Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Appalling new TSA screening procedure

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Tall Man, Nov 1, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tall Man

    Tall Man Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    233
    http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20041010-9999-1m10transcol.html#

    TSA body search upsets local woman

    By Jeff Ristine
    UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
    October 10, 2004

    A new layer of security at the nation's airports last month caught a Mira Mesa woman by surprise. Now Ava Kingsford wants other women to know just how uncomfortable the "secondary screening" process can become.

    Kingsford, 36, was traveling back to San Diego from Denver International Airport with her 3-month-old son when she was flagged for a pat-down search, possibly because of an expired driver's license.

    She took the procedure in stride until the female Transportation Security Administration screener announced, "I'm going to feel your breasts now."

    Kingsford, wearing a snug-fitting tank top, objected to what she considered an unduly invasive search. More security agents arrived, warned her that she couldn't board her flight without submitting to the final step of the search, and the situation escalated.

    "I was crying; I was shaking," she said. And just after she tugged down the top of her shirt just a bit to show that she wasn't hiding anything, the agents told her she wasn't going anywhere. She ended up renting a car for a two-day drive home.

    "It was unbelievable," Kingsford said. "I think there is a line they cannot cross."

    But Transportation Security Administration officials say their screeners did nothing wrong and that Kingsford's experience reflects a brutal new reality in passenger checkpoint screening.

    The agency announced the extra security measures Sept. 16, just a few weeks after two Russian jetliners exploded in midair, killing all aboard. Authorities believe two women smuggled explosives onto the aircraft, possibly in "torso packs" underneath their clothing.

    Bob Kapp, customer service manager for the TSA in Denver, said that to conduct a thorough pat-down search of women, "it does require going beneath, between and above the breasts."

    In these first few weeks of the procedure, Kapp said, "a few people have been a little bit alarmed" by the touching. But he called it "a sign of the times" that is probably here to stay. Screeners are coached to try to minimize the discomfort by explaining each step as they go along.

    Kingsford, however, thinks there ought to be some common sense to the approach and that the TSA is going to get a lot more complaints.

    "There is nothing that I could possibly have been hiding there," she said.
    ====


    Where to begin? Every day, my decision to forgo air travel is affirmed...

    Tall Man, driving.


    (Edited to correct spelling.)
     
  2. WT

    WT Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,985
    She should have turned around and walked away. When enough passengers get fed up with the BS, the TSA will be forced to promulgate realistic search procedures.
     
  3. rock jock

    rock jock Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,008
    Location:
    In the moment
    OK, I'll play devil's advocate here and ask: how exactly is the TSA supposed to find explaosives hidden in intimate areas w/o this type of invasice screening?
     
  4. riverdog

    riverdog Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,826
    They could use little beagles trained to sniff out explosives and drugs, et al. Dogs are forever sticking their snout in peoples crotches. Most folks wouldn't be offended by a beagle.

    Personally, I always drive. Denver to San Diego is a one day drive for me, although I might stop off in Vegas for some relaxation.
     
  5. mpthole

    mpthole Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,058
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    You know... :fire: I've told me wife and forwarded her stories of these types of things happening. ... all to no avail. She still insists on flying. So, when our next flight comes up in February and she gets offended for being groped by some stranger, all I'm going to say is "Well honey, you wanted to fly."

    Frankly, I'd like to tell the TSA goons to take a flying leap (in not such nice terms).

    Of course, I'd prefer to drive anyway. I've got enough flight miles (pre 9/11) to last me a lifetime.
     
  6. jnojr

    jnojr Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,095
    Location:
    Reston, VA
    She did. She rented a car and drove to SD.

    This "news" is at least a couple of weeks old, though.
     
  7. spacemanspiff

    spacemanspiff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    4,067
    Location:
    alaska
    i doubt you'll be playing devils advocate when the TSA screener tells you "I will now prod in and around your rectum and feel under your cheeks, bend over and spread 'em."
     
  8. RW_Reagan

    RW_Reagan Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    35
    Location:
    Mechanicsburg, Pa
    "it does require going beneath, between and above the breasts."

    thats the line I usually use for girlfriends wanting to fly MY AIRLINE :D

    looks like the d@mn TSA is using my pick up lines now!
     
  9. rick_reno

    rick_reno member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    3,027
    Nothing wrong with this - we have a choice about flying, and she chose to exercise her choice and not fly. Big deal. I flew last week, 4 airports - I got wanded a bunch and patted down. I'm hoping they take an agressive approach to finding explosives - it's much better than having the plane blow up.
     
  10. RW_Reagan

    RW_Reagan Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    35
    Location:
    Mechanicsburg, Pa
    rick_reno:
    "Nothing wrong with this - we have a choice about flying, and she chose to exercise her choice and not fly. Big deal. I flew last week, 4 airports - I got wanded a bunch and patted down. I'm hoping they take an agressive approach to finding explosives - it's much better than having the plane blow up."

    just wait till they start asking us guys to "drop trouser" so they can check out the old "Mr. Happy" sometime and see if you say "Nothing wrong with this".

    of course for some people, they may like that sort of thing....... :uhoh:
     
  11. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    Los Anchorage
    TSA is the enemy, and poses a far greater threat than some yahoo terrorist. Unfortunately it's impossible to limit them directly as they are federal employees with layers of protection. No protest you make will be heard. It's not like some out-of-control sheriff you can run against and replace. The only solution to this will be to kill off more of the airline industry by refusing to fly. I'm doing my part. Between business and personal travel the domestic airline industry has lost at least $8,500 from me alone since 2001.
     
  12. Archie

    Archie Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    1,925
    Location:
    Hastings, Nebraska - the Heartland!
    Spacemanspiff...

    A quick quiz for you, and anyone else who wants to play.

    1. The Constitution of the United States says all searches (personal or property) have to be:

    A. Reasonable
    B. Possible
    C. Practical
    D. Quick and painless

    2. Checking the rectum of a person (not an arrestee) wishing to board a commercial airliner is considered:

    A. Routine
    B. Extreme
    C. A body cavity search
    D. Gross

    3. Under general Federal guidelines, who may conduct a body cavity search on a non-arrested person who wishes to board a commercial airliner?

    A. Any sworn officer who has facilities to clean their hands, has fresh exam gloves and a powerful flashlight.
    B. Any sworn officer who is sure the suspect has something.
    C. A doctor at a medical facility.
    D. Supervisors and above.

    4. What is the level of suspicion required to search a non-arrested person who wishes to board a commercial airliner?

    A. The fact they want on the plane is enough to do a basic search.
    B. For more than a basic search, reason to believe or probable cause, based on articulable facts is required.
    C. To search further than generally touching the outer layer of normal clothing, and examining interior of shoes, specific suspicion is required.
    D. Court order based on probably cause.

    5. Who may search whom?

    A. All "contact" searches must be conducted by same sex officers, except for an immediate search for weapons based on reasonable suspicion.
    B. Anyone can be searched by an officer of any sex based on supervisory direction.
    C. Opposite sex searches may be conducted between consenting adults. Buying them a drink cuts down on complaints.
    D. No touching anyone, anywhere, for any reason.

    Everybody, please understand that TSA is a very new agency. The SOPs and guidelines are new. They don’t have a long-standing organization and a legal background like regular police or F. B. I. or Highway Patrol. They get criticized every other day for lack of experience in they searched too many people or the wrong people. On the off days, they get criticized for lack of experience in they didn’t find the razor blade taped behind someone’s laptop computer.

    I see these people working every day. They process thousands of people, all of whom are in a hurry to get to the plane. They are polite and professional, while performing basic ‘feed lot cattle traffic control’. They are also just people. They get fed up with smelling feet that have been too long from a bathtub, looking in another carryon bag, and listening to overpaid salesmen making cracks about their education level.

    Or a woman bursting into tears because she doesn’t want to be ‘touched’. It’s not like she was stripped in public or whacked with a carpet beater.

    I’m sorry lady, but yes, women have hidden contraband between their breasts. Black Tar Heroin for sure, and C4, RDX and Semtex aren’t that much different in terms of hiding. Guys have carried loads of Heroin and Opium in their briefs and shoes. Women and men both have been found with various types of contraband in various orifices. It’s a process informally called ‘stuffing’. You do the math.

    So, take your pick. Don’t fly. That's what this woman did; she refused to be searched and took a car. Or be ready to be searched. You don’t have to like it, but you do have to comply. Sort of like income tax.

    --------------------------------------------------
    Groping, or being groped by, a total stranger ain't my idea of fun neither,
    Archie
     
  13. spacemanspiff

    spacemanspiff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    4,067
    Location:
    alaska
    oh gee, i didnt think of it that way. i guess i should consider it a privilege to be treated like a criminal merely because i'm getting on a plane. i suppose it should give me a warm fuzzy feeling inside, a feeling of safety and security, that our wonderful federal agency can perform invasive searches for no reason other than "you were randomly selected".

    maybe i should send 'thank you' notes to the TSA and shower them with praise for all the good they've done, for all the potential terrorists they've caught, and for all the weapons they have intercepted by passengers who intentionally tried to board a plane with.

    maybe we should suggest that the TSA start searching train, bus and automobile passengers as well! can't be too careful! its for the children, wont someone PLEASE think of the children??!!



    :scrutiny:
     
  14. R.H. Lee

    R.H. Lee Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    7,377
    Location:
    CA
    So there 'ya have it. You're a criminal until you prove otherwise. If 'ya don't like it, don't fly. Works for me.
     
  15. Old Dog

    Old Dog Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,588
    Location:
    somewhere on Puget Sound
    Whoa, now ... having returned not all that long ago from helping fight those yahoo terrorists, and also having flown a bit recently ... I'll take my chances with those TSA employees ...

    Definitely one of the more extreme and ridiculous statements I've seen here ...
     
  16. sendec

    sendec member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2003
    Messages:
    913
    Once again, people who complain that the government cannot protect them complain when the government attempts to do so, leading one to the inescapable conclusion that no matter what, people will complain.
     
  17. GhostRider66

    GhostRider66 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Messages:
    318
    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX
    Please don't quote the Constitution unless you've read it thoroughly.

    "quick quiz for you, and anyone else who wants to play.

    1. The Constitution of the United States says all searches (personal or property) have to be:

    A. Reasonable
    B. Possible
    C. Practical
    D. Quick and painless"

    "Amendment Six - 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."

    The Sixth Amendment specifically states that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause". It doesn't allow for any other method for permitting such a search. The courts have often allowed that a person or vehicle can be searched with "probable cause" (and no warrant) but short of the person allowing it, I don't see a constitutional basis for this. Now after the search is permissible (by whatever standards are set - given permission or having a warrant), the search must be "reasonable" (read not searching the medicine cabinet when searching for stolen cars).

    Now given either standard, either the Constitutional standard of needing a warrant or the courts' standard or needing probable cause, these federal officials don't have either. Explain to me how an individual wanting to board a plane and travel somewhere individually gives probable cause of anything to an official.

    I have no problem with the argument that if you want to fly, you must submit to a search. But that search can only be done by the company or the company's designee with whom you are conducting the private transaction.

    You can argue all you want about the "need" for it but I'd point out that you quickly dismiss these same arguments (and on a Constitutional basis) when the left uses them with regard to the "need" for more gun control.
     
  18. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    Los Anchorage
    Well I would have thought so myself until I started seeing lines of half-naked Americans being prodded through inspection by a largely foreign born cadre of TSA goons. I would have thought so myself until I saw TSA employees pocketing confiscated lighters, knives, and so on. And now we're moving down the slope from taking off your shoes to random breast gropes, all in the name of national security, war on drugs, etc.

    I can tell you if one of the Founders had been told to submit to a warrantless search by government officials before boarding a common carrier, he would have considered it rank tyranny and refused. If the same officials demanded to grope their wives, they would have considered it an act more vile than anything George III did.

    I WILL NOT BE LAID HAND ON MERELY BECAUSE I WANT TO RIDE IN A COMMON CARRIER!
     
  19. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    Los Anchorage
    I don't expect my federal government to protect me. They won't, anyway, if push comes to shove. They have bigger problems to worry about, and I always take full responsibility for my own safety. I don't need cops and I sure don't need the feds.

    What I want is really very simple. I want to be free in my person from unreasonable searches and seizures. I didn't used to think that was too much to ask. Apparently I was wrong.
     
  20. spacemanspiff

    spacemanspiff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    4,067
    Location:
    alaska
    no, we wouldnt complain if the searches were 100% mandatory. instead they are claimed to be 'random'. and why was it that the TSA changed their procedures so that passengers are searched by same sex screeners? isnt it because the TSA had perverts that were feeling up passengers they 'randomly' selected for 'additional screening'?

    we wouldnt complain if the TSA actually did something instead of creating an illusion of safety and security.

    we wouldnt complain if the TSA was at least consistant.

    we wouldnt complain if the TSA was at least competant.



    and why is it that they 'announce' what body part they are going to be fondling? is it really to 'alleviate' some of the stress the invasive search will cause?
     
  21. R.H. Lee

    R.H. Lee Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    7,377
    Location:
    CA
    The government's supposed to protect me? Wow. I "feel" a whole lot "safer" now. Thanks.
     
  22. feedthehogs

    feedthehogs Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,801
    Making excuses for TSA workers is just another way of saying lets not be responsible for our actions.

    Most TSA workers were already low level employees of airports and suddenly given hugh amounts of power over the citizens of this country with very little additional training.

    Abuses are not surprising and much expected.

    The bottom line is accept these and more extreme measures if you want to fly.

    Nobody wants to admit the terrorists have already won.

    After all giving up liberties for safety is the patriot act way.

    I feel safer, don't you?
     
  23. Shovelhead

    Shovelhead Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    707
    Location:
    Northern VA / Burkeville, VA
    Gee, and they wonder why all the Airline companies are going bankrupt.:banghead: :rolleyes:
     
  24. RS2

    RS2 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    72
    Location:
    Michigan


    Actually, GhostRider, that's the Fourth Amendment.

    But, thanks for playing!;)

    Ron
     
  25. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    Actually, that's when the airlines will go to the great white father with big tears in their eyes to demand federal subsidies.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page