Are TSA searches at airports mandatory or voluntary before boarding?

[HomeGuru]

Yes, the government always knows who I am before I get to the airport.

 

[quincy]

Steven Bierfeldt and the ACLU sought a court order requiring the TSA to bring its search policies into line with constitutional requirements. Bierfeldt’s experience proved that TSA searches had taken on a much broader scope.

does anyone know where I can get the details of this lawsuit. how it might apply to the diabled and why it was dropped?[/B]

The suit was dropped by Bierfeldt because the TSA changed their policies. The suit was filed over suspicionless detentions and questioning (Bierfeldt was held and questioned because he was carrrying a lot of cash).

The Bierfeldt/ACLU legal action did not have any special application to the disabled (or the diabled) and it does not really have any application to your original question.

Ask for a private screening, if you or your children are otherwise uncomfortable.

 

[Dillon]

Yes, the government always knows who I am before I get to the airport.

that does not surprise me, I always thought you were suspicious

title 49 § 44902. Refusal to transport passengers and property

(c) Agreeing to Consent to Search.— An agreement to carry passengers or property in air transportation or intrastate air transportation by an air carrier, intrastate air carrier, or foreign air carrier is deemed to include an agreement that the passenger or property will not be carried if consent to search the passenger or property for a purpose referred to in this section is not given.

thats weird,

 

[Dillon]

The suit was dropped by Bierfeldt because the TSA changed their policies. The suit was filed over suspicionless detentions and questioning (Bierfeldt was held and questioned because he was carrrying a lot of cash).

Ask for a private screening, if you or your children are otherwise uncomfortable.

thats weird, who does that? why hurry?

Your are right a private screening is another way to go.

thanks

 

[CdwJava]

Um....
http://www.infowars.com/tsa-conduct-random-checks-at-austin-train-station/
http://theintelhub.com/2013/01/18/tactical-tsa-viper-team-sets-up-at-california-train-station/
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/06/opinion/don-phillips-tsa-vipr-teams

I've traveled by train here in CA several times recently and have yet to run into any of these roving teams or searches. I've heard of them, but have yet to come across any. So, far more likely to avoid the TSA searches by taking the train. Even more likely to avoid them when taking the train from less popular stations along the route.

 

[eerelations]

In the United States, the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against federal infringement of unenumerated rights. The text reads:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Supreme Court of the United States has also interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to protect against state infringement of certain unenumerated rights including, among others, the right to send one's children to private school and the right to marital privacy.

I knew it, same old Dillon (heavily medicated maybe, but the same old troll). Folks, while I agree we should fool around and mess with Dilolon's medicated head if we feel like it, I also think we shouldn't respond to him with any seriousness.

 

[quincy]

I said that Bierfeldt and the ACLU dropped their lawsuit over Bierfeldt's detention for carrying a large sum of cash because the TSA changed their policies and you said

thats weird, who does that? why hurry? . . .

which is a bit weird in itself.

There was an exception made to the Fourth Amendment (which prohibits unreasonable searches) to allow for TSA screeners to screen passengers. It is a national security exception. However, at the time of Bierfeldt's suit, this exception needed to be clarified, to limit the searches (and subsequent detentions) to findings of weapons or explosives that could cause harm to planes and people.

Because Bierfeldt's $4000+ cash was not a threat to health or safety, the TSA would not now be able to detain him and question him under the TSA policy clarification/change.

Because the TSA screening policy's change addressed Bierfeldt's lawsuit concerns, there was not a good reason for Bierfeldt to continue with his legal action.


(is my response too serious, eerelations? )

 

[tranquility]

I believe the "national security exception" is not in regards to the searching and the checkpoint, but in regards to targeting certain individuals. (As from certain countries of interest.) The checkpoint search is under the rubric of being "conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose". Just as it was before 9/11.

 

[Dillon]

I think you misspelled "Kelly"

i spell kelly as kellie if you dont mind.

 

[Dillon]

I said that Bierfeldt and the ACLU dropped their lawsuit over Bierfeldt's detention for carrying a large sum of cash because the TSA changed their policies and you said


which is a bit weird in itself.

There was an exception made to the Fourth Amendment (which prohibits unreasonable searches) to allow for TSA screeners to screen passengers. It is a national security exception.

but it looks like these are not administrative, special need or constructive searches according to title 49 sec. 44902. maybe I can get a special waiver from the air carrier. what do you think?

thanks

 

[Zigner]

but its looks like these searches are consent based and not needs based according to title 49 sec. 44902. maybe I can get special waiver from the air carrier. what do you think?

thanks

What did the carrier say when you inquired?

 

[Dillon]

I knew it, same old Dillon

the 9 th amendment approach is just another way to go. would it work? who know?, but it wouldnt be cheap.

 

[Dillon]

What did the carrier say when you inquired?

we'll see when they respond to the offer, but it might be better to ask for a private screening till then. also, what I can't do directly, I can't do by proxy, Right?

what do think?

 

[Zigner]

we'll see when they respond to the offer, but it might be better to ask for a private screening till then. what do you think?

What "offer?" You're not offering them anything - you're asking if they would allow an exception.

I agree - private screenings would be the way to go, if you're even subject to more than a cursory search in the first place.

 

[tranquility]

but its looks like these searches are consent based and not needs based according to title 49 sec. 44902. maybe I can get special waiver from the air carrier. what do you think?

And people wonder why I am so pedantic sometimes. NO. The searches are not consent based. Not implied or actual consent. They are not unreasonable because they are, "conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose". Like many statutes, the one posted by you may be out of date in precise language. Once you start the screening process, YOU CAN NO LONGER OPT OUT. If you start and they pass you to the advanced screening area and you change your mind, they don't have to just escort you out of the airport. They can detain you (Well, have the police detain you.) and complete the search.