Is this constitutional?
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'
The supreme court says that
Sadly, though the legal information center at getlegal.com says that:"Blanket searches are unreasonable, however 'evenhanded' they may be, in the traditional criminal law enforcement context. See, e.g., Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91-2, 92 n.4 ('79) (invalidating a blanket patdown search of all patrons in a tavern, even though there was probable cause to search the bartender and the premises). The ill that the Fourth Amendment prevents is not merely the arbitrariness of police discretion to single out individuals for attention, but also the unwarranted domination and control of the citizenry through fear of baseless but 'evenhanded' general police searches."
Right now the prevailing sentiment is that we are in extraordinary circumstances.The Fourth Amendment prohibits generalized searches, unless extraordinary circumstances place the public in danger.
There is also the fact that the US government has always held that the border is an exception to certain constitutional requirements, as the government has an interest in protecting its integrity from breach. Of course, this exception has been abused in recent decades to expand the "constitution-free zone" to 100 miles from all borders.
Apparently they have decided that "transportation hubs", such as airports, train depots, and even toll bridges, meet the same safety requirements as borders.
I read an article yesterday in which the reporter says he was told the new pat downs were instituted for the purpose of making it extremely undesirable to "opt out" of the scanner. ( I will provide the link, but the article is written in locker room style humor, no foul language, but uncomfortable references.) This makes me feel that it meets the "unwarranted domination and control" muster.
In addition, this situation is vulnerable to abuse. I read a disturbing account of a situation while googling for info on the TSA:
I would not let them take my 3yo daughter anywhere where I wasn't, especially with the new "enhanced pat down", this is a license for abuse....they gave my (then) 3yo a full pat down when we went through security because she was wearing overalls and the buckles set off the detector. I felt so bad that I hadn't even given that a thought and she was terrified. They took her off by herself and wouldn't let me go with her. Dh was coming home from some Army thing, so we were going through to meet him at the gate (they knew that). Yep, a very terroristic family.
So, there are two questions I pose: first, is this constitutional in the purest sense of the word, and second if it went to the SCOTUS, would it be found constitutional?
By the way, it is my opinion that there must be some reason that they want people in those scanners so badly. The first thing that comes to mind is biometrics, the second is behavioral conditioning.
Are they associating our scans with our id's and sending them to the biometrics database?
The behavioral conditioning may be the process of breaking us down and preparing us for even more degrading governmental actions in the future.
We are being forced to break down our personal barriers and allow the government in without any reservations.