(CNN) -- The Transportation Security Administration stood by its security officers Sunday after a Florida woman complained that her cancer-stricken, 95-year-old mother was patted down and forced to remove her adult diaper while going through security.
Reports of the incident took hold in social media, with scores of comments on the topic and reposts appearing hourly on Twitter Sunday afternoon. The TSA released a statement Sunday defending its agents' actions at the Northwest Florida Regional Airport.
"While every person and item must be screened before entering the secure boarding area, TSA works with passengers to resolve security alarms in a respectful and sensitive manner," the federal agency said. "We have reviewed the circumstances involving this screening and determined that our officers acted professionally and according to proper procedure."
Emphasis mine.
I think the point that bothers me the most is that this was the 'proper procedure'. Here's the fourth amendment for you, in case you aren't up on your constitutional law:
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.
So where was the probable cause the granted the TSA the right to ask an elderly cancer stricken woman to remove her adult diaper? Was she acting shading? Like she might blow up a plane? Did she look like the type to try to storm the cockpit? Did she have a rap sheet? Was she on a watch list or a do not fly list? Did she have a run in with security before going through the TSA checkpoint?
My suspicion is that the answer to all of those questions is no. The TSA, in its attempt to avoid a 'discrimination' accusation by minorities, has intentionally randomized their searches. This is in blatant violation of our fourth amendment. And having that little old lady remove her adult diaper did absolutely nothing to help secure that plane. There is ample precaution, and then their is blind, illogical procedure. The TSA routinely uses the second one. Someone ought to reign them in.
---
Completely unrelated, my 100th post. :)
The only reason that it is not in violation of the 4th amendment: She was not FORCED to go through with the search. The regulations are put forth and executed at random, yes, in order to avoid discrimination suits, but no one is ever forced by the TSA to do anything that they want to do. If you walk in, are chosen to be searched, and don't want to allow the search for whatever reason, you have the choice to leave.
ReplyDeleteIf the TSA had allowed to the old woman, as perfectly nice as she may have been, to pass through without the search, then they would have been liable if anything had happened. Did they need to be as thorough? Probably not, but who is to say there isn't some elderly lady who has thrown her lot with those who wish American citizens harm? In the mind of the terrorist: Where is the one place they are least likely to check? This way we at least know that we don't to worry about a dirty diaper bomb.
-Andy
Actually, not entirely true. Technically, if you refuse a screening and decide to turn and leave the checkpoint, the TSA is capable of fining you up to $11,000.00. While, to my knowledge, they haven't levied this fine upon anyone yet (I suspect they know that it wouldn't stand up to a legal challenge, which would threaten the other powers they hold dear), this past November, when there was backlash against the backscatter scanners, they did indeed assert that they could fine you approximately $10,000.00 grand for refusing.
ReplyDeleteLink: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/walking-airport-security-lead-11000-fine/story?id=12215171
So, ok. Yeah, she could have refused. And they could have slapped her with a $10,000.00 fine. Explain to me the legal justification for that? The Constitutionality of it? So, for refusing to allow your civil rights to be violated, you can have a hefty fine levied against you?
They justified is as a 'deterrent' so terrorists wouldn't back out of screenings. Which nearly makes my head explode from the sheer illogic of it all. Because someone who wants to sacrifice his life to kill Americans is truly, sincerely concerned about a $10,000 fine.
How long would people accept the rule, "You have the right to free speech, BUT we can fine you $10,000.00 if you write something anti-American. We have it done it yet, but be careful what you write." I guarantee you this hypothetical law would probably be overturned in a lower court, before it ever reached the Supreme Court.
What is the difference in this case? Because they have us by our fear.