Pilot refuses body scan...TSA refuses to let him fly

[JediAthos]

http://news.yahoo.com/video/politics-15749652/pilot-refuses-full-body-scan-22579959

 

 

An ExpressJet pilot refused to enter a full body scanner and refused a pat down as well. He cited the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as his reasoning for the refusal. As a consequence the TSA refused to allow him to fly.

 

After watching the interview do you think his refusal is reasonable? I've been through a full body scanner and honestly I didn't really think it was that big of a deal, but I never thought about it in terms of the 4th amendment either.

[Drunkside]

http://news.yahoo.com/video/politics-15749652/pilot-refuses-full-body-scan-22579959

 

 

An ExpressJet pilot refused to enter a full body scanner and refused a pat down as well. He cited the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as his reasoning for the refusal. As a consequence the TSA refused to allow him to fly.

 

After watching the interview do you think his refusal is reasonable? I've been through a full body scanner and honestly I didn't really think it was that big of a deal, but I never thought about it in terms of the 4th amendment either.

 

Retarded. He didnt really make too much sense in that interview. His attorney said that he had passed the metal detection test, but so what? You can make weapons out of anything, prisoners have pointed that out countless times over the years.

 

Also, there is a certain thing called "Border search exeption" in the 4th amendment, and in this time of international terrorism you can never be sure whether or not somebody is wearing something dangerous, which means the security personnel had reason to suspect him. Especially after he refused the search... If this guy wins anything in the court its a victory to pure idiocy.

[JediAthos]

He might have something of a case though...even in the border search exception there is language, and the court rulings in the past have stated, that strip searches, body cavity searches, and an involuntary xray of the body can only be done with "reasonable suspicion."

 

I'm not saying he's right or wrong..personally I think its making a mountain out of a mole hill, but the language of the law may support him in court if he goes that far.

[Drunkside]

He might have something of a case though...even in the border search exception there is language, and the court rulings in the past have stated, that strip searches, body cavity searches, and an involuntary xray of the body can only be done with "reasonable suspicion."

 

I'm not saying he's right or wrong..personally I think its making a mountain out of a mole hill, but the language of the law may support him in court if he goes that far.

 

I think it was said that he was given the option of a patting search and he didnt agree to do even that... He is indeed making a mountain out of a mole hill and trying to make it look like he is on some moral crusade against ah so horrible security searches. He may win if he gets himself a good lawyer of course, but he doesnt command any respect himself, the way he acted in the interview in my opinion suggested that this is not his own idea. I get the feeling that likely his lawyer is behind this...

[Darth Avlectus]

If it was mandatory to be super thoroughly searched, or at least have to go through a checkpoint where some unsavory arse holes try to steal you blind...then it'd make more sense.

 

From my understanding, though, this is something he had complied with before and just finally got sick of it this time around.

 

Just a bad day at work I guess.

[JediAthos]

a bad day that might cost him his career....I doubt any other airline would hire him after this incident...I know I wouldn't.

[Samuel Dravis]

I personally think it makes sense to object to "security theater" procedures generally, and particularly ones that are by their nature offensive to privacy and dignity. He doesn't seem to be the best public speaker, but at least he has some knowledge of his personal worth.

[Bob Lion54]

4th Amendment does not apply.

 

No one is compelled to submit to any of the security at airports. If you don't want to be searched, don't fly. The 4th Amendment specifically guards against a search that you have no choice in such as a police officer randomly deciding to search you when he sees you walking about. If you refuse, then you will be arrested. In the case of airport security, there is no such threat. Be searched or leave. You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.

[JediAthos]

The following ruling from the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v Aukai from 2007 proves your point BobLion:

We have held that airport screening searches, like the one at issue here, are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches because they are "conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, namely, to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft, and thereby to prevent hijackings." United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973); see also United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174, 178 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 111 (2006); Marquez, 410 F.3d at 616. Our case law, however, has erroneously suggested that the reasonableness of airport screening searches is dependent upon consent, either ongoing consent or irrevocable implied consent.

 

The constitutionality of an airport screening search, however, does not depend on consent, see Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315, and requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world. Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by "electing not to fly" on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found. This rule would also allow terrorists a low-cost method of detecting systematic vulnerabilities in airport security, knowledge that could be extremely valuable in planning future attacks. Likewise, given that consent is not required, it makes little sense to predicate the reasonableness of an administrative airport screening search on an irrevocable implied consent theory. Rather, where an airport screening search is otherwise reasonable and conducted pursuant to statutory authority, 49 U.S.C. § 44901, all that is required is the passenger's election to attempt entry into the secured area of an airport. See Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315; 49 C.F.R. § 1540.107. Under current TSA regulations and procedures, that election occurs when a prospective passenger walks through the magnetometer or places items on the conveyor belt of the x-ray machine. The record establishes that Aukai elected to attempt entry into the posted secured area of Honolulu International Airport when he walked through the magnetometer, thereby subjecting himself to the airport screening process.

 

To the extent our cases have predicated the reasonableness of an airport screening search upon either ongoing consent or irrevocable implied consent, they are overruled.

 

IV.

 

Although the constitutionality of airport screening searches is not dependent on consent, the scope of such searches is not limitless. A particular airport security screening search is constitutionally reasonable provided that it "is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives [] [and] that it is confined in good faith to that purpose." Davis, 482 F.2d at 913. We conclude that the airport screening search of Aukai satisfied these requirements.

 

 

source: http://fourthamendment.com/blog/index.php?blog=1&title=airport_screening_searches_no_longer_con&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

[Drunkside]

I personally think it makes sense to object to "security theater" procedures generally, and particularly ones that are by their nature offensive to privacy and dignity. He doesn't seem to be the best public speaker, but at least he has some knowledge of his personal worth.

 

I have never found stuff like that "offensive to privacy and dignity". They are the standard procedures that are there to protect people from plane hijackers and the like. If his sense of personal worth (which he seems to think is too big in my opinion...) is worth more than his job and flying to him, fine. Waging a war on security with limited understanding on subject is just plain stupid IMHO.

[Salzella]

I have never found stuff like that "offensive to privacy and dignity". They are the standard procedures that are there to protect people from plane hijackers and the like. If his sense of personal worth (which he seems to think is too big in my opinion...) is worth more than his job and flying to him, fine. Waging a war on security with limited understanding on subject is just plain stupid IMHO.

 

I agree. The security procedures are a picnic, at worst a minor discomfort compared to the potentially massive hindrance of exploding in a mid-air fireball. A little perspective please.

[Samuel Dravis]

Drunkside, simply because you do not mind being essentially strip-searched doesn't mean that everyone else feels quite so free. Perhaps they do not have the bodies of greek gods to show off, or perhaps they might have medical problems that would be revealed by a scan. It really doesn't matter why. And simply because it has the misfortune of being routine does not make it any less offensive.

 

The question is, is using this machine as a routine security measure justifiable in the case of this man, who is to all accounts and purposes a known agent with a history with the airline? There was no reason to expect him to be hiding something which necessitates the use of a backscatter xray machine. Why should he be subjected to it if it isn't justified by his history, his bearing, his station, his character, his associations, the previous security measures he'd already been through or, well anything at all besides terrorism hysteria and it being "routine"?

 

Basically this situation strikes me like this: would it be reasonable to strip search your good friend on the off chance he's gone crazy and is packing a knife to stab you with since you saw him last week?

[Bob Lion54]

The question is, is using this machine as a routine security measure justifiable in the case of this man, who is to all accounts and purposes a known agent with a history with the airline?

Then that would put the decision in the hands of the persons performing the searches, would it not? Policy and procedure are set by a different group of people. Once a a policy is set, it should be carried out by the people "in the trenches" consistently and without exception. Your definition of "his history, his bearing, his station, his character, his associations, the previous security measures he'd already been through" might differ greatly from mine, for instance.

 

If they don't carry out security consistently, that can lead to a lot of problems. We already saw the whole racial profiling thing. Searching everybody stops this. (or at least makes it more unlikely to happen.)

 

Basically this situation strikes me like this: would it be reasonable to strip search your good friend on the off chance he's gone crazy and is packing a knife to stab you with since you saw him last week?

 

I would hope if you called someone a good friend, you wouldn't be inclined to worry that they would go crazy and kill you. The people that set the procedures don't know this man, and neither do the people that work at the security check points. At least, it's unlikely they do. Maybe they recognize him from passing through the checkpoint a number of times, but that would (and should) be about it.

[Astor]

Drunkside, simply because you do not mind being essentially strip-searched doesn't mean that everyone else feels quite so free. Perhaps they do not have the bodies of greek gods to show off, or perhaps they might have medical problems that would be revealed by a scan. It really doesn't matter why. And simply because it has the misfortune of being routine does not make it any less offensive.

 

Agreed. If it means not flying, then I'm perfectly happy with that. I don't want some busybody behind a security console seeing my scars, warts and whatever else, even if it is in the name of security and passenger safety.

[JediAthos]

As I mentioned I have been through one of these scanners...and it really doesn't bother me one bit...but I understand the point of those who are bothered by them.

 

As of Jul, 2010 the Electronic Privacy Information Center has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security calling the body scanners "unlawful, invasive, and ineffective." So, that might be something to watch with interest but I could see something like that going up to the Supreme Court so it will likely be in litigation for a long time.

 

source: http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/epic_v_dhs_suspension_of_body.html

[Salzella]

Agreed. If it means not flying, then I'm perfectly happy with that. I don't want some busybody behind a security console seeing my scars, warts and whatever else, even if it is in the name of security and passenger safety.

 

That's awfully precious of you. You think they'll care one jot about a person's body? Such bizarre overreaction to a scan baffles me, especially since as you said, public safety is what's being protected.

[Astor]

You think they'll care one jot about a person's body? Such bizarre overreaction to a scan baffles me, especially since as you said, public safety is what's being protected.

 

It doesn't matter to me if they care or not; I've always been a very private person, and there's the potential for the operator to see areas of my body that I would only show to either my Doctor or Girlfriend.

 

That said, I do understand why you think it bizarre, it's just something I can't agree with.

[Drunkside]

Drunkside, simply because you do not mind being essentially strip-searched doesn't mean that everyone else feels quite so free. Perhaps they do not have the bodies of greek gods to show off, or perhaps they might have medical problems that would be revealed by a scan. It really doesn't matter why. And simply because it has the misfortune of being routine does not make it any less offensive.

 

The question is, is using this machine as a routine security measure justifiable in the case of this man, who is to all accounts and purposes a known agent with a history with the airline? There was no reason to expect him to be hiding something which necessitates the use of a backscatter xray machine. Why should he be subjected to it if it isn't justified by his history, his bearing, his station, his character, his associations, the previous security measures he'd already been through or, well anything at all besides terrorism hysteria and it being "routine"?

 

Basically this situation strikes me like this: would it be reasonable to strip search your good friend on the off chance he's gone crazy and is packing a knife to stab you with since you saw him last week?

 

Well, i can see why he got offended, but his raving just irritates me to no end. And say what you want about him being a well known to his employees, but there are a few things about human beings that you can always count on: Their will to advance themselves, greed and the consistancy of their attempts to get what they want. I think the airport personnel is right to not trust anyone at all cause you might never actually know whats inside the head of a person you have thought to know.

 

I would be a much more likely stabber than any of my friends. But if they wanted, i would let them search me. Even strip search. I wouldnt allow a cavity check though, but who the hell keeps a knife in his a$$? But then again, Im finninsh and we dont see nakedness as a taboo or something to fear. In fact I have seen pretty much all my friends naked, the only one i havent is a chick and my other friends girlfriend. And now you wonder how, do we organize sick gay orgies? No, there is a thing called sauna, where you are supposed to be naked.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

My take on this simple. It might be a privacy violation but we have always had to endure much more. When paying our taxes, we inform the government of pretty much everything we've acquired or payed on that year; credit card companies keep tabs on you and maybe even your relatives' expenses; personal information is shared all the time, even though you'd rather keep it to youself - both on the personal and profissional level. It's only a matter of time until this becomes one more thing we take for granted and no one else will remember to complain about, with few exceptions.

 

Nonetheless, such measures are much more easily implanted in places that are afraid of something. That something being terrorism and those places the western countries. You'll witness much less public resistance than there'd be in other times.

In fact I have seen pretty much all my friends naked, the only one i havent is a chick and my other friends girlfriend. And now you wonder how, do we organize sick gay orgies? No, there is a thing called sauna, where you are supposed to be naked.

 

*Chuckles*

That's mighty different, though. You go to the sauna just for fun and even there you don't have to strip naked. You're given a towel or, at least the ones I've been to, are allowed to keep your swimsuit on. But airplanes are whole different deal; people need to use it, for work and travel. If they must submit to this exposure, then "not flying" is not really much of choice, seeing as "take a bus, then" isn't either.

[Drunkside]

My take on this simple. It might be a privacy violation but we have always had to endure much more. When paying our taxes, we inform the government of pretty much everything we've acquired or payed on that year; credit card companies keep tabs on you and maybe even your relatives' expenses; personal information is shared all the time, even though you'd rather keep it to youself - both on the personal and profissional level. It's only a matter of time until this becomes one more thing we take for granted and no one else will remember to complain about, with few exceptions.

 

Nonetheless, such measures are much more easily implanted in places that are afraid of something. That something being terrorism and those places the western countries. You'll witness much less public resistance than there'd be in other times.

 

 

*Chuckles*

That's mighty different, though. You go to the sauna just for fun and even there you don't have to strip naked. You're given a towel or, at least the ones I've been to, are allowed to keep your swimsuit on. But airplanes are whole different deal; people need to use it, for work and travel. If they must submit to this exposure, then "not flying" is not really much of choice, seeing as "take a bus, then" isn't either.

 

Towels (the things you use there are not actual towels, you are supposed to sit on top of them ) are really a total blasphemy you know... Its like drawing a picture of Muhammad shaking hands with the christian God and them both wearing novelty glasses (including noses and Hitler-mustaches). In swimming halls you are required to take even your swimsuits off because the water contains checmicals that, when vaporized, are dangerous. I have only seen swimsuits worn in saunas when both men and women go at the same time. But what i said about the sauna wasnt exactly on topic, it was a reply to the post i quoted

[Darth Avlectus]

My take on this simple. It might be a privacy violation but we have always had to endure much more. When paying our taxes, we inform the government of pretty much everything we've acquired or payed on that year; credit card companies keep tabs on you and maybe even your relatives' expenses; personal information is shared all the time, even though you'd rather keep it to youself - both on the personal and profissional level. It's only a matter of time until this becomes one more thing we take for granted and no one else will remember to complain about, with few exceptions.

 

Exceptions being identity thieves in the form of hackers and people who can duplicate whatever ID reader technology being used. Any entity that wants to use publicly available info against you. Your entire credit/medical/criminal history being available at the snap of fingers to anyone.

 

Still, I find it just creepy that my own local trash collection center keeps tabs on everything that everybody in town owns. I only wish I were exaggerating. FBI is there all the time.

 

I hope I haven't bored them too much.

 

Nonetheless, such measures are much more easily implanted in places that are afraid of something. That something being terrorism and those places the western countries. You'll witness much less public resistance than there'd be in other times.

 

Yeah. I was an advocate for going after terrorists (more out of anger than anything), however my view on it was nuanced. And ignored because it was a shade of gray in a strongly black or white polarization. And insulted as being paranoid and a conspiracy theorist.

 

My thoughts on the matter were that such measures of controls should be limited with a sharp focus on what areas the gov't. is allowed. NOT given widespread, generalized and vague powers. It had its obvious necessity for the time being, not indefinitely. Oh, and time limits with assessments at the end of such periods.

 

Just a bit of a critical eye...is something so wrong with that?

 

I digress... As it related to this story, my opinion is the guy is overreacting a bit; still I can understand the dignity aspect of the guy and even relate to what a pain in the neck things like TSA are.

 

Guess I'm one of the fortunate ones who don't need to use planes for travel much.

[Darth Avlectus]

BUMP!

Pardon the double post! 'Scuze mee!

 

 

OK. Apparently a pilots' union is speaking out now about this same stuff.

 

http://www.uptake.com/travelinsights100/pilots-leading-the-charge-against-full-body-scans/

 

Capt. Dave Bates

 

While I’m sure that each of us recognizes that the threats to our lives are real, the practice of airport security screening of airline pilots has spun out of control and does nothing to improve national security. It’s long past time that policymakers take the steps necessary to exempt commercial pilots from airport security screening and grant designated pilot access to SIDA utilizing either Crew Pass or biometric identification.

 

Other links

http://www.worldhum.com/travel-blog/item/pilots-leading-the-charge-against-full-body-scans-20101106/

 

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/017857.html

 

http://www.gsnmagazine.com/node/21787?c=airport_aviation_security

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/major-pilots-unions-rebel-tsa-screening-rules-urge/story?id=12100247

 

 

Apparently it's irking the pilots enough with TSA to go on strike.

I just heard a CBS radio report and basically, aside from stripping down, and all the other touchy-feely going on... being scanned with devices that use various types of radiation are unreasonable because they "needlessly expose pilots to more unnecessary radiation than what they already must face in their job". Going on to say pretty much that it is insulting to individual dignity.

 

The battle rages on.