislation stripping any indemnification or other protections from DHS / TSA and its employees, so they could be held personally liable for damages if sued. Then let our national army of tort lawyers do the dirty work. DHS has already become too entrenched to simply be abolished, which would be my first preference.

-Rich
Click to expand...

Law of unintended consequences would bite you in the backside there. If you strip TSA of sovereign immunity, they will become more intrusive. They will be so scared of being sued if they miss something that you'll be doing pre-flight CT/MRI/PET scans before every flight.

Now, they can ignore the unlikely threats that they see with no concequences. Without such indemnification, you can just see a lawyer after an incident:
Lawyer: Mr. Deputy Under Secretary, do you recognize the "Received" stamp on this fax from Mr. Conspiracy Theorist that laptop batteries could be shorted and exploded?
DUS: Yes, we received that fax, but it was evaluated as a non-credible threat
Lawyer: So, you were aware of the threat. Did you take any actions to prevent this from happening?
DUS: No, it was not a credible threat
Lawyer: So, you admit you were aware of the threat, yet did nothing to prevent it. Plaintiff rests your honour

...

Jury Foreman: We the jury find for the plaintiff and assess damages against the Deputy Under Secretary of $20 billion
Click to expand...
 
An ABIA spokesman says it is TSA policy that anyone activating a security alarm has two options. One is to opt out and not fly, and the other option is to subject themselves to an enhanced pat down.
Click to expand...
I don't think this is correct. TSA has said several times that once the screening process has begun, you MUST complete the process. Leaving the screening area once screening begins leads to a $10,000 fine.
According to TSA spokesman Jonathan Allen, "Passengers who decline to be screened by the technology will receive alternative screening to include a thorough pat-down. Anyone who refuses to complete the screening process will be denied access to the secure area and could be subject to a civil penalty."
Click to expand...
The TSA administrator further reinforced this:
John Tyner had refused a full body scan and pat down at the same airport, and eventually declined flying that day, after first warning "If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested." He was not arrested or cited, although TSA Administrator John Pistole, has mentioned a possible $11,000 fine.
Click to expand...
Further, the courts are not sympathetic to the argument that you withdrew consent:
According to a ruling by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, "Requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post 9/11 world. Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by 'electing not to fly' on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found."
Click to expand...
 
"According to a ruling by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, "Requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post 9/11 world. Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by 'electing not to fly' on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found.""

that's just the appeals court. is there a filing with SCOTUS in the near future?
 
Last edited:
JeffDG said:
If you happen to live in: AZ, CA, NV, ID, MT, OR, WA, AK, HI, Guam or the Northern Mariana Islands, their rulings are binding precedent.

And as far as I can tell, http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1265662.html was decided by the 9th Circuit in 2007 and is well out of the filing time for the USSC.
Click to expand...

That sounds right. I can't find anything saying that the SC agreed to review it and it's still under consideration, either. So it's for the books now. But, I do remember seeing something a month or so ago when all the hubbub started, I think a case from June 2010. I've predictably forgotten what it was or what it involved, though.

Regardless....

It's worth noting that Aukai decided that he wanted to leave security only after he was found to be smuggling an unknown something, that he said he didn't have even though it could be seen as a bulge in his pocket that was setting off a wand, through security. That unknown something turned out to be meth and a pipe - hardly a pen or a forgotten pocketknife on a key chain, not even a "dose" of "medical" reefer. "We were just going over the border for some french fries and gravy."

I don't have any idea of whether subsequent decisions after 2007 have relied on or expanded this case, but it's also worth noting that the Aukai precedent can't necessarily be extended beyond the setting it took place in - a guy who's clearly lying through his teeth about not having anything else in his pockets, who didn't present ID to begin with, who's failed a non-intrusive layer of security (a wanding), and who didn't want to leave until after his dope was found. This was not a situation where there wasn't anything suspicious - rather, I think pretty much anyone's alarm bells would be ringing under those circumstances. There's a decided trend, especially at the Supreme Court, these days of not extending precedents beyond the facts they were decided on.

So, I'd be a little hesitant: 1) to label the Aukai case as bad precedent; and 2) extend beyond any situation aside from that in which a methhead gets all methheady in the security station after his meth is found.

[edit:] The concurring opinion is also worth reading.
 
Last edited:
Thank you David. This at least provides that these searches must be reasonable to detect weapons and explosives. They seem to have had no bounds in some cases. I can see where I would elect to leave in some circumstances and folks have been saying that's not possible once the screening process has begun. I'm sure we'll see other challenges. We all just hope not to have to be he complaintant in one!

Best,

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top