You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #58: 2 arguments: First, the Constitution trumps federal law, and the 4th amendment is interpreted to [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
franzia99 Donating Member (479 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. 2 arguments: First, the Constitution trumps federal law, and the 4th amendment is interpreted to
Edited on Sat Apr-16-11 09:51 PM by franzia99
mean that people cannot be searched without probable cause. So were this to go to court there are many who believe the regulations requiring these searches will be struck down on the grounds that they're subjecting people to searches without probable cause. Probable cause means you have particularized facts that reasonably suggest that someone may be committing or has committed a crime.

The second argument is that what this TSA agent did went beyond the scope of proper procedure under the TSA's own rules (assuming they're deemed constitutional) and therefore constituted a sexual assault. If you watch the video the alleged victim says he's been patted down many times before and that this one was much more intrusive than what he's previously been subjected to. He said the agent pushed him out of line, repeatedly fondled his penis and testicles, and stuck his hands down the front of his pants. If the finder of fact concludes that the agent went beyond the proper procedure for the patdowns, they could find unlawful sexual contact, even if the patdown regulations stand.

Edit:

And even if a prosecutor refused to bring this, the alleged victim could bring a 1983 claim where he sues the government for violation of his civil rights. Again, this is a question for the finder of fact. Based on what's been reported, it looks like there's a colorable claim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC