Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government Security Transportation United States News Politics Your Rights Online

State Legislatures Attempt To Limit TSA Searches 601

Posted by timothy
from the they-never-have-a-bin-for-your-dignity dept.
OverTheGeicoE writes "Here's a familiar story: a breast cancer survivor's mastectomy scars showed up on a TSA scan, which forced a horrifying pat-down ('feel-up' in her words) of the affected area. The woman decided that she would not subject herself to that again, and was barred from a later flight from Seattle to Juneau for that reason. But now the story takes an interesting turn: the woman is Alaska State Rep. Sharon Cissna, and once she finally made it back to Alaska she started sponsoring legislation to restrict TSA searches. Her many bills, if passed, would criminalize both pat-downs and 'naked scanning,' as well as require better health warnings for X-ray scanners and even studies of airport screenings' physical and psychological effects. Other states, including Utah and Texas, are considering similar legislation. For example, Texas State Rep. David Simpson is preparing to reintroduce his Traveler Dignity Act again in 2013 if he is re-elected. The last time that bill was being considered the Federal government threatened to turn all of Texas into a 'no-fly zone'."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

State Legislatures Attempt To Limit TSA Searches

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 23, 2012 @11:44AM (#39137531)
    Wait....
  • Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Informative)

    by Srsen (413456) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @11:47AM (#39137571)
    The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution states that, when there is a conflict, Federal law always trumps State law. So these measures are a nice gesture but ultimately useless. Too bad, I agree with them in principle, just not in execution.
    • Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 23, 2012 @11:54AM (#39137641)

      You might actually be wrong, there are limited cases where the states can manage this. Now with something like medical weed you have an outright conflict. There are cases where states are allowed to do more, for example in Oregon their definition of free speech is much wider and more inclusive than the federal definition.

      The TSA may very well decide to comply with local laws in those States, it's simply not worth the fight. At any rate, some sort of balance must be struck in this case, because I'm beginning to think people like the IRS more than the TSA.

      • Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Zero__Kelvin (151819) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @12:02PM (#39137775) Homepage

        "Now with something like medical weed you have an outright conflict."

        Several states have already decriminalized Marijuana possession [wikipedia.org], even without a medical prescription, actually.

        • Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Informative)

          by theshowmecanuck (703852) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @12:24PM (#39138065) Journal
          Psssssst... hey buddy, the DEA doesn't care about state laws. They'll arrest you anyway if you find a way to get on their radar.
          • The funny thing is that I knew when I posted that there would be a bunch of snide comments by clueless people who completely ignored what I wrote and decided to just take it to mean whatever they want so they could flaunt their inability to read and understand the English language. It is a beautiful irony that you are the "showmecanuck". Now off you go back to Canada mister US law expert!
        • Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Informative)

          by hoggoth (414195) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @12:34PM (#39138175) Journal

          > Several states have already decriminalized Marijuana possession

          And because the supreme court says the "commerce clause" is a total carte-blanche that allows the federal government to do anything they like anywhere they like, you will still be arrested by a swat team who will break down your door, shoot your dog, point guns at your kids, and grind your face into the ground.

      • by El Torico (732160) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @12:05PM (#39137825)

        ... I'm beginning to think people like the IRS more than the TSA.

        I think the IRS and the TSA are equally despised, but people see that the IRS at least has a purpose. On second thought, I agree with you, the TSA is regarded as worse than the IRS.

        • by lorenlal (164133) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @12:28PM (#39138105)

          The IRS will at least occasionally give back when it has taken more than it should. The TSA has yet to do that.

        • by realityimpaired (1668397) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @01:12PM (#39138737)

          I'm not even under the TSA's jurisdiction, and I have more liking for my own country's tax collectors than I do for the TSA. At least the tax collectors are performing a public service that actually serves the greater good. The TSA, on the other hand, is nothing more than security theater that has severely impacted my own life, in that I no longer feel comfortable travelling to the US or over US airspace. And I'm certain that I'm not the only one... so not only is the TSA a multi-billion dollar boondoggle that doesn't actually accomplish anything, it's actually taking money out of the US economy in the form of deterring international travellers from visiting. Pity. You used to have a really nice country, for a while, but there's plenty of other places in the world that will happily take my money, and won't humiliate me for the privilege.

          Besides, the way the tax system is set up here, they always take money off at the source, and at the end of the year I get a refund for any overage they took off: unless you're self-employed, it's very rare that you end up owing the government money.

      • Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Informative)

        by kingramon0 (411815) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @12:24PM (#39138061) Homepage

        In order for Federal Law to trump state law, it has to be made in pursuance of its Constitutionally delegated powers. If Congress passes a law which they are not granted the power to do as part of their enumerated powers, then it does not trump state laws. That is why there is no federal drinking age, speed limit, etc. Those powers are not granted to it, so instead they simply bribe the states into passing laws to their intended effect by threatening to withhold transportation money.

        Powers that are not enumerated to the Federal government belong to the states to begin with, and therefore cannot be trumped by Federal law. Laws concerning criminal activity such as assault, cannot be trumped by Congress. Therefore, if a state passes a law that classifies what the TSA is doing as assault, it definitely is within their power. That is why the feds have to resort to threatening to shut down their airspace if the law is passed rather than challenge the law in court.

        "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." (Article VI, Clause 2)

        "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (10th Amendment)

        • Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Interesting)

          by hoggoth (414195) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @12:40PM (#39138273) Journal

          But the fact is the federal government WILL threaten the states and will get their way. They will declare a no-fly zone over Texas for the TSA. They will withhold highway money to get federal speed limits. They even made a farmer burn his crops that he grew for his own family's use because: if he HADN'T grown it he would have had to buy it and that would affect crop prices across state lines and therefore it falls under the inter-state commerce clause which is federal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn)

          • by w_dragon (1802458) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @12:52PM (#39138457)
            If several States were to move together, or if a major state (like Texas) had the balls to pass the legislation and force the federal government to actually screw with people's travel they may not get their way. At that point it would probably largely depend on which way public opinion fell and which politicians were sure to lose their jobs if they didn't back down.
          • Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:4, Interesting)

            by jason777 (557591) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @01:26PM (#39138909)
            I say fine. Let them declare a no fly zone. Let's see how well that actually works out.
          • by coats (1068) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @01:35PM (#39139027) Homepage
            That Assistant Attorney General -- and his co-conspirators -- who made that threat should have been arrested for extortion under color of office, for that is exactly what he did -- and not that as such his extortion is an offense properly under state jurisdiction. Since he traveled to Texas to make that threat, he was in fact available for such an arrest. And writs of extradition should have been filed for the rest of them.

            Pour encourager les autres.

        • by element-o.p. (939033) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @12:48PM (#39138385) Homepage
          What most people don't realize, however, is that the 10th Amendment was effectively rendered null and void in 1865 [wikipedia.org]. Most people think the Civil War was about slavery, but it wasn't. While slavery was the issue du jour over which the Fed and the states were in dispute, the REAL issue was whether the Federal Government had the authority to overrule the individual states. The Tenth Amendment, as you correctly stated, said "No -- states rights trump Federal law." Unfortunately, the Fed decided to ignore that pesky little detail in a bid to outlaw slavery. Their intentions were good -- slavery is, without a doubt, an abhorrent, barbaric practice -- but the downside of the Civil War was that the Federal government became far more powerful than the Founding Fathers ever intended, usurping the authority of state governments in direct violation of the 10th Amendment. So technically, you are correct...but that tends not to be the way things actually play out in real life.
          • Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Informative)

            by dkleinsc (563838) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @01:54PM (#39139285) Homepage

            Your reading of Civil War history is flat out incorrect.

            * November 1860: Abraham Lincoln gets elected on a platform of stopping the expansion of slavery into territories that didn't already have it - i.e. When the federal government created states out of Arizona and New Mexico (which they weren't at the time), they'd be free states. His election campaign was centered around that argument, which was by far the biggest issue of the day, but he did not push for abolishing slavery in places where it already existed. This was significantly more moderate a position than what the notable abolitionists wanted.
            * Nov 1860-Feb 1861: Seven states secede from the United States and form the Confederacy, interpreting Lincoln's platform of not expanding slavery as a slippery slope towards abolishing slavery in their states. The rhetoric used to convince state legislatures to secede is very explicitly about slavery.
            * Mar 1861: Abraham Lincoln takes office. Notice that this happened after the Confederacy was already formed.
            * Apr 1861: South Carolina forces open fire on Fort Sumter, which has been beseiged for 5 months prior.
            There's no reasonable way to argue that the Confederacy did not start the war, and there's no reasonable way of reading the Confederacy's motives as being about anything other than slavery.

            In addition, Lincoln was very very careful not to threaten slavery in states that already had it, because if he had, he would have lost the support of Maryland (leaving Washington DC surrounded by enemies), Kentucky, and possibly the newly-formed West Virginia, which were slave-holding states that did not secede.The Emancipation Proclamation (which created the stated goal of freeing the slaves) wasn't until the war had been going on for over 2 years, and the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery wasn't passed until after the war was over.

            However, depending on when and where you received your education, it's quite possible that you got the version of the "War of Northern Aggression" in which Abe Lincoln threatened people's freedom and then sent William T Sherman to wreck everything the South had for no reason whatsoever. But that view of things is simply not supported by the documents we have.

            The Disunion [nytimes.com] series over at the New York Times has all sorts of excellent primary documents and articles by historians looking at almost every angle of the war, which I highly recommend.

    • by i.r.id10t (595143) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @11:55AM (#39137661)

      But is the TSA stuff law, or policy?

    • Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:4, Interesting)

      by girlintraining (1395911) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @11:56AM (#39137663)

      The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution states that, when there is a conflict, Federal law always trumps State law.

      The federal government doesn't own the airports or airlines. "The State of Texas hereby withdraws all licensing, support, and allowances for any airport or airline within its borders."

      So while yes, the fed may be able to say the TSA must exist in all airports, the state can say no airports may exist within its borders. If the fed really wants to push this, the state can make a constitutional amendment. Little known fact: State constitutions override federal law. Only treaties and the like can go above that then. So there are ways for states to fight back against unwanted federal interference if the will of the people is strong enough.

      Frankly, I'd love to see Texas go toe to toe with the TSA on this issue. Whether it passed or failed, it would generate a ton of negative publicity for the feds and put them on the defensive for a long time.

      • Re:Supremacy Clause (Score:5, Interesting)

        by 0100010001010011 (652467) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @12:09PM (#39137879)

        Then it just becomes a circular pissing contest: "The federal government withdraws all funding for interstate highways". Look at why the drinking age is 21 in every state. It's not because there is a federal law, it's because the feds strong armed them with "Well if it's not 21 the roads aren't safe, and if the roads aren't safe we're not going to fund them."

        • by ndege (12658) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @12:30PM (#39138125)

          The same situation occurred back in the day with Montana's [lack of posted] speed limit.

          Its all about the federal income tax pulling from the pockets of [state] citiziens, then giving the funds back to the states if they play by the Federal "rules".

          This is how the highway system has worked for years.

          However, if taxes were decreased at a federal level and increased at the state level, the states would then be able to pay for their own roadwork without Federal involvement. But, how would that help Federal control?

          • by Chris Burke (6130)

            However, if taxes were decreased at a federal level and increased at the state level, the states would then be able to pay for their own roadwork without Federal involvement. But, how would that help Federal control?

            How would that help the states that don't have enough populous, and therefore income, to maintain their own roads without federal assistance. It's not the state's citizens own money being taken and given back -- it's also the money of citizens in other states. Lots of states receive more money from the feds than they pay in federal taxes.

            Wyoming is a huge state with a small population, and roads that get damaged in the winter. It would be a net loss for Wyoming if they had to rely solely on their own abi

        • by Grishnakh (216268) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @12:33PM (#39138161)

          Right, and then the State can withdraw the requirement for its citizens to pay income taxes to the IRS. The next step from there is secession. States just haven't bothered with this for a long time because it wasn't worth it, but that may be changing soon.

        • by girlintraining (1395911) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @12:51PM (#39138439)

          Then it just becomes a circular pissing contest.

          Yes, well, we wouldn't want a state to get in a pissing contest with the federal government because they won't respect fundamental civil liberties that the state's citizens expect to be upheld. We all know what happens when people stand up for their rights. Far better to just quietly pray for things to change, surrender at every opportunity, and accept misery and injustice because fighting against it is just too. damn. hard.

          Sir, please leave my country. Make room for an immigrant who is willing to participate in the democratic process, instead of just giving in to any authority that presents itself.

        • by It doesn't come easy (695416) * on Thursday February 23, 2012 @01:00PM (#39138577) Journal
          Best reason I have heard for NOT sending money to the federal government. The federal government, in many many cases, is simply overhead. If it were a business (as our republican friends think it should be), it would be trimmed down and the redundant services between states and federal government would be eliminated (with the states taking priority as the Constitution implies). I'm not even a republican and I would support such changes wholeheartedly.

          To send money to the federal government, only to have that money sent back to the states (with conditions attached), is wasteful, supports corruption at the federal level, and empowers special interests. It's time to start putting the federal government back in the hands of the citizens, don't you think?
      • by voss (52565)

        Actually state constitutions do NOT override federal law. Federal Law can violate state prerogatives under the US constitutions 10th amendment but that's still a Federal constitutional amendment which trumps all other law.

        See Civil Rights Act of 1964.

        • by voss (52565)

          The Southern states tried the same thing in the 60s by closing public schools to prevent integration. It didn't work then either.

      • Little known fact: State constitutions override federal law.

        Little known possibly because you just made it up and it hasn't had to time to percolate yet. No worries, I'm sure misinformation can travel faster than facts.

        http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5155054279368574623&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr [google.com]

        http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2984439589202067076&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr [google.com]

        http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1635&context=faculty_scholarship [duke.edu]

    • by Farmer Tim (530755) <roundfileNO@SPAMmindless.com> on Thursday February 23, 2012 @12:00PM (#39137757) Journal

      Still, you have to admire their balls (but only if you work for the TSA).

    • Except when the Feds ignore federal law... Such as the Fourth Amendment. Also loosely noted in Article IV and more explicitly defined in the Articles of Confederation is freedom of travel, one of our natural rights. This was assumed to be such a basic right that it didn't need to be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Shame for us, but doesn't really matter since the Feds ignore the Constitution anyway.

    • The federal government originally hadn't mandated that the TSA be in every airport. In fact, the author of the bill creating the TSA encouraged airports to opt-out of using the TSA [examiner.com]. Unfortunately, shortly after that article was written, the head of the TSA put a freeze on allowing any more opting-out from the airports. Even so, the Senate passed a bill a few weeks ago that would reinstate the practice [infowars.com]. So it seems somewhat inevitable that this is the direction things are heading now. I.e. that the crazy pen

  • Finally (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zaurus (674150) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @11:48AM (#39137577)
    It's about time the pendulum starts swinging away from the abusive, oppressive practices that the terrorists have set in place over our society.

    America is supposed to be the land of the free, home of the brave. Not the land of the willing to consent to invasive and abusive practices because of drummed up fear.
    • Re:Finally (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 23, 2012 @11:52AM (#39137619)

      The terrorists did not put these practices in place... our government did.

    • Re:Finally (Score:4, Funny)

      by anagama (611277) <obamaisaneocon@nothingchanged.org> on Thursday February 23, 2012 @11:53AM (#39137629) Homepage

      America is done. It's all a downhill slide now.

      Really, the best thing would be a movement to amend the Constitution to allow for the peaceful secession of states.

      I live in Cascadia -- we'd be one awesome country if we could be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_(independence_movement) [wikipedia.org]

      • Re:Finally (Score:4, Informative)

        by ColdWetDog (752185) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @12:01PM (#39137769) Homepage

        Right. Until the Federated Republic of California decided to invade.

        Who gets to keep the guns? (And the bombers and the Navy and this and that). You folks haven't really thought this out. This pops up in Alaska all the time (Sarah Palin's husband is big on this). Alaska's National Guard has some light infantry and a few old fighters. I think the biggest weapon that the Alaska State Troopers have is a 50 caliber machine gun and a couple of 300 pound officers.

        Russia waltzes in. Then what happens?

        So, you make 'defensive pacts' with the big guys with the guns. You have to pay for that right. That's a treaty or similar.

        Now, just look at how well the United States has done with treaties (ask your average Native American).

        Dream on, brother.

  • by joocemann (1273720) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @11:49AM (#39137589)

    ...if only there were a way for reality to affect our politicians in other ways.... shoddy health insurance, loan scandals, eroding wages for skilled work, being on the wrong end of globalization.... etc. Now we can see true motivation.

  • Oh for effen crying out loud! When it is THEM then well we have a PROBLEM! But if they are not affected and we complain to the wahzoo we are complainers! No I want the TSA to keep going because I want THEM to start understanding how WE are dealt with by a government!

  • by Archangel Michael (180766) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @11:51AM (#39137603) Journal

    I'd love to see the states start calling the Federal Bluff. If the states revolt in unison against over reaching Federal Intrusions, the Feds will have no choice but to back off.

    The problem is we have a bunch of pussified representatives.

  • Texas a no-fly zone? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ironjaw33 (1645357) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @11:53AM (#39137625)
    Before federal deregulation, Southwest flew entirely within Texas so that it could set its own fares and schedules. I think PSA did the same thing by flying only within California. I could certainly see this happening again if the states and the feds go to war over the TSA. If you fly across state lines or fly international, you've got to go through the TSA first, but if you stay within your own state, you don't.
  • by nprz (1210658) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @11:53AM (#39137639)

    Why does it take a representative to be affected before they represent the people?
    Aren't they supposed to be listening to us complaining and take action? Instead it seems like they only act on what is affecting them.

    • by Rob the Bold (788862) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @11:58AM (#39137717)

      Why does it take a representative to be affected before they represent the people? Aren't they supposed to be listening to us complaining and take action? Instead it seems like they only act on what is affecting them.

      Pretty much the same reason you get the crosswalk light installed only after some kid or old lady gets killed. People, including legislators, do what's easiest for them. When it's easier to do nothing, do nothing. When doing nothing gets to be more trouble than doing something, only then you do something.

  • by PPH (736903) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @11:58AM (#39137715)

    That's great! The last time I visited Texas, the flies were terrible!

  • by Nyder (754090) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @11:59AM (#39137739) Journal

    Let's make all of congress, the senate, and of course, the President and cronies, have to go thru a TSA scanner and pat down every time they want to enter the senate, or the white house, or congress. Let's do this for a month, then lets have a revote on this stuff.

    My guess is we'd get rid of all the scanners and pat downs.

    After all, the people who make the laws are the one rarely affected by the laws they are making, unless it's something to benefit them.

  • This rings hollow (Score:5, Insightful)

    by twotacocombo (1529393) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @12:02PM (#39137779)
    Call me a cynic, but why did this woman not actively support regaining our rights and dignity BEFORE she became a victim of the TSA? It seems a little self serving for her to suddenly pick up that flag only after her own personal traumatic experience. As a fellow human, I can sympathize with what she's gone through, but as a politician it looks less than righteous.
  • by bored (40072) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @12:09PM (#39137871)

    Because Texas has two very important hubs, DFW and IAH. Plus a very large number of southwest flights pass through Texas. When DFW/IAH gets shutdown the ripples will be national, good luck finding a flight anywhere. The texas leg should totally call their bluff, lets see what happens when united can't fly through IAH, and American can't fly through DFW. Plus chopping the middle out of southwest won't be pretty either.

    Loosing the 2,3 and 4th largest airlines in the US will be a bigger problem for TSA, than any terrorist attack.

    • by Svartalf (2997)

      That's why I don't think that Perry or Dewhurst have any guts- or are even remotely the conservatives that they purport to be; or we'd have HAD that face off.

  • by trifish (826353) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @12:12PM (#39137911)

    The terrorists have already won.

  • by IVI V K (2022732) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @12:23PM (#39138053)

    The TSA was created to comfort passengers after 9/11 by providing a highly visible change to the airport security measures through inconveniencing all passengers as much as possible.

    In reality, even without the TSA, the nature of in flight security changed forever on 9/11. Now everyone understands that the risk of hijacked planes is far greater than just the lives of those held hostage on the plane. By showing the larger threat hijacked planes pose as weapons, the hijackers on 9/11 effectively ended hijacking as a means to terrorize the greater population since most will accept that hijacked planes must be shot down before the plane can be used to pose a larger threat. Passengers and crews now know that their only hope for survival in a hijack attempt is to take down the hijackers themselves and regain control of the plane.

    Security is still required to keep weapons and bombs off of flights, but even the security before 9/11 was sufficient to deter the hijackers from bringing guns or other large weapons. As prisoners have shown, sharp weapons can be made from virtually anything solid, but these weapons would be less effective in a hijack today since the passengers and crew would be willing to be cut to overpower hijackers.

    The only minimal additional security provided since 9/11 is in limiting compounds that could be used to make explosives with the intent of destroying a plane rather than hijacking. This is battle of diminishing returns, where ever growing intrusions into personal privacy and intrusions provide ever smaller degrees of increased security and protection.

    I have no problem with scanned luggage and carryons, but requiring everyone to remove shoes and clothes is purely an attempt to make each passenger feel and intimately experience the security.

    These are psychological steps that accomplish virtually nothing to improve our security, but only raise the perception of safety.

  • by kawabago (551139) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @12:40PM (#39138277)
    The passengers who fought back against the terrorists are what is keeping us safe, not a scanner with a voyeur leering at it.
  • Is to find very powerful consistencies, and pit them against each other.

    So I propose that a few states with a lot of airline jobs and money should go ahead and dare the Federal government to make them a "no-fly" zone. I would recommend Georgia - which contains a delta hub- and maybe Illinois, because of Boeing.

    Both would essentially shutdown air travel in the US. Florida, because of Wald Disney World, would be another excellent choice.

  • by FellowConspirator (882908) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @12:52PM (#39138459)

    What the state representative is reacting to is not law, but policy. The use of "nude-o-scopes" and invasive pat-downs are not codified in federal law, so restricting their use is fair game. The supremacy clause arguably applies only to laws, not regulations or policies enacted outside of the law.

    The TSA screeners aren't law enforcement officers. They cannot themselves arrest you or prevent you from passing through security without the aid of a local or state police officer. If the state and locality decide not to respond to an individual breaching security -- well, the breach happens. A state could simply make a rule preventing police officers from arresting people that refuse certain types of screening and permitting them to, essentially, bypass security.

    States also don't have to their waive public safety laws (such as those pertaining to radiation exposure and operator requirements for such devices), nor sexual battery laws (TSA screeners are not law enforcement officers, and even if they were, the touching of breasts/genitals would only be permitted by court order or with reasonable cause). Technically speaking, my state would be well within its rights to enforce it's current laws on operation of X-ray emitting equipment if it is shown that the operator is not a licensed radiologist, if the use of the device is not for a medical purpose, and if the devices are not inspected and tested on the required schedule. That'd be a $25 fine per person screened, and perhaps a couple of weeks in prison for the operator.

"Life sucks, but it's better than the alternative." -- Peter da Silva

Working...