New Port Richey couple says TSA search went too far

[The Northerner]

New Port Richey, Florida - Airport security is a part of traveling these days, from walking through X-Ray machines to being patted down. But one New Port Richey couple contacted 10 News to say the search they received went too far.

"It was extremely thorough, almost a violation, "says Jason Steitler as he describes how a TSA official searched him at the Greater Rochester International Airport July 6th. Steitler's disability requires he uses a wheelchair.

"They did the hair then did the neck. Then they had me do a pushup in my chair, then got down into my inner thigh around my back side. It's the most thorough search had done in my life," says Steitler.

Steitler and his wife, Jennifer, were heading home to New Port Richey that morning. She too is in a wheel chair and was searched by a TSA official.

Read more: http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/article/200788/250/New-Port-Richey-couple-says-TSA-search-went-too-far

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Dogs could make all of this go away

But it is 'bout control.

[hedgehog]

2. I'd love to see the use of dogs, but how many dogs would it take to do the job properly?

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. As many as as are currently used at border checkpoints for

Silly shit like screening for banned foods.

[pnwmom]

7. Dogs are a much more expensive solution. They require training

and specially trained handlers, and the dogs tire after several hours and have to be replaced by other dogs.

And as many people would be offended or frightened by dogs as they are by the other types of screening we use -- not everyone is a dog lover!

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. BULLSHIT, we use dogs already

give me a fucking break! Just not in this particular role at the fracking airport. But Sunday... a Beagle was used by his handler to check my luggage for things like Sausage and we have been using them in this capacity for literally DECADES.

Dogs are far less invasive and far less people will complaint about a dog.

[pnwmom]

12. Maybe you should do a little research on this before you spout off.

I did a while ago, and this is what I learned.

You could also use your common sense. Someone who might not object to a dog sniffing in her luggage might object to the dog putting his head in her crotch.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Ah yes common sense also tells me that it is best

to do security theater. Want me to list the most obvious holes in the security system? READ on the preferred shipper program... start THERE.

[alstephenson]

4. How about the explosives detecting wands used in Europe?

It's really about particles of explosives, not whether you have a lump in your drawers. I guess there's no money to be made on the wands or the dogs...

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Who lobies? Because yes, there is money

Cherty is very effective.

[indepat]

6. BHKeeping us safe from terra while millions remain unemployed long-term, tens of

millions are on food stamps, millions are losing their homes, tens of millions have no ready access to medical care. Maybe providing for the general welfare only includes keeping us safe from terra and allowing the uber-wealthy and large corporations to continue to gorge themselves sucking at the public welfare teat. :patriot:

[Emelina]

8. Just thank the Patriot Act for this.

Remember, give a politician some power and he/she will take it to absurd levels: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/100200

We are quickly turning into a society that is willing to accept government monitoring of our daily lives to the degree of East Germany's Stazie agency. This is quite dangerous -- and the people running things are willing to use fear to get us to comply.

Anyone watch the BBC documentary series "The Power of Nightmares?" You can find it at video google. Scary stuff.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. +1000 And welcome to DU

:hi:

[SDuderstadt]

11. What nonsense...

you obviously have never lived under the Stasi.

[woo me with science]

13. +1 More legislation that was pushed down our throats quickly, in response to crisis,

without giving Americans time to understand what was in it and voice their objections.