ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Law Humor Blogs -> Lowering the Bar

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Law Humor

: Lowering the Bar

TSA: Trouser Search Administration

By Kevin Underhill

ADVERTISEMENTS

Credit where credit is due: as I have said before, I think "Thousands Standing Around" is hilariously funny, but if nobody has suggested "Trouser Search Administration" yet I am hereby staking my claim to that one.

This excellent post by Colin Samuels has another good suggestion and also collects a number of other good posts on the general topic of the horrendousness of the TSA and its policies.  If you are interested in the details of some of the legal arguments that can be and are being made, the Electronic Privacy Information Center has details here of its pending lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security.  Based on EPIC's opening brief, it argues:

  • The TSA violated the Administrative Procedure Act by ignoring objections to and required procedures regarding the scanner/groping program, and by ignoring its statutory obligation to assure that its use of technology "[does] not erode privacy protections . . . ."

  • The program violates the Fourth Amendment, despite the generally broad scope of allowable "administrative searches."  See United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2007).
  • The TSA also failed to comply with its obligations under the Privacy Act. (In other news - at least it's probably news to the Trouser Search Administration - we have a "Privacy Act.")
  • Because letting strangers see you naked, let alone having them fondle you unbidden, violates the religious beliefs of Muslims among others (see, e.g., The Church of Don't Touch My Junk), the program violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
  • Finally, and I think this is my favorite, assuming the program is not "lawful" because it violates the Fourth Amendment it would also violate the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004, which prohibits peeking at parts that people reasonably expect to be private. The last sentence of the brief simply states, "Exhibit 1 makes clear that this standard is met," and I won't reproduce that picture here, because you know what? It sure does.

There have been some reports that the TSA, in its quest to be liked and respected even more, has actually "opened an investigation" against the guy who was not allowed to fly the other day because he would not agree to either be scanned or groped. If he doesn't have a legal defense fund or pro bono representation yet, he should.

Full post as published by Lowering the Bar on November 17, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.002 secs (from cache 10/31/26 23:08:56)