Ask Slashdot: What's the Best Way To Deal With Roving TSA Teams? 1059
Posted
by
Soulskill
from the tip-well dept.
from the tip-well dept.
An anonymous reader writes "I live in Boston, and I have noticed the TSA performs random security checks at the Copley T (subway station) and other locations. I routinely travel with a laptop, iPhone, and other gadgetry. What are my rights when asked by one of the TSA agents to 'come over here'? Can I say no and proceed with my private business? What if a police officer says that I 'must go over there and cooperate'? Can I decline or ask for a warrant? Like the majority of the population, I turn into an absolute shrinking violet when pressured by intimidating authority, but I struggle with what I see to be blatant social devolution. Has anybody out there actually responded rationally, without complying? What were your experiences?"
ACLU's guidance (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/tsa-seeks-expand-airport-experience-everyday-life [aclu.org]
And
http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/know-your-rights-when-traveling [aclu.org]
Don't Ask Slashdot, Ask the EFF (Score:5, Informative)
One more reason to bicycle... (Score:3, Informative)
Here's what you say (Score:5, Informative)
If the police were confronted by this 90% er 50% more like as little as 10% of the time, it would be such a gigantic waste of their resources that they'd stop violating your rights.
Flex Your Rights dot Org (Score:5, Informative)
Start here: http://www.flexyourrights.org/ [flexyourrights.org]
"I do not consent to a search." (Score:5, Informative)
"Am I under arrest?"
"Am I free to go?"
the advantage of dealing with police (Score:5, Informative)
When it comes to police in most civilized societies, you get to have a very simple dialogue. You can say: "I refuse to volunteer for any such [delay]; but if you order me to do so, I will comply with any order you give."
If you don't volunteer, and you make that an official statement, then the officer needs to decide to make it an order. They aren't allowed to give illegal orders. If they do, you still must comply with it at the time, and without hesitation, but you can fight that later in court.
Basically, it puts everyone on the their best behaviour. If you aren't happy with what winds up happening, and you later discover that they weren't permitted to do so, then you can easily fight it after the fact.
Just remember two things: a) police are allowed to trick you into volunteering, or even kind of volunteering. So make sure you hear the word "order". b) police can be nice and legal, nice and illegal, or mean and legal. Be sure you know what you're risking.
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? (Score:5, Informative)
What rights are being violated exactly?
We can start with the 4th Amendment and go from there.
Re:Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? (Score:5, Informative)
your comment needs modification in a post NDAA United States (habeus corpus has been revoked)
Once Senator Palpatine's bill is passed [govtrack.us] they'll be able to revoke your citizenship and throw you in Gitmo (or a domestic camp) as well.
Re:TSA are not officers. (Score:5, Informative)
That's something I wish more people understood. TSA does not have the legal rights that law enforcement officers have, and that includes conducting searches and detaining people. Of course the courts tend to be somewhat squeamish telling the executive branch that they can't do whatever they want, but the reality is that TSA has no more authority to operate than any other group of private security officers.
I'm sorry. Haven't you been paying attention? (Score:5, Informative)
See links below. Discuss.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_DEFENSE_BILL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT [ap.org]
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/constitutional-expert-president-obama-says-that-he-can-kill-you-on-his-own-discretion-he-can-jail-you-indefinitely-on-his-own-discretion.html [washingtonsblog.com]
The moment the aforementioned bill was signed, we lost the few rights we still retained after the "Patriot" act.
So remember:
1) You're a terrorist if and when some unelected bureaucrat like a TSA inspector *suspects* you're a terrorist.
2) As a suspected terrorist, you can be detained indefinitely.
Leaving the country with your cash while you can is starting to look pretty good. If you are stopped, you'd be crazy to not comply with the request, but try not to belong to whatever party isn't in power at the time. At the moment, political affiliation isn't a reason for suspected terrorism, but how long do you think that will last?
Stop and identify (Score:5, Informative)
Some states have a stop and identify [wikimedia.org] law, which means that for a terry stop or higher, when asked you must truthfully tell the officer your name.
Note that this is only for Terry stops and above. An officer may walk up and simply ask that you identify yourself - in the same manner that any regular citizen could do so - and in this instance you are not required to answer. You are not required to interact in any way with a police officer acting in the manner of a regular citizen. To do this they need suspicion and have to escalate it to Terry status.
Note also that in no instance are you required to prove your identity. You need not "show your papers" to anyone.
The statute may be written in such a way that there are one or two other things that the officer may legally ask and that you must answer. New Hampshire, for example, allows the officer to ask your address, why you are there, and where you are going.
Massachusetts does not have such a law, and so you do not have to respond when asked. Period, end of story.
Many people will point out the difference between theory and practice, in that the police will simply disregard the rules and do it anyway and inconvenience you so-you-might-as-well-submit-andbeasheepandyoucantfightandsoonandsoon...
Be aware that a civil rights violation is a windfall in your favor. If you have good evidence, such as a video clearly showing what happened, you can get a court judgement of from tens of thousands to a couple of million dollars... if you are willing to press the issue. This will require some investment and a lot of inconvenience on your part - think of it as an investment of 10,000 dollars to make a potential million.
It all boils down to the strength of your ethics. There can be no ethics without courage. If everyone had the courage to press the issue, then the practice would stop very quickly.
Re:TSA are not officers. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
"Your" Congressmen?
Commence laughter now.
VIPR deployed on TN Highways (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.newschannel5.com/story/15725035/officials-claim-tennessee-becomes-first-state-to-deploy-vipr-statewide [newschannel5.com]
Re:Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Here's what you say (Score:4, Informative)
This is not correct. An officer may briefly detain a suspect if he has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, even if he does not have grounds to arrest the individual. (Terry v. Ohio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop [wikipedia.org])
Re:I had no idea the TSA was doing random checks (Score:0, Informative)
I thought the US was turning into a police state, but I didn't realize the TSA gestapo were wandering the subways and accosting people at random.
They're not. Boston is. Someone else posted a link, but basically it's the Boston transit police (not even the real police) doing "security checks." They invited the TSA in (reminds me of vampires, somehow) to borrow their fancy toys.
It's not that surprising, because you have to remember that for one glaring exception, airport security has never failed in the US. That one exception would be in Boston, which proudly let the 9/11 terrorists on every one of their flights. So I would hope that the TSA is a little extra vigilant in Boston, because it's abundantly clear that Boston can't handle security on their own. I'm honestly surprised Boston was allowed to keep their airport open after that little screwup. But remember that it's thanks to Boston's fuckups that we now have to go through cancer-causing naked picture machines to get onto a plane.
If Boston's only cost is annoying subway goers, they got off lightly.
Re:Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually it is in the Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law [wikipedia.org]
The Founders weren't stupid.
Re:One more reason to bicycle... (Score:5, Informative)
Once you've consented to a search you've lost control of your property. And you sure as hell don't want someone with an agenda or a desire for a quick promotion putting stuff in your bags.
There's been more than one case of airport security putting drugs in passenger bags for test purposes, losing track of it, and those people passing through countries with zero tolerance. You're pretty much screwed then. I believe the fellow that spent two years in prison made it on to Slashdot at some point.
Re:Are you rich? Is your dad a senator? (Score:5, Informative)
"The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the law-making functions of the Congress. . . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 293.
These two cases were in the 1950's, but Supreme Court case law on this goes back to at least 1823.
That's fine (Score:4, Informative)
They are in all kinds of trouble if they say that. Refuse the search, let them arrest you, then lawsuit. Refusal of a search is NOT grounds for arrest, this has been tested in court.
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Informative)
FYI, I think this is the U.S. Law [cornell.edu] that authorizes TSA VIPR teams which I'm assuming the TSA teams in Boston are. This law ran through 2011 though I think it was extended in the 2012 TSA budget:
TITLE 6 > CHAPTER 4 > SUBCHAPTER II
 1112. AUTHORIZATION OF VISIBLE INTERMODAL PREVENTION AND RESPONSE TEAMS
(a) In general The Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, may develop Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (referred to in this section as âoeVIPRâ) teams to augment the security of any mode of transportation at any location within the United States. In forming a VIPR team, the Secretaryâ"
(1) may use any asset of the Department, including Federal air marshals, surface transportation security inspectors, canine detection teams, and advanced screening technology;
(2) may determine when a VIPR team shall be deployed, as well as the duration of the deployment;
(3) shall, prior to and during the deployment, consult with local security and law enforcement officials in the jurisdiction where the VIPR team is or will be deployed, to develop and agree upon the appropriate operational protocols and provide relevant information about the mission of the VIPR team, as appropriate; and
(4) shall, prior to and during the deployment, consult with all transportation entities directly affected by the deployment of a VIPR team, as appropriate, including railroad carriers, air carriers, airport owners, over-the-road bus operators and terminal owners and operators, motor carriers, public transportation agencies, owners or operators of highways, port operators and facility owners, vessel owners and operators and pipeline operators.
(b) Authorization of appropriations
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section such sums as necessary for fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
Advice allegedly from a DHS lawyer (Score:5, Informative)
Here's an interesting letter allegedly written by an anonymous DHS lawyer [boardingarea.com]. Summary: DHS knows that the VIPR searches are illegal, and that courts ultimately will not validate TSA's authority to conduct them.
So, if you're a protester-type interested in challenging the constitutionality of VIPR searches in the courts, here's a blueprint for you. If not, I'd just avoid the subway altogether.
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:2, Informative)
Well, that's just bullshit. Go play your children's games somewhere else. The Left has been howling with rage at Obama's civil liberties failures: continuation of Gitmo, expansion of the TSA, refusal to pursue prosecution of Bush torturers, etc.
Re:One more reason to bicycle... (Score:5, Informative)
The advice I got repeatedly from lawyers was, "Never consent to a search."
Lawyers? I get that advice form cops I know. They all say they would never consent to a search and suggest I do the same. Just say "May I see your warrant?"
Re:Just keep calm... (Score:5, Informative)
These liberal blogs that I am following have been very critical of Obama:
http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/ [salon.com]
http://www.americablog.com/ [americablog.com]
http://agonist.org/ [agonist.org]
http://crooksandliars.com/ [crooksandliars.com]
http://www.juancole.com/ [juancole.com]
Dailykos mission is too elect Democrats. They are more partisan than the progressive blogoshpere at large.
Re:Hell that's nothing (Score:5, Informative)
I'm a Democrat and I'll tell you, I actually kind of like Ron Paul. If we lose, but lose to him, I wouldn't be too sad. Wouldn't have minded McCain too much either until he picked Sarah Palin as his VP pick. The only real problem I have with the GOP are the Christian fundies that seem to get traction there. They gotta go. Palin, Santorum, Bachmann - not on my watch. That's what makes me a Democrat. But yeah I agree, Paul is pretty cool.
But unfortunately I kind of agree with George Carlin on this one. Shuffling around these politicians every couple of years doesn't do much. The real power is in the corporations. They buy the politicians (oops I meant "lobby") and get their way every single time. We erode the Bill of Rights and nobody bats an eye at it. We can now indefinitely imprison anyone that might be a terrorist. So there goes Habeas Corpus. First amendment is shot to hell. What do you think the founding fathers would think of "free speech zones"? I have a feeling they'd be loading muskets. Second amendment? Also boned. Nagin after Katrina went through the gun licenses and ordered the national guard to confiscate every gun in the city. And they did. It goes on and on. Warantless wiretaps, GPS tracking devices without a court order, Carnivore...you no longer have hardly any rights at all, but you don't even notice it. They really did a number on us. A real pro job.
I hope you're right, that things will be better. But I doubt they ever will be. I think lobbyists and lawyers and greedy assholes and lazy cops have already pretty much doomed us.
Re:Hell that's nothing (Score:5, Informative)
If the Democrats you support are Kucinich, Sanders, and Franken, then I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you're pretty far to the left. And Paul is going to be one of the worst picks you can make.
He's a complete nutjob. He's opposed to practically every single government agency, including the Dept of Education, EPA, NIH, and the Social Security Administration. He's a racist who opposes the Civil Rights Act and has a pretty devoted following of neo-Nazis and white supremacists. He's against consumer legislation. He wants to go back to the gold standard. He also compared Social Security and Medicare to slavery. WTF?
He's an obstetrician/gynecologist who opposes abortion. That doesn't even make sense. He claims to be a libertarian, yet wants to prevent women from getting abortions? He wouldn't care for a patient who couldn't afford his services (and he pretty much said this in an earlier debate on TV). His son is an ophthalmologist who decided to quit the national opthalmology licensing board to start his own.
Look, I don't like Obama at all. But Ron Paul (and his son) are crazy as shit and I sure as hell won't vote for him.