Perry adds TSA Anti-Groping Bill to special session

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by CelticWhisper, Jun 20, 2011.

  1. CelticWhisper

    CelticWhisper Founding Member

  2. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

  3. barbell

    barbell Coach Coach

    According to the first linked article, Lt. Gov. Dewhurst is said to have consulted with the TX AG, who has tinkered with the original bill that addresses FedGov's threats to shut down air travel in TX, and protect innocent travelers.

    Also,I find it infuriating that 2 TSA people paid a visit to the TX state senate leader. Disgusting. It appears that their intimidation knows no bounds. :trash:

    According to Sen. Patrick, the bill has enough votes in the senate to pass this time.

    I've got my fingers crossed!
  4. RB

    RB Founding Member

    I hope the current bill is not so watered down that it is useless.
  5. JanetDoe

    JanetDoe Original Member

    I'm afraid it is. They added a clause where the search needs to be "without effective consent" and then define effective consent as
    i.e. exactly what is happening now.

    But in the Corbett case, TSA cites this law, and says
    So I'm worried that this is all a catch-22. If you do not consent to a grope, the airline is not allowed to transport you. If you do consent to a grope, you cannot have redress under this law (unless the TSO does things they didn't warn you about).
    lindabarlow and DeafBlonde like this.
  6. DeafBlonde

    DeafBlonde Original Member

    The consent will not be "effective" because they do not "effectively" describe the "area of the other person to be searched" by using the term "resistance."

    And what if you do not consent to certain parts being searched? For example if I am wearing a collarless, scoop-neck or v-neck top, and they say they will inspect my collar by running their hand around it. Can I refuse that useless part of the procedure?

    What if they tell me that they will be touching areas of my body that are not clothed (i.e., bare skin)? Can I refuse that useless part of the procedure? Technically I am not refusing a search of my person, but I am demanding only that a reasonable search be conducted.
    boggie dog likes this.
  7. barbell

    barbell Coach Coach

    Agreed, DeafBlonde.

    I think the real story here is that enough people are fed up that states are discussing legislation. It completely blows TSA's argument that not many people complain about the procedures out of the water.
    DeafBlonde likes this.
  8. DeafBlonde

    DeafBlonde Original Member

    That is readily apparent to the casual observer, even the news media is now catching on; however, DHS/TSA refuses to acknowledge that fact, thus, forcing states to pass legislation to prevent abuse of their citizens.

    One question that I forgot to ask above; maybe one of our resident TSO's can answer this: What if I object to the "method" of the search as they describe it? For example, if the TSO says, "I will run my hand up the inside of your leg until I meet resistance (meaning, YOUR CROTCH)," and I object to them moving their hand up the inner leg, and request that they use a downward motion instead? Is this refusing a search of my person since they will be touching the same area, but in a different direction?
  9. barbell

    barbell Coach Coach

    DeafBlonde likes this.
  10. DeafBlonde

    DeafBlonde Original Member

    I'd rather walk! ;) (...away from the checkpoint, that is...)
  11. RB

    RB Founding Member

    TSA will have to describe what exactly is to be inspected. So a person should challenge them if they only say resistance and if they refuse to describe the area to be inspected give consent and if they contact the genitals call the police and file a complaint. The TSA employee will be in violation of the law should it pass.
    lindabarlow likes this.
  12. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    "Effective" must be firmly defined. Made up euphemisms like "resistance" may not be used. That's my take. If Texas doesn't firmly define "effectively described" then we're stuck with more of the same repulsive thuggery.

    To me the big difference is that TX if firmly asserting that TX has some jurisdiction over the behavior of TSA perpetrators at the checkpoints. This is big!

    Remember that last week a TSA perp in TX was caught by local police who were actively engaged in an investigation of her behavior within the "sterile area." They arrested her on her way out of the airport.

    It may be that what is/is not spelled out in the law is less important that TX's implied assertion that TX authorities can and will conduct investigations at TSA checkpoints and arrest TSA perpetrators on their way out of the airport.

    Before this point the TSA perpetrators have been repeatedly assured that they could get away with absolutely anything. Now the perpetrators will begin to become more cautious. The worst of them are going to face jail time. :D

    Note that the TSA has been "approving" only a tiny percentage of claims for theft and damages against them. Very few people are being compensated, in spite of citizens' huge losses due to damage and theft by TSA perps. If the local authorities have cameras trained on the checkpoints, victims of the TSA should be able to get help in making claims in the future. Remember, these damages and thefts are pretty serious. Laptops aren't all that expensive, but the replacement costs are astronomical due to all the software. Some of these thefts are going to be classified as felonies. That should cool things down dramatically.
  13. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    Oops. There's a much, much bigger problem here.

    The state of TX does not consider checkpoint screeners to be public servants. That's a loophole big enough to drive a big, fat TSA thug through.

    The legislation was thereby rendered nearly meaningless.

    I'm crushed.

    OK, not quite. This is a pretty complicated bill. It is full of lawyer-talk that makes my head thump with pain. We'll see how it pans out.
  14. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

  15. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

  16. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

  17. Wimpie

    Wimpie Original Member

  18. lkkinetic

    lkkinetic Original Member

    There's been a lot of action on this bill in the past 24 hours. Jacob Sullum at Reason provides a roundup:

    The revised version of the bill passed the house, and is now back in the senate for a vote before the special session ends tomorrow.

Share This Page