TSA Conducts Random Car Inspections at SRQ

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by CelticWhisper, Jan 4, 2012.

  1. CelticWhisper

    CelticWhisper Founding Member

    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  2. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Internal checkpoints. Himmler & Beria would be so proud of their progeny.

    There must be more coverage out there, although I haven't found it. The Patch newspapers generally just regurgitate news from other sources.
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  3. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    So predictable. And yet another reason why some of us have been ringing alarm bells about this stuff for years.

    Oh, well. Since the sheeple are content to get their privates groped at the airport, I'm sure they won't mind getting their cars searched on the highways. Have fun out there!
    Elizabeth Conley and barbell like this.
  4. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    I lifted this from a NJ law firm's web page on sobriety checkpoints. It seems to be a good overview of the limitations. Stopping vehicles for the express purpose of searching them wouldn't pass muster.

    Interpolating here to apply this to a different sitution, but note the part in bold red above. Once they move you to the side for a more in depth investiation, it must be based on probable cause. Translation: They can't just wave cars to the side of the road and start opening trunks.
  5. barbell

    barbell Coach Coach

    This is just so (expletive deleted) lame.
  6. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    But then:
    Considering the fact that groping people at airports is now considered "reasonable," it won't be long before stopping people on the highways and searching their cars is likewise "reasonable." I already know there are millions of people out there who would be just fine with this, some of them working in the media.
  7. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Don't forget the part about "probable cause". The seizure may be reasonable, but probable cause is still required to conduct a search. You need to look at what copied as a whole and not pick out parts of it.
  8. Louis Betti

    Louis Betti Original Member

    Indeed, and it may only be a matter of time as the government tries to grow their security theater monstrosity. As long as the "sheeple" think that the government can make us 100% safe, this nonsense will continue. Unlike Lexus motor cars, whose slogan was once "In the relentless pursuit of perfection", trying to make our security / safety 100% perfect is an exercise in the absurd. Life is all about risk, and while mitigating risk is absolutely necessary, eliminating it is impossible. Nothing is "perfect", and when you strive to achieve perfection, the costs escalate dramatically. A hypothetical example: If it costs $10 billion to make us 99% safe, it will cost us $20 billion to make us 99.1% safe. To get to 99.9% will costs trillions! Sadly, the TSA is hardly mitigating risk, just wasting money. Guys like Pistole just think like ex-FBI agents (which is what he is). If given the chance, he'd spend $trillions, with no truly measurable affect on our safety.

    I used to hear these security bozos saying: "We have to be right all the time, the terrorists have to be right only once". This was their excuse for the insanity we have today.
    They are looking for perfection, and therein lay the problem.

    Until we as Americans are willing to accept some risk, the terrorists win. In fact, they have won already. They don't need to attack us, just to try, and we end up spending billions more to react.
  9. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Exactly. In fact, this was their explicitly stated goal:

    Pistole, Napolitano, and everyone like them are the ones aiding and abetting terrorism, not dissidents like us.
    Doober, jtodd and RadioGirl like this.
  10. N965VJ

    N965VJ Original Member

    Doober likes this.
  11. Fisher1949

    Fisher1949 Original Member Coach

    I didn't see any police in this, maybe I missed them. Assuming this was solely TSA screeners, then I don't see why anyone would be obligated to stop or what they would do if a driver simply ran the checkpoint.

    I'd be inclined to ignore them and keep going.
    Doober and barbell like this.
  12. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Oink. They're there.
  13. Fisher1949

    Fisher1949 Original Member Coach

    Why would any of these have jurisdiction on County property? Usually Marshals just transport criminals.

    Were the local/state cops in the "other" category?
  14. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Federal law enforcement officers have "jurisdiction" anywhere in the states or territories. Whether their activities are legal and whether they are violating your civil rights under color of law are separate issues.

    Sammy Weaver might beg to differ with you, if he were still alive.

    The article didn't mention local cops. I would not be surprised if most local cops probably understand the supreme courts limitations on checkpoints well enough that wouldn't run an operation like that.
  15. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    VIPR teams have been operating this way since 2005. Since most people either don't know -- or don't care -- that they have the right to say, "No, I do not consent to a search of my car/home/person; am I free to go or am I being arrested?" the authorities get away with it.

    I sent this story to my entire mailing list yesterday -- an exercise in futility, I knew, but I was curious to see if anyone gave a (expletive deleted). Only the handful of people already aware of the encroachments of our police state, the people on my separate "TSA" list. The rest -- about 100 -- just shrugged and rolled their eyes.

    And people wonder why I say this country is getting what it deserves.
  16. FaustsAccountant

    FaustsAccountant Original Member

    We're all guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of TSA/DHS so......
  17. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    If this is happening on airport property, there's probably no legal issue with it. If it's happening elsewhere, the laws are pretty clear, so why in the world would you stop and let the TSA search your car? Just say 'no'.
  18. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Airport property is public property 99% of the time. Driving into an airport is no different than driving down a street. At many airports the access are just extensions of the city streets and occasionally even run through the airports.
  19. FaustsAccountant

    FaustsAccountant Original Member

    I don't know how to link to a different thread on this forum properly yet, but this is from "Screenings aren't just for airports anymore" post#45 that shows the mindset of intimidation. That's why someone would stop and let TSA-or anyone in a quasi-uniform do it.

    "I don't see a warrant. Do you?

    If you arrive at a checkpoint and four heavily-armed members of NY's finest tell you to open your trunk, do you ask for a warrant and drive off when they cannot produce one?

    See my response above. These checkpoints would likely be upheld using the same "special needs against terrorism" that courts have used to uphold searches in subway stations."
  20. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    You know most people won't just say no. They'll buckle.

    "What's the problem? You don't have anything to hide, do you??"

    90% of my circle of friends/colleagues/family will say this. (expletive deleted), they have said it.

Share This Page