CA man tells TSA: Dont touch my junk! (violent crime, attorneys)

[azoria]

The "don't touch my junk" guy has a blog by johnnyedge called, <Insert title here>

<Insert title here>: TSA encounter at SAN

After the long rundown about his row with TSA--the first of 5,000 comments says....

"Rosa Parks would be proud."




Maybe it's that time again.

[BacktoBlue]

The guy set the whole thing up. That's why he filmed it on his phone. If you don't want to go through security then don't fly. Not that hard to do.

[ZhugeLiang]

Originally Posted by Footballfreak

The guy set the whole thing up. That's why he filmed it on his phone. If you don't want to go through security then don't fly. Not that hard to do.

At first I thought you were jesting.

Flying really isn't that much of a luxury, it's pretty much is a necessity for many of us. There simply no reason for the TSA, none whatsoever. No one should have to be subjected to illegal search and seizure without any probable cause just to get on a freaking plane.

If it were cops doing this on routine traffic stops there would be riots in the streets. Why should a bunch of glorified security guards get to do this?

With the heightened on-board security measures, no one is going to be jacking a plane anytime soon. Good luck getting into a cockpit with a metal knife, not that the plain-clothes U.S. Marshall won't have already beaten you down before you even get to try.

I'm amused that so many like you are so willing to give up their civil liberties at the drop of a hat.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by ZhugeLiang

At first I thought you were jesting.

Flying really isn't that much of a luxury, it's pretty much is a necessity for many of us. There simply no reason for the TSA, none whatsoever. No one should have to be subjected to illegal search and seizure without any probable cause just to get on a freaking plane.

If it were cops doing this on routine traffic stops there would be riots in the streets. Why should a bunch of glorified security guards get to do this?

With the heightened on-board security measures, no one is going to be jacking a plane anytime soon. Good luck getting into a cockpit with a metal knife, not that the plain-clothes U.S. Marshall won't have already beaten you down before you even get to try.

I'm amused that so many like you are so willing to give up their civil liberties at the drop of a hat.

I think he should have just gone through it. After that he should have raised a fuss and complained to the right people. In a way, his behavior could likely make it harder for the rest of us to fly. Like you said, for many of us, flying is a necessity so we cannot always avoid it. When I need to get to Oakland, spending 11 hours on a train, then a bus then another train is not happening. I've done that twice and never again.

I agree that we shouldn't be so accepting of this, but in one instance if you need to get somewhere, just do it then, after that raise hell.

Like I said, I think it's all for show. Just how the hell did that guy mail himself, successfully I might add in the cargo space on a passenger plane?

[Brenda-by-the-sea]

I can see an interesting legal argument coming out of this regarding both "unreasonable search" as prohibited by the 4th Amendment and "equal protection under the law" as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Everyone is subject to the possibility of "random selection" for intensive screening, but most people don't have to actually go through it. Some do. Is that equal treatment under the law? Not every law passed by Congress ends up passing constitutional muster on judicial review.

[Twinkle Toes]

Originally Posted by Brenda-by-the-sea

I can see an interesting legal argument coming out of this regarding both "unreasonable search" as prohibited by the 4th Amendment and "equal protection under the law" as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Everyone is subject to the possibility of "random selection" for intensive screening, but most people don't have to actually go through it. Some do. Is that equal treatment under the law? Not every law passed by Congress ends up passing constitutional muster on judicial review.

The unreasonable search/seizure provision of the 4th amendment only applies to the government. True, TSA workers are considered "the government", but in the interests of public safety, personal liberty is trumped by certain types of searches. You could argue a violation of the 4th amendment all day long and you would probably not prevail because the legislature has mandated certain searches as exempt from the rule. What is considered "unreasonable"? One would have to prove a search is "unreasonable".

There are numerous cases on point to support governmental or administrative searches as reasonable. Chandler v. Miller; and City of Indianapolis v. Edmond are two that readily come to mind. In these cases the US Supreme Court held that suspicionless searches, such as those routinely executed at airports and government buildings are reasonable where the need for such measures to ensure public safety can be particularly acute.

[calbear11]

The thing that bothers me about this San Diego man and this story getting so much media attention is that now there are going to be many more people protesting these searches. This is going to make the already long lines even longer.

[Archan]

35,000 images stored in a system that was not supposed to store any at all.

Leaked U.S. Marshal body scan images revealed - Technology & science - Security - msnbc.com

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by ILdÐÆMcº³

Either way it's kind of pointless because you could easily stick enough plastic explosives up your rectum to take down a plane.

I was thinking this same thing overnight as I thought about this topic.

Let's say that one suicide bomber packed his rectum with explosives, and was caught for whatever reason.

So next thing, TSA has a directive that all people who want to fly must undergo a colonoscopy.

Well at least it might lead to a reduction of colon cancer.

[KC6ZLV]

Originally Posted by Twinkle Toes

The unreasonable search/seizure provision of the 4th amendment only applies to the government. True, TSA workers are considered "the government", but in the interests of public safety, personal liberty is trumped by certain types of searches. You could argue a violation of the 4th amendment all day long and you would probably not prevail because the legislature has mandated certain searches as exempt from the rule. What is considered "unreasonable"? One would have to prove a search is "unreasonable".

There are numerous cases on point to support governmental or administrative searches as reasonable. Chandler v. Miller; and City of Indianapolis v. Edmond are two that readily come to mind. In these cases the US Supreme Court held that suspicionless searches, such as those routinely executed at airports and government buildings are reasonable where the need for such measures to ensure public safety can be particularly acute.

We could start another very long thread about unreasonable Supreme Court rulings.

We are told this is to protect us from from foreign terrorists. of course we can't say they are Islamic or Middle Eastern because that would be profiling. So, everyone is subject to search, which is unreasonable based on the fact that the problem lies within Islamic terrorism. You aren't going to prevent an Islamic terrorist from blowing up a plane by searching and interrogating Mrs Soccer Mom and her three children at the airport. Doing so is simply wasting everyone's time and costing the taxpayers a lot of money.

And you can count me as in favour of profiling foreigners from select countries in the name of national security. If the people from other corners don't like it they don't like it there are other places they can go to.