Yahoo: Jesse Ventura sues TSA

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Really? I didn't know that.

The 4th Amendment prohibits all governments from all searches. It contains no exceptions whatsoever for "unless said citizen is performing an action which we forgot to list, in advance".

Those decisions are wrong. Every single one of them.

----------

And, to respond to the next false reasoning thrown up, yes, I'm quite aware that the 4th contains the word "unreasonable".

Anybody really want to claim that the Framers included the word "unreasonable", because they intended to pass a Constitutional Amendment which stated that it could be ignored any time Congress wants to, via a simple majority vote? A Constitutional Amendment which did not restrict the government in any way, because anything that the government decided to do was "reasonable", and therefore exempt from this Amendment?

This is the last time I'll try to explain this, but here goes:

The Fourth Amendment says that, but the Fourth Amendment is not the entire Constitution. Other clauses, specifically the Interstate Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, give the government powers that conflict with the Fourth Amendment. The conflicts are intentional, and are not easy. But, those other clauses say that the federal government can perform these functions.

By memory only, I believe the case law is established that when you got an airport you waive your Fourth Amendment rights, as a matter of law.

These questions are not easy. Pointing to 5 words in one Amendment is not "the answer." If you don't take the time to read the entire Constitution, and the progeny of case law regarding it (which I'm sure is 1000's and 1000's of pages) then don't come in with "the answer" as to whether this is Constitutional or not.

And I'm not just picking on you Larry. You are, by far, one of the best posters on these issues.

[Madison Redskin]

all warrant less searches are presumed unreasonable w/ a few exceptions, airports are probably one... and not to nit pick but flying over someone's property and looking down is not a search, that's just observation

It's an inspection that triggers 4th Amendment concerns. In fact, a number of courts wrestled with that very issue and some suppressed photographs (taken from airplanes and helicopters flying above criminals’ property) of defendants engaging in illegal activities. The Supreme Court eventually intervened and ruled that, although flyovers constitute searches, they were not “unreasonable” searches because people do not have a reasonable expectation of being shielded from such searches.

[Larry]

The problem w/ these "Searches" though isn't really that they are searches or that they violate privacy. The problem is that they don't prevent anything, they're just a show to make people think we have everything under control. I guess the show itself might scare away a few who would attempt something but I doubt it.

I'll agree with you that airport security isn't 100% guaranteed effective. No system is perfect.

But I think it's one heck of a leap from there to "they don't prevent anything".

I'll observe that before the installation of metal detectors and x-rays, that "plane hijacked to Cuba" seemed to be occurring a few times a month.

Now it happens, what, once every five years?

I'd assert that history says that airport security isn't 100% effective, but it sure has cut back on it a lot.

[Texasaurus]

MINNEAPOLIS – Former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura sued the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration on Monday, alleging full-body scans and pat-downs at airport checkpoints violate his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Ventura is asking a federal judge in Minnesota to issue an injunction ordering officials to stop subjecting him to "warrantless and suspicionless" scans and body searches.

More at link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_ventura_airport_security

As long as he continues to fly from state to state..he is going to be subject to the random singling process used at airports

to check for anything that is used in terrorism attacks

[Madison Redskin]

I doubt we'd see significantly more illegal immigration and drugs coming into the country and the best way to deal with those problems isn't hiring more big brothers to watch over peoples actions but thats another debate.

People who attempt to cross the border are effectively detained, their vehicles are subject to searches, and contraband is subject to seizure. It appears that you think that people should not be detained or subject to any searches, unless the authorities have a warrant or probable cause to do so. If that's the case, the number of people and drugs who could be smuggled into the country would skyrocket. People could simply stash illegals in their trunks and drive across the border without being stopped, questioned, and searched.

The fact that airports are publicly owned still doesn't give governments the right to search just as it doesn't give them the right to search if you were at a public park. The government owns that park, but the fact that it is publicly owned doesn't give it the right to search people who wish to use the park.

I agree, but you said in a previous post that the government has the right to search people who enter the FBI, CIA, etc. because they own those buildings (see below). So, I'm confused as to why that line of logic doesn't work for airports owned by the government.

If the fbi, cia, or pentagon want to search people that enter their buildings then they have a right to do so

I'm not trying to be obnoxious. I'm just trying to figure out when you think it okay for the government to conduct warrantless searches.

[mojobo]

People who attempt to cross the border are effectively detained, their vehicles are subject to searches, and contraband is subject to seizure. It appears that you think that people should not be detained or subject to any searches, unless the authorities have a warrant or probable cause to do so. If that's the case, the number of people and drugs who could be smuggled into the country would skyrocket. People could simply stash illegals in their trunks and drive across the border without being stopped, questioned, and searched.

With such a greater standard of living on this side of the border and the margin that people can make on drugs with them being illegal will cause these things to be prevalent whether we have a ton of checkpoints and border watchers. If we were able to stop every single import of illegal drugs the price of drugs would be very high and we would see huge drug war and gang violence on this side of the border. I don't think it would even be possible to completely stop illegal immigration and drug smuggling but the more road blocks you put in the way of them the more profitable you make it for people who can find a way to get people across. To completely stop this problem we would end up putting more and more people on border and search patrol and would end up making illegal activity and gang violence more and more profitable.

I agree, but you said in a previous post that the government has the right to search people who enter the FBI, CIA, etc. because they own those buildings (see below). So, I'm confused as to why that line of logic doesn't work for airports owned by the government.

The FBI, CIA, etc. are not open to the general public. They are agencies that operate as part of the executive branch of the government. They don't function to be a public area for people to gather like parks do. I don't think government should be involved in the ownership airports, but unfortunately doesn't change the fact they do. Since the area is open to the public, the public should have the right to be assumed innocent unless there is a reason to assume otherwise. Again the airports have the right to search you and deny any items they want from being on their planes. If I don't like it I can choose another airport that may have looser security restrictions that aren't as invasive. This may increase my risk of being a victim of a terrorist attack but it would still be my decision to make when weighing the pros and cons of the security measures.

I'm not trying to be obnoxious. I'm just trying to figure out when you think it okay for the government to conduct warrantless searches.

I don't think you are obnoxious, just completely wrong on this issue and I'm sure you feel the same way towards my opinions. If you think I'm wrong or being hypocritical call me out and I'll either defend what I said or agree with what you said.

[SkinsHokieFan]

One of the strangest coincidences to me is that in all of the flying I have done after 9/11, I have never been subjected to more then a routine metal detector

It has been a little too easy

[Prosperity]

One of the strangest coincidences to me is that in all of the flying I have done after 9/11, I have never been subjected to more then a routine metal detector

It has been a little too easy

neither have I actually

---------- Post added January-27th-2011 at 10:16 PM ----------

It's an inspection that triggers 4th Amendment concerns. In fact, a number of courts wrestled with that very issue and some suppressed photographs (taken from airplanes and helicopters flying above criminals’ property) of defendants engaging in illegal activities. The Supreme Court eventually intervened and ruled that, although flyovers constitute searches, they were not “unreasonable” searches because people do not have a reasonable expectation of being shielded from such searches.

The way I read the Ciraolo decision: it did not hold that it was a search and that it was reasonable, the court held that the observation was not an unreasonable search. That doesn't mean it was a reasonable search, it could also mean it wasn't a search at all. The language of the opinion refers to aerial observation as "observation" instead of "search" from the start to finish.

Doing this research for moot court (only reason I brought it up), though

[Madison Redskin]

The Ciraolo decision did not hold that it was a search and that it was reasonable, the court held that the observation was not an unreasonable search. That doesn't mean it was a reasonable search, it could also mean it wasn't a search at all. The language of the opinion refers to aerial observation as observation instead of search from the start to finish.

You're right about the SCOTUS. My bad. The lower courts treated the "observation" as an unreasonable search in violation of the 4th Amendment.

[Prosperity]

The lower court treated the "observation" as an unreasonable search in violation of the 4th Amendment.

this is what the lower court said about the "observation":

In short, we are not dealing with the observation of an open corn field which also contains a cannabis crop. We are confronted **98 instead with a direct and unauthorized intrusion into the sanctity of the *1090 home.

People v. Ciraolo, 161 Cal. App. 3d 1081, 1089-90

The lower court did do that. And that was the only time the word "observation" was used in the lower opinion, but SCOTUS referred to it as an observation over a dozen times.They held that it was not unreasonable search in the holding specifically that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy. Course if there's no expectation of privacy then there's no reason to consider whether it's an actual search or not.

[twa]

neither have I actually

Not fair, I get extra processing half the time

Jesse needs to go with the flow like this dude

Man arrested after ejaculating during -

Yes, during TSA pat-down..

http://curmudgeonlyskeptical.blogspot.com/2011/01/man-arrested-after-ejaculating-during.html

[China]

Not fair, I get extra processing half the time

Jesse needs to go with the flow like this dude

Man arrested after ejaculating during -

Yes, during TSA pat-down..

http://curmudgeonlyskeptical.blogspot.com/2011/01/man-arrested-after-ejaculating-during.html

Arrested for ejaculating during a patdown, and his name was Percy Cummings. You can't make this stuff up.