TexasCHLforum.com

Gr8_Outdoorsman wrote:


If a passenger that was randomly selected is acting irate, irrational and resisting how should the TSA agent have acted?

Regarding police doing searches, it happens everywhere. Police place people in handcuffs and pat them down (i.e. touching them as you say) without placing them under arrest. Officers do this especially when there is only one of them and several potential suspects until they sort through things. It's called detaining. Do you really think that every single search warrant produces something illegal?

I'm not saying that I'm for the random searches. What I am saying is that they are just part of traveling by air right now. There are things in the works to try and get things changed, but nothing has changed as of yet. If you don't like it, don't fly. There's no need in giving the TSA agent a hard time. They didn't make the rules/laws and are doing what they've been told to do. The OP was rude and non-compliant from reading the post so the agent acted accordingly. There are more creative and constructive ways to drive change instead of causing a scene at the airport.

I'm done!

1. So merely purchasing an airline ticket (still legal so far as I know) and boarding a plane (also still legal so far as I know) makes one a "suspect." In other words, in your view, we're all suspects even if we do nothing suspicious or illegal? Our mere existence is suspicious and makes us subject to being searched. My standard is the US Constitution. Your standard is the police state standard, because it's a signature element of police states that citizens can be searched and detained merely on the whim of the police. Sounds like that's OK with you, but it isn't with me.

2. Random searches and whimsical searches and search warrants are all different animals. Search warrants have to meet the Constitutional standard of probable cause --in simple terms that means you have to do something illegal or suspicious. No one in this thread seems to be contesting the execution of search warrants at airports.

3. In a previous comment you say: The OP is completely to blame for being scrutinized to the level that they were. It is no different than someone being nervous, rude or resistant to any other law enforcement officer.

Yes, you should let anyone with any kind of authority do anything they want. It's illegal now to be rude, nervous, or resist any demand made upon you by anyone in authority. What happened to the notion of government employees showing respect to the citizens who pay their salaries? I missed that part of the Bill of Rights where it says you deserve what you get for failing to be good obedient little boys and girls whenever a government agent get his panties in a bunch. I thought authority was supposed to operate under a legal standard, not the "panties in a bunch," or "you failed to stroke my ego," standards. So, in your view, if a citizen is having a bad day, in pain, frustrated, or nervous, he gets taught a lesson, but when a government agent has a bad day he gets a free pass to make a citizen's life miserable? That said, I agree that we're now operating under the "failure to stroke the authoritarian's ego got his panties in a bunch standard," and it's not smart to act like you're a taxpaying American citizen, and absurd to expect a government agent to treat you with consideration or respect: keep your eyes downcast, be obedient, answer questions with the serf's proper deference, accept any insults, improper remarks, stupidity, and inconvenience with a smile (however forced), and maybe you'll be allowed to continue on your way without further harassment, humiliation, and cost.

The problem I have with that dynamic is that it sounds more like what I'd expect in North Korea than in the America I was born in, and I'd like to have my country back. Maybe we seem to be at odds because you're attempting to be pragmatic, and deal with the realities we're facing. If so, excuse my agitation, because I'm arguing against the concepts you seem to be endorsing being accepted as a matter of principle.

I was thinking about this thread today at work. I was wondering about many peoples' opinions that these searches and pat downs/gropes are unconstitutional violations of the Fourth Amendment. What I was wondering was if that really applied since the TSA is not a law enforcement agency. Are they? They don't really have the authority to arrest anyone, do they? Aren't they really only a form of rent-a-cop with a little more authority, but still not LE? I'm not trying to stick up for what they do, but was just wondering.

C-dub wrote:I was thinking about this thread today at work. I was wondering about many peoples' opinions that these searches and pat downs/gropes are unconstitutional violations of the Fourth Amendment. What I was wondering was if that really applied since the TSA is not a law enforcement agency. Are they? They don't really have the authority to arrest anyone, do they? Aren't they really only a form of rent-a-cop with a little more authority, but still not LE? I'm not trying to stick up for what they do, but was just wondering.

I believe that the 4th amendment also protects you from unreasonable searches performed by postal workers.

(The point being that I think it applies to all government agents -- not just LEOs)

You're probably right. It probably also applies to WalMart's receipt checkers.

I was just wondering out loud.

C-dub wrote:You're probably right. It probably also applies to WalMart's receipt checkers.

I was just wondering out loud.

Ummm, actually, no.
The 4th amendment would only apply to government personnel. At least at the moment, Walmart is not a government agency.

Huh, how about that? What would it be then, assault?

C-dub wrote:Huh, how about that? What would it be then, assault?

Pretty much.

C-dub wrote:Huh, how about that? What would it be then, assault?

What would WHAT be? Requesting to see your receipt by a Walmart drone? It would be a request. You can decline. (Something you can't do with a government agent.)

Maybe I'm lost. I'm really not sure what your asking.

sjfcontrol wrote:

C-dub wrote:Huh, how about that? What would it be then, assault?

What would WHAT be? Requesting to see your receipt by a Walmart drone? It would be a request. You can decline. (Something you can't do with a government agent.)

Maybe I'm lost. I'm really not sure what your asking.

I think I follow the question: If performed by civil servants, it is a civil rights (i.e., Constutional) issue; if performed by a private citizen, it is either criminal or civil, depending on the offense.

However, my thinking went a bit differently today (as always...): How was security performed at airports, trains, ships, etc., during WWII? It was a known fact that there were any number of enemy agents in the U.S., whose job was to gain intelligence but also to harass their enemy by blowing up anything (and anyone) they saw to demoralize Americans (in fact, it did just the opposite, once the U.S. was officially involved). Most Americans saw some inconveniences, but generally went through their lives as they had done before (realizing that they had not entirely recovered from the 20th Century Depression).

As I recall (from the History my parents taught me), most American citizens were treated with all due respect by civilian and military law enforcement personnel, and were treated the same in return.

And, yes, I also wonder if TSA agents are considered law enforcement personnel. I don't recall LEO training as being a prerequisite for those positions (I suspect they are mostly re-badged private personnel from the original contractor).

We're drifting into the receipt checker threads and it's my fault. Sorry!

I meant, as unlikely as it may be, if they did detain someone and searched through their belongings looking for whatever they think they were trying to steal without their permission.

C-dub wrote:We're drifting into the receipt checker threads and it's my fault. Sorry!

I meant, as unlikely as it may be, if they did detain someone and searched through their belongings looking for whatever they think they were trying to steal without their permission.

Well, there are some shopkeeper laws that give him some rights to detain while the police are summoned. But there has to be more than a receipt-check refusal to trigger them.