$11,000 fine, arrest possible for some who refuse airport scans and pat downs

Palm Beach Post ^ | November 20, 2010 | John Lantigua

[Amerikan_Samurai]

If you don't want to pass through an airport scanner that allows security agents to see an image of your naked body or to undergo the alternative, a thorough manual search, you may have to find another way to travel this holiday season.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is warning that any would-be commercial airline passenger who enters an airport checkpoint and then refuses to undergo the method of inspection designated by TSA will not be allowed to fly and also will not be permitted to simply leave the airport.

That person will have to remain on the premises to be questioned by the TSA and possibly by local law enforcement. Anyone refusing faces fines up to $11,000 and possible arrest.

"Once a person submits to the screening process, they can not just decide to leave that process," says Sari Koshetz, regional TSA spokesperson, based in Miami.

Koshetz said such passengers would be questioned "until it is determined that they don't pose a threat" to the public.

Palm Beach Sheriff's Office spokesperson Teri Barbera said PBSO deputies stationed at the airport would become involved when requested by the TSA.

"We will handle each incident on a case-by-case basis," she said.

No one will be forcibly searched or arrested "just because they refuse to go through the security procedures," Barbera said. "That may rise to the level of suspicious behavior for the TSA, but it wouldn't rise to the level of suspicious behavior for a deputy," she said.

But Barbera said that if a person is judged to be a possible threat, deputies are legally permitted to detain and search that individual. "The deputies will do it at the airport just as they would do it anywhere else," she said.

[Sacajaweau]

There’s a court case waiting to happen.

[de.rm]

Americans warn, "do not violate my Constitutional rights, or face a lawsuit!"

[Amerikan_Samurai]

This gets me fuming mad. I believe we need another American Revolution with bloody conflict to take back our Constitutional rights from these jackbooted thugs.

[MizSterious]

My suspicion was that there would be altercations at airports today—but apparently the opt out stuff was all bluff. This morning, Fox News reported that there were only occasional “opt outs.” I guess convenience is more important to people than freedom. At least, for now—until the lack of freedom because inconvenient.

[FrankR]

[ScottinVA]

but apparently the opt out stuff was all bluff

Unfortunately, Americans have become more submissive to government intrusion than many of us are willing to believe.

[wrench]

Arrest? On what charge?

Detain me against my will and YOU will be arrested for kidnapping and false imprisonment.

[Psalm 144]

Because the objective has been achieved.

People fear the government.

[Grampa Dave]

The arrogance of TSA and the Obozo thugs will make this as hot of a complaint as the arrogance of congress this election year.

Add to that arrogance, the spread of some serious diseases from the unchanged gloves of the TSA thugs.

In a hospital, clinic, doctor’s office, exam gloves are worn once unles those places want a big law suit.

Don’t worry about aids, but be concerned about transmission of MRSA/Super Staff, Herpes Gladitorum, and maybe Hep C if an third world scum bag is felt up by the unchanged gloves.

The lawyers, who sue drug companies, hospitals, clinics and doctors have to be having wet dreams about the upcoming lawsuits due to the TSA thugs not changing gloves after assaulting each passenger.

[Buckeye McFrog]

There’s a court case waiting to happen.

Yep. Many of them. With a whole lot of jury nullification going on.

[verity]

People fear the government.

I, for one, do not fear the government.

[Publius6961]

I, for one, do not fear the government.

Why?
You know a good lawyer?

: )

[screaminsunshine]

More reasons for Congress to shut down the Government for a good while. Lock em out.

[Psalm 144]

There are exceptions. Are there enough?

At this point most people are stilled stunned and in disbelief about the speed, extent and scope of anti-Constitutional activities. When it sinks in, then we shall see if our liberties are at an end, or about to be vigorously reasserted.

Right now, most people are obeisant.

[Psalm 144]

You know a good lawyer?

********************

Good lawyers who are willing to *fight* government authority in unfashionable cases are few and far between. Legal costs are devastating. An inexpensive trial done properly usually costs tens of thousands of dollars, assuming any experts or analysis is needed.

Anyway, the level of power and authority the federals are seeking to obtain can only be maintained with lethal force in the long run. ALL totalitarian states MUST rely on the threat of gulags and homicide to remain in power.

We are drifting that way. Are we there yet? NO!

But we can damn sure see it from here.

All the signs are there if you know what you are looking for, from Pharaoh’s ‘godhead’, to the Divine Right of Kings, to Revolutionary Justice to Die Volk, the same things are always done, usually in incremental measure.

We are on course towards a totalitarian state.

[cableguymn]

Mark Levin’s Landmark Legal or the ACLU if they stand for anything.

[zeugma]

I'll let y'all know how my Christmas trip goes.

 

I'm thinking of posting a legal research thread for this. However, let's start here ...

Federal law establishes a right to air travel.

See 49 U.S.C. § 40103 : US Code - Section 40103: Sovereignty and use of airspace, section (a)(2): "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace."

Hat tip to Lazamataz for this tidbit.

The U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in on our right to travel in general. See U.S. vs Guest. It's pretty unequivocal.  The phrase "and other instrumentalities" is particularly important in this particular topic. 

 The District Court was in error in dismissing the indictment as to this paragraph. The constitutional right to travel from one State to another, and necessarily to use the highways and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce in doing so, occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.

Empasis mine. There are several other excellent references and quotes in the opinion.

In Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 , invalidating a California law which impeded the free interstate passage of the indigent, the Court based its reaffirmation of the federal right of interstate travel upon the Commerce Clause. This ground of decision was consistent with precedents firmly establishing that the federal commerce [383 U.S. 745, 759]   power surely encompasses the movement in interstate commerce of persons as well as commodities. Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U.S. 196, 203 ; Covington & Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U.S. 204, 218 -219; Hoke v. United States, 227 U.S. 308, 320 ; United States v. Hill, 248 U.S. 420, 423 . It is also well settled in our decisions that the federal commerce power authorizes Congress to legislate for the protection of individuals from violations of civil rights that impinge on their free movement in interstate commerce. Mitchell v. United States, 313 U.S. 80 ; Henderson v. United States, 339 U.S. 816 ; Boynton v. Virginia, 364 U.S. 454 ; Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 , Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 .

 Although there have been recurring differences in emphasis within the Court as to the source of the constitutional right of interstate travel, there is no need here to canvass those differences further. 16 All have agreed that the right exists. Its explicit recognition as one of the federal rights protected by what is now 18 U.S.C. 241 goes back at least as far as 1904. United States v. Moore, 129 F. 630, 633. We reaffirm it now. 17Although there have been recurring differences in emphasis within the Court as to the source of the constitutional right of interstate travel, there is no need here to canvass those differences further. 16 All have agreed that the right exists. Its explicit recognition as one of the federal rights protected by what is now 18 U.S.C. 241 goes back at least as far as 1904. United States v. Moore, 129 F. 630, 633. We reaffirm it now. 17   [383 U.S. 745, 760]     [383 U.S. 745, 760]  

 Freeper AndyJackson points us to this...

18 USC §241. Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death

18 USC § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

 I'm going to try to build on this a bit as time goes by.

As an aside,  now that the Supreme Court has clarified for the ignorant that the 2nd Amendment is a personal right acknowledged by the Constitution. You could make a fairly strong case for insisting you be allowed to carry a firearm aboard an aircraft with you.

[Psalm 144]

For a lucky few. Not because the will is lacking, but because such resources are scarce.

Few attorneys will take the hit of pro-bono representation in a major, unpopular as defined by media exposure, case.

A few will, but they are rare birds indeed, and get scant recognition for it.

[GingisK]

...People fear the government...

The simplified definition of tyranny.