| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Texas Bill Would Make Invasive Pat-Downs Without Probable Cause A Felony |
| 2011-04-30 |
| A bill before the Texas State House would make it a felony for a security officer to intentionally touch someone's private areas even atop clothing unless they have probable cause to believe the person is carrying illegal items in those areas. A spokesman for the TSA said the agency doesn't comment on pending legislation. The question then boils down to whether the security areas of Texas airports and bus terminals are under State or federal jurisdiction; and if the feds can legitimately claim that air transport, not just across State lines, but intrastate, is under federal control via the interstate commerce clause. And remember that the TSA just recently changed the rules, so that airports can no longer elect to have private security services doing passenger searches. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #6 What asketh the bad son? He asketh: What do these words mean? These words were written over a hundred years ago and have no meaning. Therefore, I will substitute my own. So close to what we read in the haggadah at the Passover Seder, gorb. :-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2011-04-30 19:36 |
| #5 Oath or affirmation - What asketh the bad son? He asketh: What do these words mean? These words were written over a hundred years ago and have no meaning. Therefore, I will substitute my own. The concept is as valid today as it was then. Probable cause means just that: PROBABLE. Prove-able. Meaning you stand at least a 50% chance of being correct. So far, the TSA hasn't even hit 0.00000001%, if not zero itself. particularly describing - Ever heard of the word "particular"? This means very specific. Exact. Enough to establish identity. The TSA is not operating on a particular warrant of any kind. It is some kind of "general" warrant, which in my tiny mind is unconstitutional. Damn those founding fathers who made the Constitution a document that the common man could interpret so they would know if their politicians were taking advantage of them or playing outside of bounds. |
| Posted by: gorb 2011-04-30 16:58 |
| #4 What took so long? State Attorneys General should be arresting and trying these people under existing laws. Once the facts come out, no federal court and no Congress will be willing to undo the resulting convictions. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2011-04-30 16:50 |
| #3 "without probable cause" 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. Fourth Amendment - Constitution of the United States of America |
| Posted by: Blinky Angomose3835 2011-04-30 16:10 |
| #2 And remember that the TSA just recently changed the rules, so that airports can no longer elect to have private security services doing passenger searches. That is so as to preserve legalized groping of men, women and children as a union thug right. |
| Posted by: Blinky Angomose3835 2011-04-30 15:13 |
| #1 I thought unreasonable search & siezures were against the Constitution. The chances of the average searchee at the airport being a terrorist are very close to zero, if not actually zero. I cannot recall the TSA crowing about the terrorist they caught with a bomb on their person. I can think of all kinds of cases of drugs getting through, however. If the chances that a searchee is carrying a bomb is zero, it would seem unreasonable to me to search that person. Of course, these invasive searches might have kept a few bombs off planes, but it would be easier to put a bomb in one's luggage than to bother to carry it into the plane if this were the case. Plenty of contraband makes it onto planes in luggage. So that argument is out the window, too. Has SCOTUS weighed in on this yet? |
| Posted by: gorb 2011-04-30 12:51 |