DHS and other U.S. Government employees are leaving comments regarding this document. See the comments section below and the archived emails
If you’ve been paying attention, you would know by now that America is home to a broken, unsustainable and rogue government in Washington. The ‘Enhanced Screening’ agreement for TSA airport employees is a simple document to inform agents of the rights they’re violating (when subjected to a pat-down, body scanner or both) while giving proper notice in clear language of potential legal action for doing so.
Print out as many copies as you’d like of this document. It’s a simple way to assert and protect power over your own body at U.S. airports. You are not the property of the U.S. Government or TSA agents. Simple instructions are included on page two.
John Q Public, you might want to brush up on your understanding of the relationship of consent to screening at airports, a good place for to start reading is US v. 124, 570, while you are reading 124,570 don’t forget to read the footnotes and references to US v. Davis. Either way, Constitutional rights are infact still enforce to screening at airports.
Here is some of the case law concerning searches at airport. Good luck with developing an argument that a passengers rights are violated by a pat-down or other screening.
United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893 (1973), At the minimum, governmental restrictions upon freedom to travel are to be weighed against the necessity advanced to justify them, and a restriction that burdens the right to travel “too broadly and indiscriminately” cannot be sustained. Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 505, 84 S.Ct. 1659, 12 L.Ed.2d 992 (1964). “`[E]ven though the governmental purpose be legitimate and substantial, that purpose 913*913 cannot be pursued by means that broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties when the end can be more narrowly achieved.’” Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 488, 81 S.Ct. 247, 252, 5 L.Ed.2d 231 (1961), quoted in Aptheker v. Secretary of State, supra, 378 U.S. at 508, 84 S.Ct. 1659.[57] Moreover, exercise of the constitutional right to travel may not be conditioned upon the relinquishment of another constitutional right (here, the Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search), absent a compelling state interests.
These doctrines dictate a critical examination of each element of the airport security program to make certain that neither the passenger’s right to travel nor his right to personal privacy is burdened beyond the clear necessities of current circumstances.
As we have seen, however, the need for some limitations upon these rights is clear. In light of that need, a screening of passengers and of the articles that will be accessible to them in flight does not exceed constitutional limitations provided that the screening process is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives, that it is confined in good faith to that purpose, and that potential passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly
United States v. Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F. 2d 899 – Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, 1986 Under the fourth amendment, only unreasonable searches and seizures are prohibited. The determination of reasonableness requires a balancing of an individual’s right to be free of intrusive searches with society’s interest in safe air travel. “What is reasonable depends upon all of the circumstances surrounding the search or seizure and the nature of the search or seizure itself.”
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. $124,570 U.S. Currency, 873 F.2d 1240, In Davis, we approved airport security searches based on the understanding that they would be limited to searches for guns or explosives, and that they would be no more burdensome than necessary to achieve that objective. So long as the government officials conducting the searches pursue a single-minded objective — air safety — the rationale of Davis works well: the searches will, almost by definition, be no more intrusive than is necessary to achieve air safety.
[Moderator note: "John Q Public" is a Department of Homeland Security employee posting from IP: 216.81.81.83 = cbcp3.dhs.gov]
First of all there is no “violation” of anyone’s fourth amendment rights here because all passengers are giving consent.
If a party gives consent to a search, a warrant is not required, even if the party is unaware of their right to refuse to cooperate. There are exceptions and complications to the rule, including the scope of the consent given, whether the consent is voluntarily given, and whether an individual has the right to consent to a search of another’s property.
No one is forced to fly by the government, it is a choice. Most courts have found the right to revoke consent is removed once a passenger has begun X-ray screening.
In United States v. Herzbrun, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found Herzbrun, “had no constitutional right to revoke his consent to a search of his bag once it entered the X-ray machine and he walked through the magnetometer.” “A rule allowing a passenger to leave without a search after an inconclusive X-ray scan would encourage airline terrorism by providing a secure exit where detection was threatened.,” explained the court in United States v. Pulido-Baquerizo.
[Moenssens, A. A. (2005). Forensic-Evidence.com: Police Procedures /The Validity of Consent Searches. Retrieved August 14, 2006, Web site: http://www.forensic-evidence.com/site/Police/nonverbalconsent.html
Dear John Q Public,
Can you explain why DHS servers are scraping content from my blog? Please look into this for me. Thanks!