An iPhone,the 4th amendment & TSA (airport screening) policy "change"
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Anyway, the gist of his point was that there's a tradeoff between evidence in plain view, and invasive security checking.
Police are allowed to use evidence of other wrongdoings while investigating a completely different matter, and switch their investigation priorities, as it were. For example, a car might be stopped for some minor infraction - a broken taillight perhaps - but if the officer sees (say) drugs in the back seat, they can change their priorities. Evidence in plain view is the general scope.
The other side is that security checkpoints at airports go far further looking into things than would meet an "in plain view" test. The problem with being able to switch investigation priority in this circumstance is that it evades protections against unreasonable search.
His suggestion was that officers could do one or the other, but not both. Security screening should be strictly limited to physical security, and not seek evidence of other wrongdoings.
There is some evidence in any case that judiciary are starting to push back here, even in cases where actual wrongdoing is discovered by security searches:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020455680457426...
> A federal judge in June threw out seizure of three fake passports from a traveler, saying that TSA screeners violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.
> For example, a car might be stopped for some minor
> infraction - a broken taillight perhaps - but if the
> officer sees (say) drugs in the back seat, they can change
> their priorities. Evidence in plain view is the general scope.
Of course, I didn't know this until I arrived at my destination and unpacked my bag. The TSA screening completely missed it, even though it wasn't even remotely hidden.
I think it is time to take a review of the TSA procedures and start to dissassemble the security theatre they produce on a daily basis. Apart from the money and time wasted, it's also completely ineffective.
It's effective at the theater aspect. To ask for more is, arguably, unreasonable.
I strongly suspect the average traveler or voter would be able to judge between what's good security and what isn't. I recall discussions such as arming flight crew immediately becoming political, overshadowing rational discourse.
Lifting the ban on guns/knives on an airplane is not going to make it safer to fly in a plane because "everyone will just pull out their guns and shoot the terrorist." What if the terrorist has a bomb strapped to him? What if he takes someone hostage? Just shoot through the hostage? What happens when a civilian decides they they are an expert marksman and tries to shoot the terrorist, but hits the hostage instead? Supposing that the terrorist was 'defeated' and everyone was safe, how would the legalities of that situation resolve? Is the person excused from killing an innocent because they were 'defending' their self?
Oh, and the scene in "Snakes on a Plane" where half the plane gets sucked out because of a few bullet holes is quite false.
The legalities work the same way they would on the ground.
Also have a trained pro sitting on the sidelines pulling out people he finds suspect.
At a later point, maybe you can replace the fancy looking stuff with equipment that actually does something.
Edit: Geez, people. Lighten up!
http://www.sewgirls.com/yarn/US-Customs-Detains-Citizen-Over...
It's definitely a lot less intimidating of a border crossing than the ones in Detroit or Niagara Falls.
[ Sort of off-topic: I've had at least two times where I was waved through a border crossing (Detroit) by the guard without even asking to see ID or a passport, but this was back in 2005. On the other hand, I once went across the border for ~20 minutes to drop off a present for someone (sending it in the mail across the border would have taken at least a couple of days) and they told me that I was 'randomly' selected for a full vehicle search once I told them my stay in Canada had been 20 minutes. ]
It totally makes sense to me that it was a Ron Paul evangelist who made this bruhaha. I have known a few in my life and this seems like something I could see most of them doing.
Way to stand up for yourself!
I hope you're not being sarcastic. It's a tragedy that these airport screeners feel themselves to be the representatives of the police. It's just like the security guards and retail managers that think they have a right to detain you if they think you've stolen something [They don't have any such right, unless they are holding you for the cops to get there and sort the situation out].
The reason that most people just put up with this stuff is because it's easier to just 'go with the flow' than to resist and have to go through this whole process. Personally, I have respect for the people that are willing to stand up against this crap and push back instead of just bending over.
If that's reasonable, I'd hate to see unreasonable.
Not 100% sure that it was illegal. If you walk out of a retail store and set off those alarms, they do not have the right to search you. They do have the right to detain you iff they are holding you for the cops to get there (it becomes illegal when they detain you without calling the cops). This can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but in general I believe this holds true.
Though I believe that the TSA should be held to a higher standard in their jobs (retail employees/managers are not trained to deal with this sorts of issues, at least not well).
Jobs like TSA screeners often attract a certain type of person who revels in the chance to exert authority over others. It probably delighted this Bardmass fellow to no end to put this stuck up traveler going on about his "rights" in his place.
How many people were bullied into ceding their rights before Mr. Bierfeldt took his stand? A system that simply waits for TSA employees to overstep their bounds and then corrects them may be better than just letting them set up their own little fiefdoms, but lets make sure to remember that it could be much, much better by simply educating TSA employees about the rights of the passengers and proactively making sure that those rights are protected.