Page 1 of 1

I hope he wins their houses

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:13 am
by Scooter
The terrorists can't "hate you for your freedoms" much longer. You don't have many left.

Image
A federal judge in Richmond ruled Tuesday that a lawsuit could move forward against two airport security screeners who had a college student arrested after he stripped to a pair of running shorts to protest what he felt were unconstitutionally intrusive search procedures.

The student, Aaron Tobey, had used a black marker to display a portion of the Fourth Amendment on his bare chest. It read: “The right of the people to be secure … against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.”
The lawsuit claims that the security officials had Tobey arrested in response to his protest. Tobey’s lawyers say he has a right to peacefully object to the government’s treatment of airline passengers provided his actions are not disruptive.

The government argues that the police were called and Tobey was arrested because he failed to follow the screeners’ instructions that he proceed through the Advanced Imaging Technology screening device. The device has been controversial because it creates explicit images of the human body that amounts to a technological strip search.
First, they made this up after the fact. Second, if true, so what? The penalty for refusing to undergo screening is refusal of boarding, not criminal arrest. They had no business calling the police.
Tobey disputes charges that he failed to follow instructions. He says he was told not to move and that he did not move until a police officer handcuffed him and took him into custody.
Which sounds like a much more likely version of the events.
In addition to the First Amendment claim, Tobey also accused the federal screeners of violating his Fourth Amendment rights by having him arrested by police when there was no probable cause to believe he had committed a crime.

In dismissing the Fourth Amendment claim, Judge Hudson said Tobey’s decision to take his clothing off was “bizarre” and that the screeners were justified in calling the police.

“Given the heightened security interest at airport security checkpoints, it was eminently reasonable for [the screeners] to seek assistance from the … police,” Hudson wrote.
Here I think the judge is out to lunch, both in his characterization that being in an airport shirtless, but not otherwise causing a disturbance, is "bizarre", as well as his decision to make a judgment of what should have been a question of fact to be decided at trial.
The dispute arose as Tobey sought to pass through airport security in Richmond on his way to his grandfather’s funeral in Wisconsin. He had anticipated that he might be selected for enhanced secondary screening at the security checkpoint. In preparation he wrote his chosen message on his chest and was prepared to partially disrobe in an apparent effort to communicate his objection to what he viewed as intrusive searches.

When he was, in fact, selected for secondary screening, Tobey removed his T-shirt and sweatpants, revealing the message on his chest. One of the screeners allegedly told him that removal of his clothing was not necessary. But Tobey allegedly replied that he was taking his clothes off to protest the checkpoint’s unconstitutional procedures.

The police were called. Tobey was led away in handcuffs and held for 90 minutes. Police allegedly threatened that they would make sure he had a permanent criminal record because of his actions. He was also informed that he would be transported to the county jail.

Police charged Tobey with disorderly conduct in a public place, an offense that carries a year in jail and a $2,500 fine.

Officials later backed down on their threat to take him to jail. Instead he was questioned by an air marshal with the joint terrorism task force concerning his “intentions and goals” and any involvement with terrorist organizations, according to the judge’s opinion.

Eventually, Tobey was allowed to board his flight. The disorderly conduct charge was later dropped.

He filed his lawsuit in March. A tentative trial date is set for Jan. 18.
Good. I hope he is awarded huge bucks, and the TSA officers end up begging for change on a street corner. The police should also be on the carpet for knowingly laying false charges.

Re: I hope he wins their houses

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:38 am
by BoSoxGal
I admire that young man's spirit. And his pecs. ;)

Re: I hope he wins their houses

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:25 pm
by Long Run
We all hate the intrusions on our personal freedoms at the airport. On the other hand, we can drive or take a boat if we don't want to exercise our privilege (not right) to board a plane, knowing we have to go through the searches. There is a thin line between making a statement and causing a disturbance that can inconvenience thousands of people. We don't have enough information to say which side of the line this guy was on, but at least one judge decided he was on the wrong side of that line.

Re: I hope he wins their houses

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:40 pm
by Scooter
No disturbance need have been caused if they hadn't decided to react like idiots to a guy taking off his shirt. If they didn't like having it pointed out to them (by the message on his chest) that they have devolved into a bunch of jackbooted stormtroopers who get their jollies out of sexually assaulting airline passengers, then they can get another job. Otherwise they could have screened him and let it be.

Re: I hope he wins their houses

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2011 5:43 pm
by Long Run
He admits his behavior was "bizarre". He prepared for a conflict and created one.

This is what we know: A young adult is going to his father's funeral. He behaves in a bizarre manner. He is detained by police and questioned. He is determined to not be a risk and allowed to board his flight. He is not charged with a crime.

The judge rules there was not an unreasonable search or detainment, but allows his claim for violation of free speech to proceed. He will likely lose, but he can try to show that the main reason the TSA people detained him was that he was exercising his free speech rights.

I disagree with your belief that TSA folks get their jollies from this. The vast majority of TSA workers have to dislike this intrusive aspect of their job. My experience with TSA employees is that they are generally pleasant and do their best to not embarrass people even though law/policy requires passengers to have their bodies intruded upon. The policies create a lousy situation and the TSA folks do their best in the vast majority of situations to limit the lousiness of the situation. Here, a young adult in some emotional distress, readied with an agenda, made their jobs a lot harder. I have more sympathy for the workers than the trouble maker.

Re: I hope he wins their houses

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2011 5:56 pm
by Scooter
Not every behaviour that is "bizarre" necessitates an armed police response. Someone going through their security picking their nose and eating it is certaiinly bizarre, but doesn't require calling the cops. Someone being verbally and/or physically abusive to security personnel would justify it. Taking off one's shirt while maintaining one's nether regions covered up to display a message written on one's body - how does that even come close to requiring a police presence? Did he demonstrate in any way that he was any kind of a threat to personnel or to other passengers? No. Did he in any way attempt to obstruct personnel from doing their jobs? No. (In fact, he made it easier - it they had chosen to do an enhanced pat down search there would have been far less work for them to do.) They made their own jobs harder by the way they chose to react to an innocuous demonstration.

And if we have reached the point when someone displaying a message in a way that does not even inconvenience, let alone impede or endanger, anyone else in the slightest degree is deemed a "trouble maker", then it's time to make Osama bin Laden's birthday a national holiday because the terrorists have won.

Re: I hope he wins their houses

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2011 8:16 pm
by quaddriver
well...give dipshits a badge, sometimes a gun, and force of law, combined with no screening or background checks and you get this....

shortly after 9/11 yinz were warned the kneejerk was gonna be especially painful this time around. didnt disappoint did it?