Man With 4th Amendment Written on Chest Wins Trial Over Airport Arrest

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/01/4th-amendment-chest-trial/

by hachiya • 13 years ago

129 29 13 years ago

Osiris• 13 years ago

When I used to travel for work I made a big effort to avoid going through the scanners by selecting lines that weren't using them or opt-ing out. My last opt-out occurred after the new groping pat-downs were put into practice and I found the pat-down much more disturbing than the scanner. Now, I still try to avoid the line with the scanner, but when required, I'll go through them rather than get groped.

Unfortunately, this lawsuit will do nothing to change the way the TSA operates. I would have been happier to see the punishment not just be a payment of monies but a requirement to change policies and procedures to avoid this in the future. I don't see that happening.

tansey• 13 years ago

I think that is an unfortunate attitude. I always opt-out. It's a form of civil disobedience and governments don't like that, so they enact procedures that try to discourage people. If enough people opted out, the whole system would come to a stand-still and they would have to rethink the policy. That may mean just removing the option of a pat down altogether, in which case I imagine there will be a large backlash. The real fear for me is that people just become accepting of it slowly over time, until they finally can remove the option and then not enough people will be outraged.

StavrosK• 13 years ago

I always opt-out too. It's a matter of principle, I refuse to have my privacy invaded like that without being able to see who invades it, plus it creates more work for them.

Also, I rather enjoy pat-downs. They're like a massage, and the TSA agents wasn't too overt with the problematic regions, although they did try psychological manipulation to make me feel bad (refusing to let me touch my stuff, making me take my belt off, etc). I didn't mind, though, opting out felt like a big "fuck you" to the TSA.

Of course, I don't even live in the US, so I've only done it twice.

tedunangst• 13 years ago

Not touching your stuff isn't psychological manipulation. It's to prevent you from interfering.

linuxhansl3• 13 years ago

Personally, I will never ever go through one of these scanners. I don't think they are a health risk or anything; it's a matter of principle and they are known to be ineffective anyway. If some poor schmuck wants to pad me down, so be it.

(btw, I am German and have received the most thorough pat down, ever, in Germany)

I think a crucial observation here is: How many terrorist has the TSA stopped? ... Not a single one. All this effort, the lines, the money; and not a single catch.

Snoptic3• 13 years ago

An effective deterrent catches no one. An A/B test is needed, but...

yock• 13 years ago

Even though this ruling seems to be in favor of liberty, I'm disheartened to read the excerpt of the appeals court ruling in the article.

We take heed of [Benjamin Franklin's] warning and are therefore unwilling to relinquish our First Amendment protections—even in an airport.

The court finds itself tempted to set aside Constitutional language for the sake of the nebulous idea of "national security." Next time they're faced with a ruling of this nature, their temptations might just get the better of them.

ck22• 13 years ago

They already set aside huge swaths of the constitution for "national security".

I think their argument is "what's a little more violation?"

United States has had a very large constitution-free zone for many years - people who have been stopped for border-searches hundreds of miles inland already know this.

http://www.aclu.org/constitution-free-zone-map

tantalor• 13 years ago

I think they were being rhetorical.

ck22• 13 years ago

That judge with the dissent - what a moron. Maybe Rosa Parks should have protested somewhere other than the bus too eh?

Dude was braver than I've ever been, could have ended really badly.

mikecane• 13 years ago

"Nefarious actors." Judge seems to be unfamiliar with the TSA itself.

OGinparadise• 13 years ago

Had this protest been launched somewhere other than in the security-screening area, we would have a much different case. But Tobey’s antics diverted defendants from their passenger-screening duties for a period, a diversion that nefarious actors could have exploited to dangerous effect.

Yeah, the "nefarious actors" couldn't grope, er pat down, any women during that time.

Snoptic3• 13 years ago

Beautiful reasoning from that judge: Don't be a victim of a crime, as that distracts police from their work.

cdwhite• 13 years ago

Eugene Volokh's take: http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/25/man-who-took-off-his-shirt-...

pitchups• 13 years ago

And this is why I love the US and am a citizen! I can think of almost no other country where such a man would not have been arrested and had no legal recourse.

betterunix• 13 years ago

Sadly, most people who are arrested or punished because they exercised their rights have no recourse in this country. A legal battle is pricey, risky, and the damage is often done long before anyone sees a courtroom.

msbarnett2• 13 years ago

Evidently you're not familiar with most of the First World?

You have less freedom than most of us, not more. The NDAA wouldn't fly in Canada, or Scandinavia, or ...

graue2• 13 years ago

> Scandinavia

Maybe better in some respects, but Sweden seems pretty corrupt in light of the Pirate Bay trial and Assange prosecution.

lucian1900• 13 years ago

I'm pretty sure the parent was being sarcastic. Even vague knowledge of Europe makes that statement obviously silly.

illuminate• 13 years ago

This "we're the best because we're the best!" attitude is harmful and resting on laurels "as an American" is why we're not the best, leading to a continued erosion of freedom, ill-action, and our deserved opinion in the eyes of the rest of the world.

linuxhansl3• 13 years ago

I'm sorry, but it just reveals how deluded you are.

While I agree it is great that he did not have to face any further repercussions, it actually did go to trial and he was in fact found guilty by the lower court.

Pinatubo• 13 years ago

Lazy protest. He should have sewed the text 4th amendment into the inside of his shirt with strips of aluminum foil and then gone through the nudie scanner.

joezydeco• 13 years ago

Or he could just buy a premade one (when they're back in stock)

http://cargocollective.com/4thamendment

gav• 13 years ago

If his antics really distracted the TSA so that "nefarious actors" could exploit the situation, the state of our airport security is in grave danger.

Man With 4th Amendment Written on Chest Wins Trial Over Airport Arrest

Related Stories