Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
11-04-2010, 10:09 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
The [Rutherford] Institute will represent Roberts [expressjet pilot] and assist him in his claim that the TSA’s use of full-body scanning technology as a primary security scan violates the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. This case will probably be thrown out under some sort of anti-terrorism mandate. Nevertheless, we applaud Roberts and the Rutherford Institute for standing up to what should be freedom from unlawful search and seizure. Full body scans are simply going too far.
My guess is you can claim 4th amendment and say it's going too far but you also don't have the right to fly on an airplane. Hence the author above is probably right, this will be tossed. If you want to fly you do what TSA says.
That said, I don't like those machines and I think you could get the ATA, unions, passenger rights advocates and others to come together to fight the machines as being dangerous and causing passengers undue stress and make it a health and financial issue. Public pressure is as good as anything a court can accomplish.
I think the key is to cite the radiation issue. That'll kill it long before a court even hears it.
My guess is you can claim 4th amendment and say it's going too far but you also don't have the right to fly on an airplane. Hence the author above is probably right, this will be tossed. If you want to fly you do what TSA says.
That said, I don't like those machines and I think you could get the ATA, unions, passenger rights advocates and others to come together to fight the machines as being dangerous and causing passengers undue stress and make it a health and financial issue. Public pressure is as good as anything a court can accomplish.
I think the key is to cite the radiation issue. That'll kill it long before a court even hears it.
11-04-2010, 10:16 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: 320B
Posts: 781
Originally Posted by Jughead
The fourth one. Actually an amendment of the constitution. The whole unreasonable searches and seizure thing. But James Madison didn't envision an airport in the late 18th century, so I guess it's allowed there. 
Courts characterize the routine administrative search conducted at a security checkpoint as a warrantless search, subject to the reasonableness requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Such a warrantless search, also known as an administrative search, is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, " confined in good faith to that purpose," and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly. [See United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973)]
11-04-2010, 10:22 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: 320B
Posts: 781
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
The [Rutherford] Institute will represent Roberts [expressjet pilot] and assist him in his claim that the TSA’s use of full-body scanning technology as a primary security scan violates the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. This case will probably be thrown out under some sort of anti-terrorism mandate. Nevertheless, we applaud Roberts and the Rutherford Institute for standing up to what should be freedom from unlawful search and seizure. Full body scans are simply going too far.
My guess is you can claim 4th amendment and say it's going too far but you also don't have the right to fly on an airplane. Hence the author above is probably right, this will be tossed. If you want to fly you do what TSA says.
That said, I don't like those machines and I think you could get the ATA, unions, passenger rights advocates and others to come together to fight the machines as being dangerous and causing passengers undue stress and make it a health and financial issue. Public pressure is as good as anything a court can accomplish.
I think the key is to cite the radiation issue. That'll kill it long before a court even hears it.
My guess is you can claim 4th amendment and say it's going too far but you also don't have the right to fly on an airplane. Hence the author above is probably right, this will be tossed. If you want to fly you do what TSA says.
That said, I don't like those machines and I think you could get the ATA, unions, passenger rights advocates and others to come together to fight the machines as being dangerous and causing passengers undue stress and make it a health and financial issue. Public pressure is as good as anything a court can accomplish.
I think the key is to cite the radiation issue. That'll kill it long before a court even hears it.
11-04-2010, 10:30 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: ATL717A
Posts: 890
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
My guess is you can claim 4th amendment and say it's going too far but you also don't have the right to fly on an airplane.
I'd be shocked if this guys' defense makes it very far. He chose to enter the airport. If his defense is accepted, a ruling in his favor could, in theory, disallow screening of any type -whereas one could always claim their possessions are being subjected to an unreasonable search.
Won't happen in this environment.
Last edited by Jughead; 11-04-2010 at 10:35 AM. Reason: Should've waited a bit for 1234's caselaw.
11-04-2010, 10:31 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
Originally Posted by 1234
Which constitutional right is being violated?
Originally Posted by Jughead
The fourth one. Actually an amendment of the constitution. The whole unreasonable searches and seizure thing. But James Madison didn't envision an airport in the late 18th century, so I guess it's allowed there.
11-04-2010, 10:31 AM
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
M. S. and rumored T. C.
Denny
Denny
Why do we use initials?
These guys are candidates for a prominent position of union leadership.
They should have no objection to their names being made public.
They have voluntarily made themselves "public figures".
Signed,
C.E.
11-04-2010, 10:46 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: 7ERB, no M88, no 7ER, no A320, NEXT!
Posts: 397
How about a round of applause to crew resources for waiting until the absolute last possible moment to schedule training for bid that was awarded 6 months ago!
No, I didn't have anything that I needed to plan for.
No, I didn't have anything that I needed to plan for.
11-04-2010, 11:15 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: 320B
Posts: 781
Originally Posted by newKnow
You might be able to throw in the right to privacy in there, too. I would argue that the groping is excessive and its benefits do not outweigh the privacy rights of the individuals who are groped.
11-04-2010, 11:20 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,503
Originally Posted by 1234
Without using the technology of the backscatter machines, how do you propose that the TSA finds and stops the underwear bomber at the checkpoint so that your flight is safe for travel?
There is no easy way to find the next place they'll try......cause that is called a cavity search.
11-04-2010, 11:22 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: 320B
Posts: 781
Originally Posted by TheManager
Really? Think they'll hide it there again?
There is no easy way to find the next place they'll try......cause that is called a cavity search.
There is no easy way to find the next place they'll try......cause that is called a cavity search.
You don't think they would hide it there again if they know that there is nothing the TSA can do to find it? Really?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
