Get PJ Media on your Apple

TSA ‘Strip and Grope’: Meet the Fourth Amendment (Updated)

The new airport security measures meet the definition of "unreasonable search." UPDATE: Former TSA Assistant Admin admits that the 'strip and grope' violates the Fourth Amendment.

by
Dan Miller

Bio

November 16, 2010 - 8:00 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

Under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution:

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.

More than two hundred years old, the Fourth Amendment and many other parts of the Constitution often get lost or simply ignored in the fog of bureaucracy en route to enhanced governmental authority over United States citizens. That is not a good thing. Unlike much modern legislation, the language of the Fourth Amendment is short, simple. and relatively easy to understand. However, the often incomprehensible gloss applied through legislation and judicial interpretation has made the very important word “unreasonable” difficult to interpret abstractly.

Transportation Security Agency (TSA) full-body scanning and pat-down procedures, also known as Strip and Grope, are now common:

Without regard for threat potential, airline passengers of all ages can now be forced to make the choice between baring their nakedness before a federal agent, or getting a full-body fingertip groping by another federal agent. The advanced imaging technology (AIT) scanners — AKA strip-search machines — now stand watch in more than 65 airports nationwide, with their numbers set to grow by more than 40 percent at year’s end thanks to your federal stimulus dollars.

The procedure is so humiliating and so invasive that even flight crews are rebelling. The 11,000-member American Pilots’ Association just received a letter from its leader decrying the humiliation, radiation danger, and ineffectiveness at deterring terrorism of this strip-and-grope regimen.

Other pilots’ unions have joined the chorus and an “Opt Out” group has urged people not to fly on November 24, when there are normally many Thanksgiving travelers.

As to any radiation dangers, the government has been assured (mainly by the government, so it’s just gotta be right) that there is no cause for concern, even though the 341 scanners now in use are to be increased to nearly one thousand by the end of 2011. For all I personally know to the contrary, the new procedures may be marginally effective in preventing terrorism — even though ACLU Legislative Counsel Chris Calabrese has opined otherwise:

Travelers have the right to opt for a pat-down instead of exposing themselves to the radiation and prying eyes of an anonymous TSA agent in another room. But as ACLU Legislative Counsel Chris Calabrese told USA Today: “Are we giving people two intolerable actions at airports? They can be virtually strip-searched or endure a really aggressive grope?”

That’s exactly what the TSA is doing, in its latest bit of security theater designed to try to make us feel safer without actually increasing safety. And it’s really no choice at all. As Goldberg points out, “the effectiveness of pat-downs does not matter very much, because the obvious goal of the TSA is to make the pat-down embarrassing enough for the average passenger that the vast majority of people will choose high-tech humiliation over the low-tech ball check.” In fact, Goldberg reports that he was told directly by a screener: “That’s what we’re hoping for. We’re trying to get everyone into the machine.”

Here is an account by a Mr. John Tyner, who claims that he became ridiculously ensnared in a spiderweb of TSA bureaucratic hassles and snafus early on the morning of November 13 and was threatened with a $10,000 fine if he left the airport; something he had previously been directed by TSA personnel to do after declining to be groped. It does not appear to be fiction. According to this article, by the evening of November 13 Mr. Tyner had received 70,000 comments, of which only five percent “say I’m an idiot.” He noted that every terrorist act on an airplane has been halted by passengers: “It’s time to stop treating passengers like criminals and start treating them as assets.”

Do these sorts of things violate our rights to be secure in our persons against unreasonable searches? No act of Congress gave TSA agents the power to do these things; the Congress delegated various powers to the TSA and the TSA developed the procedures, evidently with no little or no adult supervision and even less consideration given to the Fourth Amendment.

It appears that substantial discretion is left to low-level TSA employees in deciding what is “reasonable” — substantially more than is left to more “ordinary” and often better-trained law enforcement officers in deciding whether there is reasonable cause to think that a crime has been or is being committed. Can a policeman legitimately stop people on a public street randomly, or simply because he wants to, with no reason even to suspect that they are committing or are about to commit a crime and subject them to highly invasive pat-downs? Can he legitimately do so to everyone walking down a sidewalk? I think the answer is easy: No.

When the Arizona immigration statutes came to his attention, President Obama opined that it was horrible that:

[The] law that just passed in Arizona — which I think is a poorly conceived law … (applause) … you can try to make it really tough on people who look like they, “might be illegal immigrants.” One of the things that the law says is local officials are allowed to ask somebody who they have a suspicion might be an illegal immigrant for their papers. But you can imagine, if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona — your great-grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state. But now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed. That’s something that could potentially happen. That’s not the right way to go. (Applause.) (emphasis added)

The Arizona law does nothing of the sort. Still, President Obama would have been reasonable in his indignation if people were actually being stopped without probable cause on the way to buy ice cream with the kids, harassed, and asked for their papers as he claimed. They were not and could not be under the Arizona statute. But Obama has shown no indignation of which I am aware that in airports people are now (and not merely potentially) stopped routinely and asked for their “papers.” They are also now subjected to electronic strip searches and, should they decline, are now “groped” by TSA agents — with no reasonable suspicion that they may be committing or are about to commit a crime.

Click here to view the 122 legacy comments

Comments are closed.