PDA

View Full Version : Legal Appeals court upholds TSA's use of full-body scanners


orange
07-16-2011, 03:27 PM
updated 7/15/2011 4:20:45 PM ET


WASHINGTON A U.S. appeals court Friday upheld the use of full-body scanners to screen air travelers, but said the Transportation Security Administration should have sought public comment before deploying them.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the machines, known as Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT), were not an unconstitutional search and declined to halt their use despite TSA's failure to follow proper procedure.

Privacy advocates, who have strongly opposed the use of the machines, had argued their use constituted an illegal search under the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment. They also said TSA failed to provide public notice that it was deploying them and to seek public comment.

"Any passenger may opt-out of AIT screening in favor of a pat-down, which allows him to decide which of the two options for detecting a concealed, nonmetallic weapon or explosive is least invasive," the three-judge panel ruled.

The court agreed that the deployment of the scanners, which allow screeners to see under a traveler's clothes in a bid to detect hidden explosives, was significant enough that the TSA should have sought public input.

"It is clear that by producing an image of the unclothed passenger, an AIT scanner intrudes upon his or her personal privacy in a way a magnetometer does not," Judge Douglas Ginsburg wrote for the panel, adding that the agency should have provided notice and sought comment.

The court sent the matter back to the TSA for action.

more: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43773344/ns/travel-news/

orange
07-16-2011, 04:07 PM
Decision here: PDF download (http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/B3100471112A40DE852578CE004FE42C/$file/10-1157-1318805.pdf)

The money shot:

2. Fourth Amendment Claim

Finally, the petitioners argue that using AIT for primary screening violates the Fourth Amendment because it is more invasive than is necessary to detect weapons or explosives. In view of the Supreme Court’s “repeated[] refus[al] to declare that only the least intrusive search practicable can be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment,” City of Ontario v. Quon, 130 S. Ct. 2619, 2632 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted), and considering the measures taken by the TSA to safeguard personal privacy, we hold AIT screening does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

As other circuits have held, and as the Supreme Court has strongly suggested, screening passengers at an airport is an “administrative search” because the primary goal is not to determine whether any passenger has committed a crime but rather to protect the public from a terrorist attack. See United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955, 958–63 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (passenger search at airport checkpoint); United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174, 178–81 (3d Cir. 2006) (Alito, J.) (same); United States v. Edwards, 498 F.2d 496, 499–501 (2d Cir. 1974) (Friendly, J.) (carry-on baggage search at airport); see also Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004) (police set up checkpoint to obtain information about earlier crash); Mich. Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) (sobriety checkpoint). An administrative search does not require individualized suspicion. City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 41, 47–48 (2000) (individualized suspicion required when police checkpoint is “primarily [for] general crime control,” that is, “to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing” unlike “searches at places like airports ... where the need for such measures to ensure public safety can be particularly acute”). Instead, whether an administrative search is “unreasonable” within the condemnation of the Fourth Amendment “is determined by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual's privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 118-19 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted).

That balance clearly favors the Government here. The need to search airline passengers “to ensure public safety can be particularly acute,” Edmond, 531 U.S. at 47–48, and, crucially, an AIT scanner, unlike a magnetometer, is capable of detecting, and therefore of deterring, attempts to carry aboard airplanes explosives in liquid or powder form. On the other side of the balance, we must acknowledge the steps the TSA has already taken to protect passenger privacy, in particular distorting the image created using AIT and deleting it as soon as the passenger has been cleared. More telling, any passenger may opt-out of AIT screening in favor of a patdown, which allows him to decide which of the two options for detecting a concealed, nonmetallic weapon or explosive is least invasive.

Contrary to the EPIC’s argument, it is not determinative that AIT is not the last step in a potentially escalating series of search techniques. In Hartwell, from which the petitioners tease out this argument, the Third Circuit upheld an airport search that started with a walk-through magnetometer, thence to scanning with a hand-held magnetometer and, when the TSA officer encountered a bulge in the passenger’s pocket, progressed (according to the passenger) to the officer’s removing a package of crack cocaine from that pocket. 436 F.3d at 175–76. The court noted, however, that its opinion, while describing the search at issue there as “minimally intrusive,” did “not purport to set the outer limits of intrusiveness in the airport context.” Id. at 180 & n.10. Nothing in Hartwell, that is, suggests the AIT scanners must be minimally intrusive to be consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

KILLER_CLOWN
07-16-2011, 04:07 PM
I feel better already. Cancer or sexual assault it's YOUR choice.

BucEyedPea
07-16-2011, 04:12 PM
Another oppressor court working for the state and against the people.

orange
07-16-2011, 04:13 PM
I feel better already. Cancer or sexual assault it's YOUR choice.

But not a couple ounces of C4. That's not YOUR choice.

Dallas Chief
07-16-2011, 07:34 PM
I feel better already. Cancer or sexual assault it's YOUR choice.

You are correct on the choice part. It is your choice whether to fly or not. If you cannot tolerate the security procedures then you have a choice not to fly. Pretty simple really, to fly is a privilege, not a right, basic Social Studies there Killer...

MagicHef
07-16-2011, 09:12 PM
On the other side of the balance, we must acknowledge the steps the TSA has already taken to protect passenger privacy, in particular distorting the image created using AIT and deleting it as soon as the passenger has been cleared.

I thought the TSA had been caught saving some of the AIT images.

Jaric
07-17-2011, 12:53 AM
But not a couple ounces of C4. That's not YOUR choice.

It's much more comforting to know it will only be less than 3 ounces of c4 that blows up instead of more than that...

KILLER_CLOWN
07-17-2011, 01:39 AM
But not a couple ounces of C4. That's not YOUR choice.

Pointless, a terrorist could simply blow up the terminal and cause more casualties.

KILLER_CLOWN
07-17-2011, 01:40 AM
You are correct on the choice part. It is your choice whether to fly or not. If you cannot tolerate the security procedures then you have a choice not to fly. Pretty simple really, to fly is a privilege, not a right, basic Social Studies there Killer...

Like i've stated before i quit flying and i don't want the airlines asking for another bailout. They will get my business again after the TSA is abolished.

HonestChieffan
07-17-2011, 01:20 PM
Remember when Obots knew the O would protect civil liberty? This and Gitmo and the Patriot act.....all 3 fails for the Obots.

Some Hope n Change there for sure. Search everyone who takes a plane but ignore the ones who swim across the border and get em registered to vote.

healthpellets
07-17-2011, 04:08 PM
what an effing joke.

|Zach|
07-17-2011, 07:29 PM
Makes sense to me.

Bwana
07-18-2011, 07:47 AM
Dandy


http://img.hobowars.com/fn_photos/l_16366__homelandsecurity.jpg

KILLER_CLOWN
07-18-2011, 09:41 AM
Dandy


http://img.hobowars.com/fn_photos/l_16366__homelandsecurity.jpg

LMAO

C'mon Bwana, fly the 'Friendly' skies.

Garcia Bronco
07-18-2011, 11:49 AM
Stop flying. Take the money out of the equation for them. Video chat...even for family holidays. Its awesome.

blaise
07-18-2011, 12:05 PM
I don't care. I don't think being on an exploding airplane would be fun.

KILLER_CLOWN
07-18-2011, 12:10 PM
I don't care. I don't think being on an exploding airplane would be fun.

What if everyone was sending pics of your private parts around as a trophy to what was groped? Pornsites selling the experiences? It's worth it because your plane didn't go boom? You have a much higher chance of dieing from a bee sting and better odds of winning Powerball.

Saul Good
07-18-2011, 12:11 PM
Stop flying. Take the money out of the equation for them. Video chat...even for family holidays. Its awesome.

Who is "them"? Its not the airlines that subject you to these screenings.

KILLER_CLOWN
07-18-2011, 12:13 PM
Who is "them"? Its not the airlines that subject you to these screenings.

To suggest they have no control over TSA is ludicrous on it's face.

blaise
07-18-2011, 12:22 PM
What if everyone was sending pics of your private parts around as a trophy to what was groped? Pornsites selling the experiences? It's worth it because your plane didn't go boom? You have a much higher chance of dieing from a bee sting and better odds of winning Powerball.

Yes, it's worth it.

Garcia Bronco
07-18-2011, 12:34 PM
I don't care. I don't think being on an exploding airplane would be fun.

Your chances of being on a exploding airplane is almost zero pre-911...and it's still the same today. If fact....if you were a woman over 40...it's more likely that you'll be able to find someone to marry you

KILLER_CLOWN
07-18-2011, 12:36 PM
Yes, it's worth it.

Woman boards plane with 3-inch knife TWICE but TSA plays it down because explosives are 'biggest threat'

By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 5:06 PM on 17th July 2011

An Indianapolis woman was shocked to discover she had been able to board a plane with a three-inch knife in her carry-on bag not once, but twice.

Sara Gallienne had not realised the blade was in her luggage until she got home.

But that hadn't stopped her successfully carrying it through TSA checkpoints at both Richmond and Providence, Rhode Island.

'I was going through it (bag), pulled out my headphones and I realised, "Oh crud. I have a knife in here,"' Ms Gallienne told WTVR News.

'I was blown away I could not believe that I had just made it through with this knife. Not one, but two TSA checkpoints,' she added.

The TSA has seemingly played down the incident saying its greatest focus needs to be on explosives rather than blades.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/07/17/article-2015718-0D0CB6D300000578-339_468x286.jpg

This despite evidence to suggest that some of the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks may have been carrying Leatherman-style utility knives.

'We continue to take the discovery of knives and other prohibited items seriously, however, in today's post-9/11 security environment, intelligence tells us our officers' greatest focus needs to be on the biggest threat to aviation security today - explosives and explosive components,' TSA said in the statement.

The news comes just days after a Department of Homeland Security report revealed there have been more than 25,000 security breaches at U.S. airports since 9/11.

Fourteen thousand of those people have made their way into sensitive areas and more than 6,000 people have made it past screeners without proper scrutiny, according to the report.

That is an average of slightly more than five security breaches a year at each of the 457 commercial airports, and 'these are just the ones we know about,' said Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who is overseeing a congressional hearing on security shortcomings.

'I think it's a stunningly high number.'

The TSA has been dogged by controversy over the past year mainly for its full-body scanners and aggressive pat downs, especially on young children.

The most recent breach of security occurred earlier this month when a cleaner discovered a stun gun on a JetBlue plane that had landed in Newark from Boston.

Before that a Nigerian national was able to fly cross-country on an expired boarding pass in someone else's name.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2015718/Woman-boards-plane-3-inch-knife-TWICE-TSA-shrug-explosives-biggest-threat.html

I feel safer, the Tourism Suppression Agency is doing a fine job.