TSA Expanding Its Civil Rights Violations -- Sans Accountability
Via PressTV, former intelligence analyst Scott Rickard said (annoying autoplay video at link):

The TSA is "unfortunately expanding its horrific violations on American civil rights as well as American constitutional rights," Scott Rickard told Press TV on Saturday.

"You have an organization that was born post-9/11 that has really become one the many Stasi-type organizations that operates outside of the Americans' civil liberties," Rickard said. "The freedom in the United States has been under attack for decades, but certainly for the last 20 years it's escalated."

Rickard was referring to the Stasi agency, the Ministry for State Security in East Germany, which has been described as one of the most repressive intelligence and secret police agencies to ever have existed.

"There is no accountability and there certainly is no one regulating the TSA. They operate pretty much on their own as another security service much like the FBI... and it's just an expansion of the police state that we've seen occurring in the United States over the last half-century," he added.

Related from Techdirt's Tim Cushing, "The TSA Vs. The Fourth Amendment: You're Free To Board A Plane, But You're Not Free To Leave The Screening Area."

Extenuating circumstances, dating back to the 1970s, have turned an airplane ticket into a waiver of Fourth Amendment rights. While I appreciate the fact that restoring these rights would make it much easier for would-be attackers to probe for security holes, the same rationale makes anyone attempting (or asking) to leave the screening area instantly suspicious -- and subject to additional searches and screenings.

This aligns very much with the general law enforcement view on "reasonable suspicion" in terms of checkpoints and roadblocks. Any driver who turns down a side road or performs a U-turn in order to avoid a police checkpoint is presumed to be guilty of... something and therefore should be pursued and stopped. At no point is this driver ever in "custody," and yet, he or she isn't free to leave the area, even when the driver is several cars back in the line. This would seem to violate the Fourth Amendment as well, but courts in many states have determined that simply avoiding a checkpoint is, in itself, enough reasonable suspicion to allow officers to pull over the vehicle.

Other courts have argued that a legal maneuver to avoid a checkpoint is not enough to indicate reasonable suspicion, but the reality here (as lawyers caution) is that drivers avoiding a DUI checkpoint or other police roadblock should expect to be pulled over and questioned. In the end, the only practical difference between these two rulings is the admissibility of evidence in court. At the point where the Fourth Amendment should matter, it doesn't. It's only after the fact.

Although they aren't told explicitly, simply entering the screening area is giving consent to the TSA to search you and your belongings. Should you wish to revoke this consent, you would need to make that decision before reaching the screening area. Practically speaking, this means finding another way to reach your destination. There's no way to assert your rights and still board a plane, even if you haven't broken any laws and aren't planning to.

Caselaw (and some common sense) supports the TSA's claim that travelers are not free to leave the screening area. But the TSA should be honest about it, rather than simply expect all travelers to be perfectly fine with waiving their rights for the "privilege" of boarding a plane. And the courts should be wary of issuing more caselaw supporting the expansion of "constitution-free zones" to anywhere the TSA (or other government agencies) might be operating.