particular airport security screening search is constitutionally reasonable provided that it "is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives [] [and] that it is confined in good faith to that purpose." Davis, 482 F.2d at 913. We conclude that the airport screening search of Aukai satisfied these requirements.
The search procedures used in this case were neither more extensive nor more intensive than necessary under the circumstances to rule out the presence of weapons or explosives. After passing through a magnetometer, Aukai was directed to secondary screening because his boarding pass was marked "No ID." Aukai then underwent a standard "wanding procedure." When the wand alarm sounded as the wand passed over Aukai's front right pants pocket, TSA Officer Misajon did not reach into Aukai's pocket or feel the outside of Aukai's pocket. Rather, Misajon asked Aukai if he had something in his pocket. When Aukai denied that there was anything in his pocket, Misajon repeated the wanding procedure. Only after the wand alarm again sounded and Aukai again denied having anything in his pocket did Misajon employ a more intrusive search procedure by feeling the outside of Aukai's pocket and determining that there was something in there.
IOW Aukai was not just hauled off to the side and felt up.
You have completely struck out. Neither the statute nor any of your case cites suggest that a TSA agent can just feel someone up as part of a general regulatory scheme.
You've been caught in a lie, and you are trying to flip the script on the fly.
Your claim: "All searches require probable cause."
This contention was debunked by Terry, which showed one example of a search that can be conducted with less than probable cause. Aukai is another example.
Why don't we test who is right here. Go down to the airport and try to tell the TSA agents that you refuse to be searched and that you believe that they need probable cause to search you. See what happens. Then try to make your argument in a Court that your rights were violated. You will lose. If you believe that you won't, GO FOR IT. Prove me wrong.
We both know that you won't because even you don't believe what you are spewing here. You realize that you were caught, and you want to pretend otherwise.
There really isn't any point in trying to reason with you further, because you don't want to discuss your earlier contention (that all searches require probable cause) and just want to sling mud now.
I've already made clear that I don't like the TSA procedures, and I believe that they are ineffective when compared to the El Al model. However, I'm not going to let people sit around and make unchallenged absurd contentions regarding the standard for a search, because the bad information could get someone in a lot of trouble. Someone might take your erroneous advice, and try to act on it, and then find themselves sitting in a jail cell. Of course that doesn't affect you, but it has the potential to affect the life of a real person.
There are numerous exceptions to both the warrant and the probable cause requirement. I explained those for you here. Now at least, if someone decides to believe your insanity that all searches require probable cause, they will at least have seen that this information is incorrect, and they might be less likely to act on this faulty information in a manner that is going to get them in trouble.