• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

TSA ejects Oceanside man from airport for refusing security check

You have to give probable cause, and even then, if the search is refused by the detainee, a warrant must be issued before the car can be searched.


j-mac

But the probable cause is as simple as refusing the request of showing your DL and proof and proof of insurance. Probable cause is not a difficult obsticle to overcome.

So, on our highways, officers block a road, stop all cars, request proof of being legal and can search you if you refuse. Am I wrong about this?
 
But the probable cause is as simple as refusing the request of showing your DL and proof and proof of insurance. Probable cause is not a difficult obsticle to overcome.

So, on our highways, officers block a road, stop all cars, request proof of being legal and can search you if you refuse. Am I wrong about this?


Are you referring to 'DUI checkpoints'?


j-mac
 
Additionally, as stated earlier, a single individual performing a disruptive action on a highway has not shown itself to have the same potential for severe disruption of the National Transist System or the severe effect on the economy that disruptions of airline travel can have. This again reduces the "reasonableness" of any searches because the threat for damage to the country is not as high.
The difference you cite is one of degree, not of kind. Where in the Constitution (as you read it) does it specify how much potential damage is required for you to surrender the freedoms guaranteed to you by the Constitution?
 
Are you referring to 'DUI checkpoints'?


j-mac

That is one purpose, yes. They also are set up to check auto insurance. I was involved in one once in Mississippi. No one in the car had been drinking, but tried to refuse. They were searched.
 
That is one purpose, yes. They also are set up to check auto insurance. I was involved in one once in Mississippi. No one in the car had been drinking, but tried to refuse. They were searched.


Well, I have never heard of an insurance checkpoint, however I do know that in some cases stops during a DUI checkpoint have been tossed over this very question. I was in traffic court in Maryland one time when this happened. Now admittedly we are talking about a guy that was barely a .08 and had a clean record, but none the less, the judge cited that in his opinion it bordered awfully close to rights violations, and entrapment so he tossed it.

j-mac

PS
One of the most ubiquitous forms of suspicionless checkpoints is the sobriety checkpoint. Many folks are under the false impression that sobriety checkpoints are legal throughout the country based upon Michigan Dept. of State Police V. Sitz. While the Supreme Court did in fact carve out a 4th Amendment exception for sobriety checkpoints in this case, legal analysis doesn't stop there. Before a sobriety checkpoint can be considered 'legal', it must not only pass constitutional muster at the federal level, it must do so at the state level as well while abiding by all applicable statutory requirements. What this means is that 11 states currently prohibit sobriety checkpoints within their boundaries. In the remaining 39 States, one or more of the following conditions exist:

Roadblocks are explicitly authorized by statutory law
Courts have upheld them despite the lack of specific statutory authorization
Courts have failed to strike down or review checkpoints conducted unilaterally by local police
What's especially ironic about this scenario is that even though it was a Michigan case that gave rise to the 4th amendment loophole to begin with, Michigan is still one of the 11 State's that explicitly prohibit sobriety checkpoints within its boundaries. After SCOTUS ruled in favor of Michigan's State police regarding their roadblock program, the case was remanded back to the Michigan Supreme Court for further review. The Michigan Supreme Court felt so strongly about the issue, they ruled that regardless of the federal Supreme Court's ruling, the State Constitution still made such roadblock programs illegal within Michigan's boundaries.

www.checkpointusa.org/Checkpoints/Sobriety/sobrietyCheckpoints.htm
 
Last edited:
So everyone is subjected to this pat down? I don't think so.

No, everyone is subjected to a machine search, with what machine is determined by what's available in the airport. Based on other issues at that time that give probable cause for further searches, they may be done. For example, with regards to pat downs, if someone is unable to be searched with the machine...for example due to medical issues or due to refusing it...then an alternative method must be presented. Another example is if a Behavioral Detection Officer believes someone to be exhibiting suspicious behavior which can cause them to be flagged for additional screening. However, every passenger recieves the same basic baseline screen potential. It is only with EXTRA actions on their part that they would recieve additional forms of screening.

Ok, so you'd be fine with it if it were say at a toll stop and posted before hand?

Perhaps you should just read my previous posts, but for the sake of hoping this time maybe you'll pay attention I'll do this again. I would think in general there wouldn't be anything legally wrong with it in theory. However I believe it would be a far more questionable situation depending on the type and extent of search being conducted, due to there being a LARGE difference with regards to national security involved since incidents on the highways have not shown themselves to have anywhere near the severe impact on our National Transit System and our economy as Plane Travel does.

Un huh...think of the Airport line as an Interstate, and apply the same logic. Here I'll show you what I mean...

"So it would be entirely unreasonable for you to simply be pulled over and given an extensive search simply for being in an airport in the current system.

But you're not pulled over and given an extensive search simply for being in an airport. ALL individuals are given the same search when trying to access the secure portion of an airport, with additional or alternative searches being done or offered based on circumstances at that time that merit or require it.

That is different then randomly pulling someone over and going "I'm giving you a search".

I see, so the people turning down the x-ray machine and subjected to a search are being disruptive?

No. I mean that if someone blows up their car on the highway, causes a wreck on the highway, or does some other sort of disruptive action on a highway the national impact is relatively low. Wrecks happen frequently, FAR more cars travel on a daily basis in a single Metro area than fly over the entire US, and historically incidents happening on a Highway haven't had an impact on the economy or the transit system. On the flip side, plane traffic is fewer which makes disruptive situations have a bigger impact on the entire system. When a large scale disruption happens with a plane it affects the entire transit systems as flights are grounded in that area or nation wide. History has shown us that, unlike auto-incidents, incidents on planes can negatively affect the amount of individuals using that method of travel in the aftermath that affects the economy.

The affects on the national transit system and the economy of a dangerous disruption on a highway is less than that of an airplane. Thus, they are not exact analogs in what is "reasonable".

You still have failed to provide any domestic instances where an American was a threat to Air travel to prompt this.

Why would I need to provide that? What basis does that have to do with my reasoning in the least? Are you suggesting that we should have no airport security except for non-citizens?

Oh I grasp it just fine....Do you?

Since its my own logic...yes, yes I do.

And I disagree. That is allowed isn't it?

Well, yes...its allowed. And its retarded. I mean, you're fully ALLOWED to utterly and entirely misrepresent my statements, misstate what my "logic" says, and try to argue against a strawman you've built up on your own. Its just rather dumb to do so.
 
Well, j, that is one judge. However:

At a sobriety checkpoint, drivers are necessarily stopped without reasonable suspicion, and may be tested summarily and without probable cause. Thus the Constitution would appear to prohibit people from being stopped without a search warrant or at least without probable cause that they have committed a crime; however, the warrant requirement only attaches should the search be unreasonable and the Supreme Court, as shown below, decided that such stops are not unreasonable under certain circumstances.

Random checkpoint - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And how about stopping a teanage who looks kind of odd? Can we check them? This too happens.
 
The difference you cite is one of degree, not of kind. Where in the Constitution (as you read it) does it specify how much potential damage is required for you to surrender the freedoms guaranteed to you by the Constitution?

The constitution deems you protected agaisnt "unreasonable" searches.

Being searched when voluntarily entering into sensitive federal property is "reasonable" in my mind to allow for a search of a person. The reasonableness of the level of said search then corresponds with the potential for harm that can come from your access to said federal property.

For example, I don't think its "unreasonable" to search people going into a federal court house. I think anything more than a metal detector and maybe a quick x-ray machine of what you're bringing in would likely be "unreasonable" as there's little true nationally severe damage one can do in a local federal court room. If it was a major case of a high ranking terrorist with there being chatter that there may be action taken there, I'd find it "reasonable" to conduct a more intensive search, for instance say having a bomb sniffing dog present at the metal detector. This is because with the media attention and the high profile of such a case mixed with the known potential threat, the potential for damage is far higher and thus the level of search that is reasonable could be escalated.
 
No, everyone is subjected to a machine search, with what machine is determined by what's available in the airport. Based on other issues at that time that give probable cause for further searches, they may be done. For example, with regards to pat downs, if someone is unable to be searched with the machine...for example due to medical issues or due to refusing it...then an alternative method must be presented. Another example is if a Behavioral Detection Officer believes someone to be exhibiting suspicious behavior which can cause them to be flagged for additional screening. However, every passenger recieves the same basic baseline screen potential. It is only with EXTRA actions on their part that they would recieve additional forms of screening..

Uh huh....So they say.....In public anyway...But we do have cases of this..



Oh my....

Perhaps you should just read my previous posts, but for the sake of hoping this time maybe you'll pay attention I'll do this again. I would think in general there wouldn't be anything legally wrong with it in theory. However I believe it would be a far more questionable situation depending on the type and extent of search being conducted, due to there being a LARGE difference with regards to national security involved since incidents on the highways have not shown themselves to have anywhere near the severe impact on our National Transit System and our economy as Plane Travel does.

Astonishing. All I can say is that you are just the type that a tyranny counts on to effect its take over.

But you're not pulled over and given an extensive search simply for being in an airport. ALL individuals are given the same search when trying to access the secure portion of an airport, with additional or alternative searches being done or offered based on circumstances at that time that merit or require it.

Wonderful.

That is different then randomly pulling someone over and going "I'm giving you a search".

This is being done as well.

But some at TSA question if the new rules are making anyone safer.
“I myself would be just as confident flying before these new procedures took place as I would be flying right now.”
The irony is that the person most likely subjected to an enhanced pat-down is not someone acting suspiciously.
It’s America’s seniors that are most often the targets of a pat-down, says this local TSA officer.
“These are your mother, your father, your grandparents. They’re the ones who have to put up with this every time they fly.”
And it breaks the heart of some local TSA officers.

Local TSA Agent Speaks Out On Pat-Downs « CBS Pittsburgh – News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of Pittsburgh

Completely random searches happen in about 1% of all passengers.

No. I mean that if someone blows up their car on the highway, causes a wreck on the highway, or does some other sort of disruptive action on a highway the national impact is relatively low. Wrecks happen frequently, FAR more cars travel on a daily basis in a single Metro area than fly over the entire US, and historically incidents happening on a Highway haven't had an impact on the economy or the transit system. On the flip side, plane traffic is fewer which makes disruptive situations have a bigger impact on the entire system. When a large scale disruption happens with a plane it affects the entire transit systems as flights are grounded in that area or nation wide. History has shown us that, unlike auto-incidents, incidents on planes can negatively affect the amount of individuals using that method of travel in the aftermath that affects the economy.

The affects on the national transit system and the economy of a dangerous disruption on a highway is less than that of an airplane. Thus, they are not exact analogs in what is "reasonable".

Ever been in NYC during morning or evening rush? Every bridge is packed.

Why would I need to provide that? What basis does that have to do with my reasoning in the least? Are you suggesting that we should have no airport security except for non-citizens?

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has issued a travel notice to Muslim airline passengers, warning them that new regulations from the Transportation Security Administration violate certain religious rules.

According to CAIR, the TSA’s new “enhanced pat down” policy should be limited to searching only around Muslim women’s head and neck if they are wearing a hijab and that Muslims objecting to the enhanced full-body scans have the right to request the pat-down procedure be done in a private place.

www.theblaze.com/stories/cair-tsa-can-only-pat-down-muslim-women’s-head-neck/

And Big Sis is open to these suggestions. She said so.

Since its my own logic...yes, yes I do.

Ok. Just checking.

Well, yes...its allowed. And its retarded. I mean, you're fully ALLOWED to utterly and entirely misrepresent my statements, misstate what my "logic" says, and try to argue against a strawman you've built up on your own. Its just rather dumb to do so.

What strawman have I built up? What have I misrepresented, or misstated? That's pure BS. You seem way too thin skinned.

j-mac
 
Well, j, that is one judge. However:

At a sobriety checkpoint, drivers are necessarily stopped without reasonable suspicion, and may be tested summarily and without probable cause. Thus the Constitution would appear to prohibit people from being stopped without a search warrant or at least without probable cause that they have committed a crime; however, the warrant requirement only attaches should the search be unreasonable and the Supreme Court, as shown below, decided that such stops are not unreasonable under certain circumstances.

Random checkpoint - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And how about stopping a teanage who looks kind of odd? Can we check them? This too happens.


Hell Joe, 26% of people don't even know that we separated from England to form our nation, why would one suspect them to know their rights? or have the courage to exercise them? I believe all these things could be challenged in a court.

j-mac
 
Hell Joe, 26% of people don't even know that we separated from England to form our nation, why would one suspect them to know their rights? or have the courage to exercise them? I believe all these things could be challenged in a court.

j-mac

And many, like tea party memebers, don't know what the constitution actually says. However, they do refer to the supreme court above. And I suspect they have some knowledge on the subject. :coffeepap
 
And many, like tea party memebers, don't know what the constitution actually says. However, they do refer to the supreme court above. And I suspect they have some knowledge on the subject. :coffeepap

Did you read my link I already provided? It specifically addresses the case cited by Wiki....So other than your gratuitous attack at the TEA party, what are you saying?

j-mac
 
But the probable cause is as simple as refusing the request of showing your DL and proof and proof of insurance. Probable cause is not a difficult obsticle to overcome.

So, on our highways, officers block a road, stop all cars, request proof of being legal and can search you if you refuse. Am I wrong about this?



yes. you are wrong. You must consent to a search, and most often fools fall to the pressure of the officer and consent.
 
I already did read it with my own eyes. I alway explained what is plainly obvious to me.

Then why do you need an interpretation from the USSC?

You disagree. Fine. Guess what. Your opinion means jack ****, which is the same mine means. You're no more a definitive voice on the constitution as I am, and your opinion is valid no less or more than mine. What's "obvious" to you seems ridiculous and idiotic to me. What's "obvious" to me seems the same to you.

A wide observation.

You can keep going "open your eyes" all you want, it just makes you look like a broken record when I've clearly stated my views on it based on what's written in the constitution. You agree. Wonderful. To damn bad you don't have constitutional authority to decide what is or isn't constitutional, and since you don't your OPINION of its constitutionality is no better than mine.

The difference being that i can read what it says on my own without needing an official ruling from a third party. You do.
 
And many, like tea party memebers, don't know what the constitution actually says. However, they do refer to the supreme court above. And I suspect they have some knowledge on the subject. :coffeepap




Most in the tea party obviously know more than you about the consitution given your utter failure of understanding the 4th amendment, and consent laws regarding checkpoints. :pimpdaddy:
 
Most in the tea party obviously know more than you about the consitution given your utter failure of understanding the 4th amendment, and consent laws regarding checkpoints. :pimpdaddy:

Tell yourself what you like, what makes you feel better, but I did cite the SCOTUS. And I suspect they understand the 4th Amendment. Or is it only people on political chat boards who understand it? :coffeepap
 
Uh huh....So they say.....In public anyway...But we do have cases of this..

Oh my....

Sorry, can't view videos on this computer.

Astonishing. All I can say is that you are just the type that a tyranny counts on to effect its take over.

Ahh, J-Mac thinks something stupid about me. Let me go worry myself over it now. Sad face :(

This is being done as well.

And I'm sure the AMAZING minds at "The Blaze" took the time to stop and think that elderly people are the most likely grouping of individuals to have various types of medical devices that make going through metal detectors worthless and thus have to be searched by hand due to this fact, right?

Completely random searches happen in about 1% of all passengers.

The only "random searches" I am aware of that would be authorized is I believe at a time they were having every "nth" person selected for additional screening. This is significantly different than randomly and arbitrarily choosing someone on the highway to pull over as the ONLY person to give ANY kind of search to. This is a set number, with the individual not being chosen by the person searching but by an algorithim that predetermines people based on numbers. A far cry different than a cop just pulling someone over at some point and deciding to give them a search for the hell of it. And, here I'm going to shock you, its a practice I actually think is wrong and one that does fall outside the scope of what should be allowable. Shocker, I know, that some poeple are actually able to look at things objectively and not just in a black and white "good or bad" as a whole type of way.

Ever been in NYC during morning or evening rush? Every bridge is packed.

And there's been accidents that have occured around those issues during those times as well. It still does not disrupt the national transit system, nor the economy at large, on nearly the same scale.

And Big Sis is open to these suggestions. She said so.

Wonderful, I disagree with her. They should get the same kind of pat down as everyone else. And by the way, EVERYONE has the right to refuse the full body scan and get a pat down in private. Your point? Again, you seem to think that everything is black and white and if you dare actually agree with something you must agree with ALL of it. Which is rather funny since the ACLU was saying the exact same thing about almost identical searches since 2004 and I never heard this much outrage from republicans. On the contrary I often heard defenses of it. Funny that.

What strawman have I built up? What have I misrepresented, or misstated? That's pure BS. You seem way too thin skinned.

That by "Zyph's logic you'd be subject to search without warrant on them", which is a strawman built up from the non-existant attribute you placed on my posts that somehow I was suggesting that the ONLY issue was federal ownership of land and that somehow I was suggesting there's a direct analog between the air transit system and the highway system.
 
Then why do you need an interpretation from the USSC?

I don't. I am saying that MY interpretation, and YOUR interpretation, are meaningless because we don't judge constitutionality. The USSC does.

A wide observation.

What?

The difference being that i can read what it says on my own without needing an official ruling from a third party. You do.

Someone is having trouble with reading comprehension right now it seems. I can read it on my own, I can come to my own decision. News flash for you, I come to a DIFFERENT conclussion than you. I am stating YOUR conclussion is no more factual or accurate than mine, because both of our opinions mean jack with regards to constitutional law.

You say its constitutional based on your reading of it. Fine.

I say its unconstitutional based on my reading of it.

Where do we go from there?
 
Can I just say I find the partisan hack hyperbole hillarious in the past few posts.

YAY! I apparenlty don't know the constitution and know it because I'm a Tea Partier. Wonderful how idiotic over generalizations work.
 
Tell yourself what you like, what makes you feel better, but I did cite the SCOTUS. And I suspect they understand the 4th Amendment. Or is it only people on political chat boards who understand it? :coffeepap



Can you point out in what you cited, where it leaps from stop to a full search?


Again the average tea partier, by your own admission knows more about the USC than you. :pimpdaddy:
 
Can I just say I find the partisan hack hyperbole hillarious in the past few posts.

YAY! I apparenlty don't know the constitution and know it because I'm a Tea Partier. Wonderful how idiotic over generalizations work.



I know. I mean you and I don't see eye to eye on this airport scanner thing, but then a dood comes in admits ignorance, searches wiki, finds something that only addresses half his point, then calls us tea party folk ignorant of the constitution?


You can't make this stuff up my friend. :lamo
 
Can I just say I find the partisan hack hyperbole hillarious in the past few posts.

YAY! I apparenlty don't know the constitution and know it because I'm a Tea Partier. Wonderful how idiotic over generalizations work.

Actually, there is a survey of tea party members and they did show a lack of understanding of the constitution, as did their candidates. So, I don't see the gneral statement as hyperbole. But any individual may well be knowledgeable.
 
I know. I mean you and I don't see eye to eye on this airport scanner thing, but then a dood comes in admits ignorance, searches wiki, finds something that only addresses half his point, then calls us tea party folk ignorant of the constitution?


You can't make this stuff up my friend. :lamo

YOu misread, yet again. I took a genral overview source, and it cited the SCOTUS. They ruled on the constitutionality of what J and I were discussing. When you can actually follow a conversation, let me know. :coffeepap
 
Actually, there is a survey of tea party members and they did show a lack of understanding of the constitution, as did their candidates. So, I don't see the gneral statement as hyperbole. But any individual may well be knowledgeable.



And some like you, not.... :pimpdaddy:
 
YOu misread, yet again. I took a genral overview source, and it cited the SCOTUS. They ruled on the constitutionality of what J and I were discussing. When you can actually follow a conversation, let me know. :coffeepap




frankie-full.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom