DEA searching pax in jetway
07-31-2024, 02:49 PM
#71
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,112
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/17/11119...hooting-report
07-31-2024, 03:27 PM
#72
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,828
I grieve for all the families who have lost loved ones. I especially grieve for the families of the kids in Uvalde who lost their loved ones because almost 400 cops dithered and basically did Jack $hit rather than just running toward the sound of the gunfire:
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/17/11119...hooting-report
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/17/11119...hooting-report
08-03-2024, 03:51 PM
#73
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,261
For the self-proclaimed constitutionalist scholars here: name a case that's upheld your point, in the airport secure area. Youtube videos don't count. Neither do social media "likes."
Can't back up that imaginary law degree? Ask your militia buddies. No doubt one of them can google his way through the bar.
Can't back up that imaginary law degree? Ask your militia buddies. No doubt one of them can google his way through the bar.
08-03-2024, 04:43 PM
#74
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2017
Posts: 3,788
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
08-03-2024, 08:00 PM
#75
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,261
One is not deprived when one has consented to search; one has consented to search by voluntarily entering an area in which one is subject to search, as a condition of entry.
Can't produce a case that supports your position? Of course not. There isn't one.
Can't produce a case that supports your position? Of course not. There isn't one.
08-04-2024, 05:01 AM
#76
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2017
Posts: 3,788
Clearly logic fails you. This has been explained but you seem to have a serious comprehension problem.
08-04-2024, 06:05 AM
#77
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,261
One might supposeo, given the tens of millions of searches done in airports, that somewhere, theere's be just one case to prove your point. Just one out of those tens of millions, to uphold your righteous claptrap. Bit cartoon thumbs, the same ignorance and political discourse, nearly always with nothing more than a link and no words of your own and never backed up by on iota of anything but indignant opinion.
Show us. Show us all how voluntarily submitting to search by entrering an airport securee area, in which one is subject to search at all times is a violation of constitutional rights. Show us the law, expert. Convince us, by citation and reference, that there is legal evidence that having given consent by entering a place in which consent is a term of entry, one is somehow coerced, denied one's "rights," and forcd against one's voluntary will. Out of tens of millions of lawful searches in airports, surely you must be able to prove your case?
No?
Show it.
Show us. Show us all how voluntarily submitting to search by entrering an airport securee area, in which one is subject to search at all times is a violation of constitutional rights. Show us the law, expert. Convince us, by citation and reference, that there is legal evidence that having given consent by entering a place in which consent is a term of entry, one is somehow coerced, denied one's "rights," and forcd against one's voluntary will. Out of tens of millions of lawful searches in airports, surely you must be able to prove your case?
No?
Show it.
08-04-2024, 03:29 PM
#78
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,595
I've no idea where anyone came up with the idiotic notion that "all persons are subject to search at any time" would magically think that it only applies to weapons, but that's fanciful imagination, ignorance, and nothing else.
Likewise, the creative, but false idea that once clear of the initial screening checkpoint, one can't be searched for anything but weapons, is imaginative, wild, ignorant, and fanciful, but not based on any policy, or reality.
When you pass screening, you are subject to search, and from that moment on, you may be searchd once, twice, twenty times, at any time, in the secure area, until you leave. Probable cause is not required. Furtheer consent is not required, because THAT CONSENT HAS BEEN GIVEN AS A FUNCTION OF CHOOSING TO PASS SCREENING AND ENTER THE SECURE AREA. Because being subject to search at any tim is a condition of entry, you cannot say that you withdraw your consent, whilee beyond the screening point.
There is no magic rule which states that you can only be searched for weapons, once you make it past the screening point. In fact, part of the screening program includes random screenings throughout the secure area, including at the gate when entering the airplane. The jetway is equally subject to search. This discussion involves security in the United States, but is common throughout the world, and works the same way. In the United States, the US constitution does not change that fact, nor guarantee you any imagined "protection" against search at an airport, when you have already consented to the search, by seeking entry into an area where you aree always subjeect to search at any time.
You have a choice to volunteer and give your consent to be searched: if you don't want to be subjct to search, then you need not attempt to enter the secure area. If you enter the secure area, where all persons and property are subject to search at any time, you have done so voluntarily, and by doing so, you have given your consent. Becuase it is a term of entry and known before entry (and posted), your consent remains in effect by your presencee in an area that you chosee to enter, where all persons and property are subject to seearch at any time, for the duration of your time in that area. If you choose not to be subject to that condition, then do not pass security screeening and enter the secure area.
Wail and waffle on about constitutional rights all you like. There are NO constitutional protections against search under circumstances in which you have given your consent to be searched. Your consnt is in effect, clearly demonstrated by your presence, at all times when you are in a secure areea. Don't want to be subject to search? What are you doing in an area that is clearly posted as subject to search at all times? Proof of your consent is your presence in that place.
Likewise, the creative, but false idea that once clear of the initial screening checkpoint, one can't be searched for anything but weapons, is imaginative, wild, ignorant, and fanciful, but not based on any policy, or reality.
When you pass screening, you are subject to search, and from that moment on, you may be searchd once, twice, twenty times, at any time, in the secure area, until you leave. Probable cause is not required. Furtheer consent is not required, because THAT CONSENT HAS BEEN GIVEN AS A FUNCTION OF CHOOSING TO PASS SCREENING AND ENTER THE SECURE AREA. Because being subject to search at any tim is a condition of entry, you cannot say that you withdraw your consent, whilee beyond the screening point.
There is no magic rule which states that you can only be searched for weapons, once you make it past the screening point. In fact, part of the screening program includes random screenings throughout the secure area, including at the gate when entering the airplane. The jetway is equally subject to search. This discussion involves security in the United States, but is common throughout the world, and works the same way. In the United States, the US constitution does not change that fact, nor guarantee you any imagined "protection" against search at an airport, when you have already consented to the search, by seeking entry into an area where you aree always subjeect to search at any time.
You have a choice to volunteer and give your consent to be searched: if you don't want to be subjct to search, then you need not attempt to enter the secure area. If you enter the secure area, where all persons and property are subject to search at any time, you have done so voluntarily, and by doing so, you have given your consent. Becuase it is a term of entry and known before entry (and posted), your consent remains in effect by your presencee in an area that you chosee to enter, where all persons and property are subject to seearch at any time, for the duration of your time in that area. If you choose not to be subject to that condition, then do not pass security screeening and enter the secure area.
Wail and waffle on about constitutional rights all you like. There are NO constitutional protections against search under circumstances in which you have given your consent to be searched. Your consnt is in effect, clearly demonstrated by your presence, at all times when you are in a secure areea. Don't want to be subject to search? What are you doing in an area that is clearly posted as subject to search at all times? Proof of your consent is your presence in that place.
08-04-2024, 04:58 PM
#79
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,261
Long before the TSA existed, the 9th Circuit Court ruled in US v. Davis that aspects of th 4th amndment are suspended, with regard to airport searches. Specifically, the court classified airport screening and searches as administrative and necessary to security.
Later rulings have upheld this, such as New York v. Burger, which established that the warrantless search is reasonable if a goverment interest exists, the inspection is necessary to further the regulatory process, and that the statute authorizing the warrantless search will substitute for a warrant. Upon entry to an area in which all persons and property are subjct to sarch at any time (not just at the screening checkpoint), this applies, and nowhere is that application restricted only to TSA.
Because I am subject to search, and my baggage and belongings subjct to search inside the secure area, and because in order to entere that area I must agree to that search (and thus give my consent as a condition of entry), I may be searched at any time while beyond the initial screening checkpoint. That search is not limited to being conducted by TSA personnel. It may be conducted by airport police, or other law enforcement personnel (local, county, state, or federal).
US v. Davis concluded that those who do not wish to be searched, or in othere words who desire to "evade search," may elect not to fly. No one is forced to enter the secure area, and those who do, enter on the condition that they are subject to search at any time they are in the secure area, or in other words, at and beyond the screening checkpoint. That includes in the jetway and in the aircraft, or in the jetway at the destination airport, and any time at that location, so long as they are in the destination secure area, until having left that area. One who manages to sneak something past initial screening doesn't get a free pass because they made it past the checkpoint. That's an idiotic notion. If as a known crewmember, for example, I were to smuggle a firearm in my bag, I'd be a bloody idiot to think that I wouldn't be subject to search at any time thereaftere. The same is true if it's not a weapon; if I'm smuggling a kilo of coke, or a basketball full of illegal parrots, or if I'm Richard Reid with a shoe full of plastique, I'm subject to search at any time. I won't be able to say, to the officer who searches me, "put that gun/parrot/plastique/coke back in my bag, because I get a hall pass for sneaking past security." It dosn't work that way. I can't say "your search doesn't count because you aren't TSA," when I'm talking to a law enforcement officer performing a search in an area in which I have consented to search by my very presence.
One might as well argue that when passing customs and immigration, one can't be searched, either...but when that cocker spaniel being led about by the nice lady with the Glock 19 on her hip hits on your bag, and she tells you to open it, guess what you've gotta do? (Hint: don't tell her she isn't TSA, and that you don't have to do as you're instructed). That search can take place inside the customs facility, or outsid of it, in the secure area, and such inspections do occur. There's no free pass, in which one gets away with it because it wasn't caught on entry, or because the person to whom you're talking has a federal agent badge, and not a TSA badge.
Later rulings have upheld this, such as New York v. Burger, which established that the warrantless search is reasonable if a goverment interest exists, the inspection is necessary to further the regulatory process, and that the statute authorizing the warrantless search will substitute for a warrant. Upon entry to an area in which all persons and property are subjct to sarch at any time (not just at the screening checkpoint), this applies, and nowhere is that application restricted only to TSA.
Because I am subject to search, and my baggage and belongings subjct to search inside the secure area, and because in order to entere that area I must agree to that search (and thus give my consent as a condition of entry), I may be searched at any time while beyond the initial screening checkpoint. That search is not limited to being conducted by TSA personnel. It may be conducted by airport police, or other law enforcement personnel (local, county, state, or federal).
US v. Davis concluded that those who do not wish to be searched, or in othere words who desire to "evade search," may elect not to fly. No one is forced to enter the secure area, and those who do, enter on the condition that they are subject to search at any time they are in the secure area, or in other words, at and beyond the screening checkpoint. That includes in the jetway and in the aircraft, or in the jetway at the destination airport, and any time at that location, so long as they are in the destination secure area, until having left that area. One who manages to sneak something past initial screening doesn't get a free pass because they made it past the checkpoint. That's an idiotic notion. If as a known crewmember, for example, I were to smuggle a firearm in my bag, I'd be a bloody idiot to think that I wouldn't be subject to search at any time thereaftere. The same is true if it's not a weapon; if I'm smuggling a kilo of coke, or a basketball full of illegal parrots, or if I'm Richard Reid with a shoe full of plastique, I'm subject to search at any time. I won't be able to say, to the officer who searches me, "put that gun/parrot/plastique/coke back in my bag, because I get a hall pass for sneaking past security." It dosn't work that way. I can't say "your search doesn't count because you aren't TSA," when I'm talking to a law enforcement officer performing a search in an area in which I have consented to search by my very presence.
One might as well argue that when passing customs and immigration, one can't be searched, either...but when that cocker spaniel being led about by the nice lady with the Glock 19 on her hip hits on your bag, and she tells you to open it, guess what you've gotta do? (Hint: don't tell her she isn't TSA, and that you don't have to do as you're instructed). That search can take place inside the customs facility, or outsid of it, in the secure area, and such inspections do occur. There's no free pass, in which one gets away with it because it wasn't caught on entry, or because the person to whom you're talking has a federal agent badge, and not a TSA badge.
08-05-2024, 05:35 PM
#80
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,595
Long before the TSA existed, the 9th Circuit Court ruled in US v. Davis that aspects of th 4th amndment are suspended, with regard to airport searches. Specifically, the court classified airport screening and searches as administrative and necessary to security.
Later rulings have upheld this, such as New York v. Burger, which established that the warrantless search is reasonable if a goverment interest exists, the inspection is necessary to further the regulatory process, and that the statute authorizing the warrantless search will substitute for a warrant. Upon entry to an area in which all persons and property are subjct to sarch at any time (not just at the screening checkpoint), this applies, and nowhere is that application restricted only to TSA.
Because I am subject to search, and my baggage and belongings subjct to search inside the secure area, and because in order to entere that area I must agree to that search (and thus give my consent as a condition of entry), I may be searched at any time while beyond the initial screening checkpoint. That search is not limited to being conducted by TSA personnel. It may be conducted by airport police, or other law enforcement personnel (local, county, state, or federal).
US v. Davis concluded that those who do not wish to be searched, or in othere words who desire to "evade search," may elect not to fly. No one is forced to enter the secure area, and those who do, enter on the condition that they are subject to search at any time they are in the secure area, or in other words, at and beyond the screening checkpoint. That includes in the jetway and in the aircraft, or in the jetway at the destination airport, and any time at that location, so long as they are in the destination secure area, until having left that area. One who manages to sneak something past initial screening doesn't get a free pass because they made it past the checkpoint. That's an idiotic notion. If as a known crewmember, for example, I were to smuggle a firearm in my bag, I'd be a bloody idiot to think that I wouldn't be subject to search at any time thereaftere. The same is true if it's not a weapon; if I'm smuggling a kilo of coke, or a basketball full of illegal parrots, or if I'm Richard Reid with a shoe full of plastique, I'm subject to search at any time. I won't be able to say, to the officer who searches me, "put that gun/parrot/plastique/coke back in my bag, because I get a hall pass for sneaking past security." It dosn't work that way. I can't say "your search doesn't count because you aren't TSA," when I'm talking to a law enforcement officer performing a search in an area in which I have consented to search by my very presence.
One might as well argue that when passing customs and immigration, one can't be searched, either...but when that cocker spaniel being led about by the nice lady with the Glock 19 on her hip hits on your bag, and she tells you to open it, guess what you've gotta do? (Hint: don't tell her she isn't TSA, and that you don't have to do as you're instructed). That search can take place inside the customs facility, or outsid of it, in the secure area, and such inspections do occur. There's no free pass, in which one gets away with it because it wasn't caught on entry, or because the person to whom you're talking has a federal agent badge, and not a TSA badge.
Later rulings have upheld this, such as New York v. Burger, which established that the warrantless search is reasonable if a goverment interest exists, the inspection is necessary to further the regulatory process, and that the statute authorizing the warrantless search will substitute for a warrant. Upon entry to an area in which all persons and property are subjct to sarch at any time (not just at the screening checkpoint), this applies, and nowhere is that application restricted only to TSA.
Because I am subject to search, and my baggage and belongings subjct to search inside the secure area, and because in order to entere that area I must agree to that search (and thus give my consent as a condition of entry), I may be searched at any time while beyond the initial screening checkpoint. That search is not limited to being conducted by TSA personnel. It may be conducted by airport police, or other law enforcement personnel (local, county, state, or federal).
US v. Davis concluded that those who do not wish to be searched, or in othere words who desire to "evade search," may elect not to fly. No one is forced to enter the secure area, and those who do, enter on the condition that they are subject to search at any time they are in the secure area, or in other words, at and beyond the screening checkpoint. That includes in the jetway and in the aircraft, or in the jetway at the destination airport, and any time at that location, so long as they are in the destination secure area, until having left that area. One who manages to sneak something past initial screening doesn't get a free pass because they made it past the checkpoint. That's an idiotic notion. If as a known crewmember, for example, I were to smuggle a firearm in my bag, I'd be a bloody idiot to think that I wouldn't be subject to search at any time thereaftere. The same is true if it's not a weapon; if I'm smuggling a kilo of coke, or a basketball full of illegal parrots, or if I'm Richard Reid with a shoe full of plastique, I'm subject to search at any time. I won't be able to say, to the officer who searches me, "put that gun/parrot/plastique/coke back in my bag, because I get a hall pass for sneaking past security." It dosn't work that way. I can't say "your search doesn't count because you aren't TSA," when I'm talking to a law enforcement officer performing a search in an area in which I have consented to search by my very presence.
One might as well argue that when passing customs and immigration, one can't be searched, either...but when that cocker spaniel being led about by the nice lady with the Glock 19 on her hip hits on your bag, and she tells you to open it, guess what you've gotta do? (Hint: don't tell her she isn't TSA, and that you don't have to do as you're instructed). That search can take place inside the customs facility, or outsid of it, in the secure area, and such inspections do occur. There's no free pass, in which one gets away with it because it wasn't caught on entry, or because the person to whom you're talking has a federal agent badge, and not a TSA badge.
If you watch any of the videos of DEA and local police trying to search a bag in the airport they are careful not to do it without consent. They badger and force consent by causing the individual they want to search to miss their flight. There is now a lawsuit over this. It will be a year or two to work its way through the courts but no one expects the searches to be allowed to continue.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
