Are TSA searches at airports mandatory or voluntary before boarding?

[Dillon]

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 Like many statutes, the one posted by you may be out of date in precise language.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.

you can believe all that if it gives you comfort, we'll see what the air carriers responds?

its now my understanding that the tsa is no longer the issue as long as one has the air carriers agreement.

thanks

 

[Dillon]

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.

sounds good to me, thanks

 

[Dillon]

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

I think they will really like it.



you do think its possible, right? why not see what happens?

thanks everyone for all you helpful answers.

 

[quincy]

You can always ask for a waiver, Dillon, but if the only reason for the waiver is that you or your disabled children would be stressed by the screening, the odds of any waiver being granted are not in your favor.

tranquility, there are several cases that are often referred to whenever these TSA/Fourth Amendment/National Security questions arise. One is New York v Burger, 482 US 691 (1987).

In the Burger case, the Court said that warrantless inspections are reasonable if a substantial government interest exists (ie, national security), warrantless inspections are necessary to further the regulatory scheme (ie, administrative purposes), or if the statute authorizing the warrantless inspection serves as a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant. Subsequent cases have built on this.

The bottom line is that TSA warrantless searches have been found (with a few well-publicized exceptions) reasonable and Constitutional.

As to consent: You consent to a screening by the TSA by going to the airport wanting to board a plane. The choice to fly as opposed to taking some other form of transportation is still yours to make (cars are a good way to travel - buy an American-made car!).

 

[TigerD]

You know, I haven't been ever been sidelined for a search. Not when an Irish terrorist with the same name was listed on the no fly list and not when I forgot I had a weapon in my carry on bag.

In the first case, they said I didn't look 96 years old and I should expect some disruptions at larger airports.
In the second case, they asked me to mail my Leatherman home.

There are offensive and improper searches by TSA agents, but really, there are not as many as the media would lead you to believe. The TSA contacts millions of people per month. Sometimes people have a bad day. Sometimes those bad days intersect. Generally the people who have problems are the people who give problems.


Yeah, Dillon might have a problem.

DC

 

[tranquility]

you can believe all that if it gives you comfort, we'll see what the air carriers responds?

its my understanding the tsa is no longer the issue.

I don't believe it because it gives me comfort, I believe it because that's what the courts are saying. See also:
-United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc)
-United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174, 178 (3d Cir.)
-United States v. Marquez, 410. F.3d 612
-Hawaii Supreme court State v. Hanson, No. 22847 (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/hi-supreme-court/1427231.html)
-Rendon v. Transportation Security Administration 424 F.3d 475 (6th Cir. 2005).
-United States v. Pulido-Baquerizo 800 F.2d 899 (9th Cir. 1986)

You may, of course, believe what gives you comfort.

 

[tranquility]

As to consent: You consent to a screening by the TSA by going to the airport wanting to board a plane. The choice to fly as opposed to taking some other form of transportation is still yours to make (cars are a good way to travel - buy an American-made car!).

Um...no.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/02/29/the-tsa-is-coming-to-a-highway-near-you/
http://www.infowars.com/tsa-seeks-permission-to-conduct-security-assessments-on-highways/

The TSA disagrees, of course:
http://blog.tsa.gov/2011/10/myth-buster-tsa-not-setting-up.html

Except, they do happen to want to create a Highway "BASE" (Baseline Assessment for Security Enhancement) program since they are, of course, the Transportation Security Agency. Which makes the "myth" more of a carefully worded statement. See also:
http://www.tsa.gov/stakeholders/programs

And, as I wrote, it is NOT based on consent. It is the SAME rationale as used to search when entering a courthouse as a juror, witness or (criminal) defendant. All of who are demanded to attend.

 

[quincy]

. . . http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/02/29/the-tsa-is-coming-to-a-highway-near-you/. . .

I think the thing I find most interesting about the Forbes article on the TSA randomly inspecting cars and trucks is that the article was written by Marsha Blackburn, Republican Congresswoman from Tennessee, and her final sentence starts: "Furthermore, if Congress fails to act. . . ."

Hahahaha. We are all doomed.

 

[tranquility]

I think the thing I find most interesting about the Forbes article on the TSA randomly inspecting cars and trucks is that the article was written by Marsha Blackburn, Republican Congresswoman from Tennessee, and her final sentence starts: "Furthermore, if Congress fails to act. . . ."

Hahahaha. We are all doomed.

Of course we are.

And, it will be all legal like.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

You may, of course, believe what gives you comfort.

Because of you, this song has been running through my head all morning.

Why do you do the things you do?
Why do you do these things?
Why do you rush at the world all alone --
Fighting mad battles that aren't your own --

 

[tranquility]

Because of you, this song has been running through my head all morning.

No matter how hopeless, no matter how far ...
To fight for the right, without question or pause ...
To be willing to march into Hell, for a Heavenly cause ...

 

[quincy]

I think the fact that tranquility travels with a sidekick named Sancho is what brings the song to mind.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

We could of course stop them all at the border. It was interesting to note that real estate values in AZ jumped 20%. I assume it is filling up with border crossers waiting for their chance to become legal. You would think, since this is the third round of lets make all the illegals legal and that will solve the problem and it has not worked yet, that people would stop being fooled by what is obviously another manipulation of the US populace and deconstruction of the power of our constitution.

 

[justalayman]

I cant find the case details, who said what and why in court, etc.

google just has the general story, thats weird.

thanks

the second hit if you did what I said to do:

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/bierfeldt-v-napolitano