What exactly *is* a "Gate Search" and how common are they?

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by RosemaryT, Nov 22, 2011.

  1. Affection

    Affection Original Member

    I don't know why he's wasting time negotiating with them -- get lawyerin'.

    --Jon
     
  2. INK

    INK Original Member

    You can request a private screening. The place they do this is back at the checkpoint. Your choice. I love having options.
     
  3. N965VJ

    N965VJ Original Member

    IIRC, PTravel's analysis (who is a lawyer for those that don't know him) was that the CFR covers the initial checkpoint to access the sterile area and queuing up to board an aircraft, nothing more.

    They can, inasmuch a Behavior Detection voodoo practitioner can try to engage someone in conversation, but they can be blown off. Of course, that policemans costume makes some people think they are compelled to comply. If screeners just wore slacks with a knit polo shirt that said "TSA" on it it, people would treak them like the guys hawking credit cards in the terminal. :p
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  4. RadioGirl

    RadioGirl Original Member

    Agree, but that is based on those two items of "to enter the secure area" and "to board an aircraft." IANAL and I would defer to PTravel's interpretation, but IIRC TSA started gate searches on the basis of the second item (or possibly just on the basis of "because we want to") , and then PTravel acknowledged that the CFR could be interpreted that way.

    Again, agreed about the BDOs but it's a long way from engaging someone in conversation to (as has been reported at various times) testing drinks, patting groping people down or demanding to look through their bag when they are not yet at the gate to board a flight. And yeah, the uniform is a problem.
     
  5. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    not to beat a dead horse, but lets be clear about the "patdown": the same invasive physical molestation that most people went through the ATR/AIT machines to avoid. It is uncalled for, unnecessarily invasive and so will at some point hopefully be ruled so by federal courts.
     
  6. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    I refuse to use "pat-down." It isn't a pat-down. It isn't a frisk. It's a grope. I won't do the TSA's dirty PR work for them by using their Orwellian doublespeak.
     
  7. RadioGirl

    RadioGirl Original Member

    Yeah, cool; I was just drawing the distinction between a BDO chatting to someone (which is also an unnecessary and invasive waste of money) and other TSA activities between the checkpoint and the gate. But I agree about the terminology and will edit my post above.
     
  8. RosemaryT

    RosemaryT Original Member

    Amen! This may be too much information for y'all, however...

    When I had my "grope" at ORD, the woman did NOT change her rubber gloves (I should have asked), and when she "felt around my waistband," she plunged her fingers way down that waistband and was brushing up against, well, the most intimate of spaces on my body. Had I known her hands would be traveling so far south, I would have DEMANDED new gloves.

    Is that part of the drill? I was pretty rattled by it and thought it was horribly invasive.

    Which leads me back to the first point - I don't know of any cops that conduct a "frisk" by feeling a suspect's pubic hair.
     
  9. RosemaryT

    RosemaryT Original Member

    I love you guys! :) You're people after my own heart!
     
    KrazyKat likes this.
  10. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Power and control. Power and control. It's all about power and control. As long as people keep putting up with it, it will continue.
     
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  11. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    The legal frisk is the Terry Stop. What happened to you is a disgusting abuse of your person by employees who have no law enforcement authority whatsoever. They are clerks. Nothing more.
     
  12. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    At TSA checkpoint, even a Terry Stop is not necessarily legal. The purpose of a Terry Stop is to protect the safety of a police officer when he first confronts a suspect.
     
    KrazyKat likes this.
  13. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    For a Terry stop to be legal, the LEO must have a clearly articulable (and valid, defensible in court) reason to suspect the person he is frisking poses a danger. They cannot frisk just anyone for any reason.
     
    KrazyKat likes this.
  14. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    Putting on my lawyer hat....

    A Terry stop is based on reasonable suspicion (not probable cause), supported by articulable facts that the suspect is committing a crime, just committed a crime, or is about to commit a crime. If the officer has that reasonable suspicion, then the officer can briefly detain the suspect. Any search that is done should be limited in scope. A pat down of the suspect's outer clothing can be done in a search for weapons - and that is the rationale for the stop -- the officer is looking for weapons that may be used to harm the officer.

    A Terry stop does not allow the officer to engage in hunches, or put his/her hands under a suspect's clothing, and certainly doesn't allow a strip search to be done.

    Taking off my lawyer hat....

    Lisa said:

    I refuse to use "pat-down." It isn't a pat-down. It isn't a frisk. It's a grope. I won't do the TSA's dirty PR work for them by using their Orwellian doublespeak.

    I almost agree with Lisa on this. I certainly don't refer to them as patdowns because they aren't. I don't think 'grope' is quite right either. These are sexual assaults, pure and simple, and that's how I refer to it when it comes up in conversation.

    Wikipedia defines a sexual assault this way:

    The term sexual assault is used, in public discourse, as a generic term that is defined as any involuntary sexual act in which a person is threatened, coerced, or forced to engage against their will, or any sexual touching of a person who has not consented. This includes rape (such as forced vaginal, anal or oral penetration), inappropriate touching, forced kissing, child sexual abuse, or the torture of the victim in a sexual manner.[2] [3]

    The National Center for Victims of Crime describes it a slightly different way:

    Sexual assault takes many forms including attacks such as rape or attempted rape, as well as any unwanted sexual contact or threats. Usually a sexual assault occurs when someone touches any part of another person's body in a sexual way, even through clothes, without that person's consent. Some types of sexual acts which fall under the category of sexual assault include forced sexual intercourse (rape), sodomy (oral or anal sexual acts), child molestation, incest, fondling and attempted rape. Sexual assault in any form is often a devastating crime. Assailants can be strangers, acquaintances, friends, or family members. Assailants commit sexual assault by way of violence, threats, coercion, manipulation, pressure or tricks. Whatever the circumstances, no one asks or deserves to be sexually assaulted.
     
    nachtnebel and Lisa Simeone like this.
  15. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    I'll go with "sexual assault." I also use that term. I consider groping without consent sexual assault. The reason I use "grope" or "gropefests" is because I know the TSA doesn't like it. They don't like any descriptive, accurate terms. They want us to use their euphemisms.
     
  16. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    Right, agreed.

    I use 'sexual assault' because it is descriptive - powerful and accurate. I want people to associate the word 'sexual assault' with the word 'TSA', because sexual assault is a crime, and I believe that what the TSA is doing to some passengers is a crime.
     
    Doober and Lisa Simeone like this.
  17. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    Ironically, the TSA is pretty consistent in their ineptitude.
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.

Share This Page