Posted on 10/21/2010 7:42:38 PM PDT by Tucson_AZ
CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. — In a case involving the continuing encroachment of modern technology upon personal privacy, The Rutherford Institute has come to the defense of an airline pilot who refused to submit to airport security screening that exposes intimate details of a person's body to government agents.
(Excerpt) Read more at rutherford.org ...
"Forcing Americans to undergo a virtual strip search as a matter of course in reporting to work or boarding an airplane when there is no suspicion of wrongdoing is a grotesque violation of our civil liberties," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "Indeed, it completely undermines our right to privacy and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by government agents."
On October 15, 2010, Michael Roberts, a pilot employed by Houston-based ExpressJet Airlines, Inc., attempted to pass through the security line at Memphis International Airport (MEM) as part of his commute to work. For Roberts, who had regularly passed through the MEM security checkpoint over the past 4 ½ years, this was the first time at that airport he had encountered the TSA's new security scanning technology that involves Whole Body Imaging (WBI). WBI full-body scanning devices enable screeners to see beneath people's clothing to an extremely graphic and intrusive level of detail. The scans have been likened to "virtual strip searches."
After Roberts loaded his bags onto the X-ray scanner belt, a TSA agent told him to remove his shoes. Roberts, who was in his pilot's uniform, questioned the agent about this and was told it was necessary for the WBI scanner. Roberts then stated that he did not wish to submit to the WBI scanning. The TSA agent stated Roberts could keep his shoes on, but directed him through the metal detector that had been roped off, and called out somewhat urgently to the agents on the other side: "We got an opt-out!" The agent also reported the "opt-out" into her handheld radio.
On the other side, Roberts was informed by another TSA agent that because he had refused the full-body screening, he would have to go through secondary screening which involves a full pat-down search. Roberts again refused and was told by a TSA agent that, pursuant to TSA decree, he could not pass through security without submitting to full-body scanning or a pat-down search. When Roberts asked if he was suspected of concealing something dangerous after he had passed through the metal detector without triggering an alert, or whether they believed that he had made any threats or given other indications of malicious designs to warrant treating him, a law-abiding fellow citizen, so rudely, he was told that was not relevant. Because Roberts could not pass through airport security, he was prevented from showing up for duty as required and is facing possible disciplinary action from his employer.
Perhaps this will be the first step in getting the “Patriot” Act declared unconstitutional and voided.
If he really wanted to win this suit he should have been wearing a burka and refused to take it off.
It does look like that people who work in the airline industry would get a good profile background check of the FBI, and have a ‘pilot’s license’ and go through the quik check lane and get aboard without the same fuss all of the other Tom, Dick and Harry’s have to put up with. Personally I don’t feel any safer after they search nuns, my 92 year old mother with a steel knee, and treat her like some Mid Eastern Male Adult with an accent carrying the Koran, and chanting in Arabic something about Allah. TIME TO DO SOME PROFILE CHECK, like they do in Israel, their airport is one of the safest.
I’m all for profiling. In the natural world it’s called survival skills.
Hooray!
Strike down the PATRIOT ACT.
Dismantle DHS.
End the Surveillance Society.
We’ve allowed our society to change for the worse.
This is how the terrorists win.
Only Americans can destroy America.
And they’ve been doing it right on schedule.
In my world, it's called never getting on an airplane again.
I refuse to be treated like a criminal just because criminals exist. I'm a little old lady who minds her own business, but the last three or four times I had to board a plane I was pulled aside for a pat down by some fat woman who seemed to enjoy her job.
The Rutherford Institute has agreed to represent Roberts and assist him in his claim that the TSA's use of full-body scanning technology as a primary security scan violates the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures contained in the U.S. Constitution.
So sad to say you nailed it. The inmates are running the asylum.
I’m already ticked off that I have to friggin take off my shoes, remove my laptop and belts and get yelled at by some glorified security guards to stick ALL of the mentioned items into a silver plastic tray.
This guy was flying from Memphis to Houston so he could go to work. He wasn’t even in uniform - he was just another passenger. I am the last person to advocate for TSA; I fly a lot (much of it overseas) and I can tell you the system here is a mess. But this guy was out of line - one day he’ll look back on when he was a commercial pilot - his career is over.
I hope he wins and puts TSA oput of business and totally ends the stupid airport security crap!
The terrorists have got to be laughing at our insanity. They kill some of us and our response is to punish ourselves. We suffer al manner of indignities and twist ourselves into pretzels to avoid offending Muslims. What fools we are.
How was he out of line? Not that being a pilot gave him any advantage. Why should anyone go through the WBI?
I know someone who has a pacemaker. It is an absolute nightmare going through the so-called security.
Who is loading the beverage cart, while you strip down to your underwear?
Illegel aliens, more than likely.
You think this screening is anything more than a joke?
“He wasn’t even in uniform - he was just another passenger. “
Right in the article it says:
“Roberts, who was in his pilot’s uniform,...”
Sheesh.
Yes, it is a make-work project for largely ignorant RAT voters.
Not for me to comment ... last time I did, it didn’t work out well.
You are correct - I read an article earlier that contradicts that. I’ll see if I can find it. No matter, of all people this guy should know and understand the role of security screening - it sounds to me like he just wanted to make a political point. No sympathy here.
No question that travelling is a pain, especially so for certain people. My wife is always - and I mean EVERY TIME - pulled out for additional screening, I’m like “WTF - a dumpy 50 year old doesn’t exactly look like much of a threat to me.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.