My Labia Will Send Logan Airport TSA Thug Melendy A Postcard
My labia and I just got through a very gropey gropedown by TSA worker Melendy, a sturdy little blond white woman at Logan International Airport. To the point where I think they're now on speaking terms.
TSA thug Melendy got all up the side between my thigh and my labia -- four times. It was so disgusting. As was her groping my hair and reaching in my pants at the waistband with her gloved hand so deeply that she touched the top of my underwear.
This is security?
This is traveler-intimidating, security puppet show bullshit -- in a pretend cop costume.
TSA thug Melendy also reached in my shirt at the top. Gross.
Oh, and at the beginning of the screening, she asked whether she was to give me a "standard" or "modified" patdown. "What's a modified patdown," I asked TSA thug Melendy.
"I don't have to tell you that," TSA thug Melendy replied.
Here I am, flying back from an ev psych conference and I'm forced to have a woman who is not my gynecologist give me a breast and vagina exam. Yuck.
Prostitution is a cleaner way to earn a living groping strangers' bodies. You get paid for that, too, but the people you do it to are consenting.
Logan, by the way, is one of the top 20 airports where TSA thugs are most likely to steal your stuff.
Most of the TSA thugs I had any interaction with today earnestly told me they're protecting us.
Yes, people whose job choices amount to taking money for violating other citizens' bodies and right to not be searched without probable cause -- reasonable suspicion that they are committing or going to commit a crime -- are about as likely to find a terrorist as my dog is.
We find terrorists through having trained intelligence officers doing probable cause-based policing, not by security theatering every person who wants to fly to an ev psych conference or to visit Grandma.
The job of airport security screener should be privatized to personal screeners who accompany their passengers. That eliminates the invasion of privacy by unknown persons of unknown hygiene standards who look like they were recruited from the Barnum & Bailey side show. Your personal screener would learn to judge your moods and wants: "Would Madam prefer a French screen today? Or, perhaps Doggie or You On Top? Or, are you in a hurry, so just a quick Missionary screen? And, I can't travel on Tuesday since I have a GQ shoot. But, Raul is available." And, at the gate, awaiting to board, you could enjoy a post-screenal cigarette and glass of wine, while your personal screener asked "That was a good screen for me. Was it a good screen for you?"
People would start looking forward to air travel, and would eagerly arrive early for check throughs.
Wfjag at April 12, 2015 6:10 AM
The stupidity of offering a "modified pat down" without explaining the difference caused me to google "modified pat down." Nothing definitive, but a lot of references to children.
The official TSA site had this to say about pat downs.
"The passenger can request a private screening at any time and a private screening should be offered when the officer must patdown sensitive areas. During a private screening, another officer will also be present and the passenger may be accompanied by a companion of his or her choosing.
A passenger may ask for a chair if he or she needs to sit down.
A passenger should inform an officer before the patdown begins of any difficulty raising his or her arms, remaining in the position required for a pat-down, or any areas of the body that are painful when touched."
So, I am guessing if of those circumstances were to apply it would be a "modified pat down." I would be curious how they effectively do this while you are sitting in chair. Does seem odd to make you stand in line for hours, but allow you to sit for the "pat down." But, I am not a highly trained security professional.
Bill O Rights at April 12, 2015 7:55 AM
I am never going to do this out of public view unless I am forced to. As a person who shows no evidence of being a criminal, I should not be body-groped as if I am being processed into prison.
I suspect a "modified patdown" (and let's call it what it is: a highly-intrusive and pointless groping of my sex parts and areas of my body that are not open to strangers' touch) involves a flashlight and your asscheeks spread.
Amy Alkon at April 12, 2015 8:12 AM
"Modified patdown" seems to be something they do to kids. Disgusting. Your kid gets to experience "bad touch" because you have to go somewhere you can't drive.
Amy Alkon at April 12, 2015 8:17 AM
There's a nice graphic out there you can print as a book cover for your child to carry: My First Cavity Search - Explaining Why Your Child Is A Threat To National Security
Wear the brown shirts, TSA.
Radwaste at April 12, 2015 9:50 AM
Rand Paul said yesterday that if elected President on day one he would end mass surveillance by the NSA. If I believed he would do that, I would switch parties and vote for him. I do think his father would do that. but his behavior till now leads me to believe he wouldn't do that. Just as Obama has done nothing to reform the TSA, or really support any Democratic Platform towards civil liberties I grew up believing Democrats supported.
Anyway Amy, I am sorry for what happened to you yesterday. Reading this stuff is depressing and I am glad you have the courage to write about it publicly.
Even if TSA stopped tomorrow the damage has been done. An entire generation of Americans now thinks all this shit is sane.
jerry at April 12, 2015 10:16 AM
Had the wand passed over my body as if they were measuring radioactivity, but that's pretty much it. Were you given the option of the electronic screening instead? I had that on the return trip and contrary to rumors, it didn't look like porn, no naughty bits on display.
Did she look like a troll? You're beautiful and obviously not employed in a minimum wage job, so shouldn't discount the possibility of jealousy-inspired hatred.
Samm at April 12, 2015 2:10 PM
Honestly, Amy, I was with you until you got to the Fourth Amendment. How many courts have to rule that there is no violation of the Fourth Amendment before it sinks into your skull that your Fourth Amendment rights are not being violated?
Yes, I think you have the right idea in speaking against their disgusting practices and in naming them personally. Also in pointing out that they're completely ineffectual. If more people did that, we might get somewhere. Brava!
However, it just seems idiotic to me that when the courts have ruled ad nauseum that this has nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment, you persist in saying, "Oooh, my Fourth Amendment rights."
Patrick at April 12, 2015 2:18 PM
Something I thought of today. I don't know if this would work, but perhaps Isab would know.
I've heard that the machines they use for their scans aren't inspected regularly. I wonder if someone could compile the opinions of experts on the risks associated with these machines and sue the TSA for reckless endangerment or something like that.
That might get the TSA's machines removed. Of course, it might also necessitate regular inspections and maintenance performed on these machines, jacking up the price of airline tickets even further.
Patrick at April 12, 2015 2:26 PM
At least we can take comfort that know airport security so much better than they do in Israel...
Don at April 12, 2015 2:39 PM
"How many courts have to rule that there is no violation of the Fourth Amendment before it sinks into your skull that your Fourth Amendment rights are not being violated?"
Why do you depend on a court? Do you not recognize that activism preceded favorable court rulings w/r/t gays - or, since this is about "other people", do you just think "screw 'em" now?
You're effectively saying that whatever a court says is OK with you.
You'll never be a prisoner - you're a "detainee".
Those aren't handcuffs - they're "restraints".
The mere fact that you're on the same side as "Knowing" should make you throw up.
Please be advised that although you have not declared in a sentence your support for current claims of exemption from the 4th Amendment for TSA actions, your post forcefully supports that idea. I don't want to start you crying about that again.
Meanwhile: why don't you reconcile your, "Yes, I think you have the right idea in speaking against their disgusting practices and in naming them personally. Also in pointing out that they're completely ineffectual" with the reasonable search and seizure that must occur for this NOT to violate the 4th?
Effective? Reasonable. Ineffective? Not reasonable.
Radwaste at April 12, 2015 3:17 PM
Rad, to be perfectly blunt, you make me throw up. You're a fucking idiot who just says things he wants to be true, without doing a fucking thing to ascertain whether what you're saying is true or not.
In what you thought, I'm sure, was one of your shining, informed moments, you once sagely intoned, "Children have no rights as enumerated by the Constitution."
Would you mind telling us all where children are even mentioned in the Constitution, much less set aside as persons to whom the protections of the Constitution don't apply?
If you molested or assaulted a child, you'd find out how many rights they have.
You want to know who doesn't have rights? Slaves. You could've assaulted or molested one, and nothing would happen because they were considered property, not citizens. Dred Scott even maintained they didn't have the right to bring their grievances to court (nonetheless hearing the case anyway).
Gee, Tinker vs. Des Moines says that children have a right to free speech, and implicit in that ruling is that that is not where their rights end. And of course, despite being minors, they have a right to bring their grievances to court. Gee, that's more than Dred Scott had.
There isn't a "Duuuuuh" long enough to encapsulate the magnitude of your stupidity, Rad. I have no use, none, for dumbshits who invent facts because they're too fucking lazy to find out for themselves what they're actually talking about, and then try to foist this bullshit on everyone else. Children have rights, dumbass. They're persons, therefore citizens. And the Constitution doesn't actually cover them, to affirm or deny them rights. Perhaps if you actually read the Constitution, instead of trying to sound like an authority on it without actually bothering to read it.
And now, with the TSA, you're doing it again. "Duuuuuh...Fourth Amendment rights."
The courts have had decades of precedent on what's covered by the Fourth Amendment.
The planes, idiot, are privately owned. And as such, they have the right to impose their standards for their use. They agreed to the rules, therefore, you can either submit to the search or don't fly. The government is obligated to honor your Fourth Amendment rights when you're being searched for a crime. Private organizations are not so obligated when it comes to administrative patdowns to search for contraband.
Talking to you is like talking to a birther, something I've done too much of in my time. The courts could tell them (and they have, several times) that the courts have no power to remove a sitting president, even if, by some stretch of the imagination, Obama were ineligible to hold the office of President. That is the prerogative of Congress, and no one else.
Nonetheless, they keep right on going to the courts, wasting time, money and resources attempting to do what the courts can't. That's what you remind me of.
I can't stop you from responding to my posts, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for me to so much as give you the time of day. I have no interest in discussing anything with you. Not even the weather.
I don't claim to be an expert on too many things, but at the very least I ask those who should know. For instance, on the TSA, I'm blessed to have Facebook friends who are lawyers who are quite happy to answer my questions. One, in particular, just finished law school and is awaiting his results on his bar exam. He could talk about this stuff all day.
Patrick at April 12, 2015 3:54 PM
Thanks Patrick for clearing that up.
Just a few more questions than:
So the airlines and airports are free to not use TSA (or TSA approved private screeners) if they don't want to?
And can you explain why this TSA.gov page is similarly confused and thinks their searches are governed (but allowed with restrictions) by the Fourth Amendment?
http://www.tsa.gov/stakeholders/frequently-asked-questions-program
> Do contracted screeners draw their authority from the Aviation Transportation and Security Act PL107-71 (ATSA), or do state and local governments have to codify ATSA to establish their authority to perform Administrative Searches? If so, what if there is a conflict with the State Constitution (e.g., random vehicle searches during heightened alert conditions)? Will the Screening Standard Operating Procedures be modified to accommodate these conflicts?
Even prior to the passage of ATSA and the Federalization of the screening work force, Federal courts upheld warrantless searches of carry-on luggage at airports. Courts characterize the routine administrative search conducted at a security checkpoint as a warrantless search, subject to the reasonableness requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Such a warrantless search, also known as an administrative search, is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, " confined in good faith to that purpose," and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly. [See United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973)].
> While the searches at the airport will be conducted by private screening companies, such searches will continue to be subject to the Fourth Amendment requirements of reasonableness because they are conducted at the instigation of the federal Government and under the authority of federal statutes and regulations governing air passenger screening.
Thanks!
jerry at April 12, 2015 4:35 PM
Here is what seems a reasonable (IANAL) discussion of how the TSA legally circumvents the 4th and strategies on how to stop them from doing that.
IANAL, I don't think the blogger is, take it with a huge grain of salt:
http://flyingwithfish.boardingarea.com/2010/11/20/how-the-tsa-legally-circumvents-the-fourth-amendment/
jerry at April 12, 2015 4:48 PM
Here is Jeffrey Rosen a law professor at George Washington University, is the author of "The Naked Crowd: Reclaiming Security and Freedom in an Anxious Age" explaining
"Why the TSA pat-downs and body scans are unconstitutional"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/24/AR2010112404510.html
Now, Rosen is a law professor, he's not a blog commenter, so again, take it with a grain of salt.
jerry at April 12, 2015 4:50 PM
Why don't you ask Isab? I'm not a lawyer either, but she has identified herself as a lawyer.
Patrick at April 12, 2015 4:56 PM
Has the Supreme Court ever actually ruled on TSA body pat down searches? It's not clear to me they have, it seems as most of the work to date is at lower courts.
IANAL, I am mostly the shittiest of blog commenters, so you can probably trust me on what I say.
jerry at April 12, 2015 4:57 PM
Isab's a chick? Is that new? That's all I need, femsplaining the law we men have to travel under.
jerry at April 12, 2015 4:58 PM
As not a lawyer, I'd attack the decisions on the basis that a reasonable alternative is not flying (based on a 70s decision I think.)
I'd try to find some joker flying from Tucson, El Paso, Harlingen to San Diego caught up in a Border Patrol Highway search w/i 100 miles of the border and then ask the court what joker's alternatives were:
Highway and Border Patrol search?
Bus/Train and TSA VIPR search?
Flying and TSA search?
jerry at April 12, 2015 5:04 PM
I'm reminded of the story of a young man who wrote most of the Fourth Amendment on his torso, so it was readable when he stepped into the scanners. For some strange reason, the TSA was upset enough to bring it to court. Gosh, that's just the Fourth Amendment. Why on earth should that be upsetting to the TSA drones?
I have to hand it to him. That was brilliant. The judge wisely ruled that that the young man was exercising his right to free speech.
I thought about doing something like that myself. Since there's precedent, the TSA would be unlikely to make a court case out of it. I'd have to shave my chest to make sure it's legible, though.
Unfortunately, I find it difficult to find the right opportunity to make my stand. My next flight is up north to be with my siblings, as we inter my mother's ashes. She died about almost three weeks ago. And for me, it's just now sinking in, as I realize I have no one to call and share my latest adventures with.
But the point being is that I will not miss this opportunity to be with my ten siblings as we gather to say good-bye to our mother. Not just for the sake of pissing off the TSA. My protest will have to wait. And I don't know when.
Patrick at April 12, 2015 5:25 PM
Through decades of precedent, the courts have ruled that your only protected modes of travel are by human and animal means. The cases that deal with individual methods aren't easily found, but Slaughterhouse Cases inform us that a train is not a right.
Patrick at April 12, 2015 5:43 PM
Don't miss this, ye who have no memory: Just call it an "administrative" search.
That way, Patrick can agree with it and call names - and assume Isab needs help making her points.
Radwaste at April 12, 2015 5:48 PM
By the way, Patrick, a basic assertion you have made above is false: though airlines are indeed private entities, their every motion is controlled by the Federal Aviation Administration. Their operation is wholly under duress. They may not even discharge passengers other than into Federally-approved areas.
Time and again, you justify whatever you rant about by citing common practice and appealing to authority. May the deity of your choice save you in the obviously unwanted case you must determine some outcome for yourself.
I don't know what you do for a living, but it can't be very practical.
Radwaste at April 12, 2015 5:54 PM
I think Amy needs to file an FOIA search to see if she's on a TSA list--my guess is that there's a list made by TSA employees who want to harass people who dare to write about them.
KateC at April 12, 2015 6:16 PM
Isab's a chick? Is that new? That's all I need, femsplaining the law we men have to travel under.
Posted by: jerry at April 12, 2015 4:58 PM
I'm a Republican.
And the Supreme Court does not necessarily have to rule on a case involving a TSA search incidental to getting on a plane.
Administrative searches are such an established point of law, that they probably would not even bother to take the case.
The Supreme Court usually only hears a case if there is orgininal jurisdiction, about a question they have no covered before, or they take a case because there has been a jurisdictional split between two lower federal courts, with one ruling one way on an issue, and another ruling another way.
(There are other ways to get a case to the Supreme Court, but not applicable to this issue)
The airline has the right to search you before you board one of their aircraft. You agreed to it, when you bought the ticket. So does the bus company, and the people running the Super Bowl who sold you that thousand dollar ticket.
Don't like it? You are free to either find private transportation, or watch the game on TV.
That right to search doesn't go away, just because the government is performing the searches for them, in the public airports, as is the case with the TSA.
Want to avoid being searched? Rent a private plane, and fly into privately owned airport.
Isab at April 12, 2015 6:38 PM
That's why as not a lawyer, I suggest finding a person or three traveling very close to the southern border where they are subject to VIPR and Border Patrol searches all of somewhat dubious constitutionality and use that to tear away at the nonsense of "well, there are alternative ways to travel".
As not a lawyer it seems as stupid to use decisions about administrative searches from the 70s as it stupid to base privacy rights re: wiretapping on laws from the 30s (which end up making video recording legal, but not audio, and also make illegal to decrypt radio traffic broadcast through my living room.) Stupid stupid stupid.
And the TSA has proposed screening private aircraft...
jerry at April 12, 2015 9:59 PM
That's why as not a lawyer, I suggest finding a person or three traveling very close to the southern border where they are subject to VIPR and Border Patrol searches all of somewhat dubious constitutionality and use that to tear away at the nonsense of "well, there are alternative ways to travel".
Border Patrol searches are a different issue. They have nothing to do with an administrative search, and would provide no precedent that would change the TSA's ability to conduct consensual searches as a condition of boarding an aircraft at a public airport.
"As not a lawyer it seems as stupid to use decisions about administrative searches from the 70s as it stupid to base privacy rights re: wiretapping on laws from the 30s (which end up making video recording legal, but not audio, and also make illegal to decrypt radio traffic broadcast through my living room.) Stupid stupid stupid."
Wire tapping laws are mostly a state issue. In a nut shell state wire tapping laws, can be more restrictive (provide more protections) than Federal law, but they cannot be less restrictive.
While I am in agreement that the drug war has eroded many of our constitutional rights, rectifying this does not lie with the court system, but with the legislature(s)
"And the TSA has proposed screening private aircraft.."
Which they are within their rights to do, if these private aircraft are landing at public airports, but not if they are landing and taking off from private fields. .
Isab at April 13, 2015 5:14 AM
http://www.amazon.com/PLAYMOBIL%C2%AE-36138-Playmobil-Security-Check/dp/B0002CYTL2
Bonus: Questions below.
Unix-Jedi at April 13, 2015 7:00 AM
The point is not to knock down TSA searching in one fell swoop, but to knock down the logic that one can avoid searches by finding an alternative to flying. If there are no alternative modes of transportation that are not subject to search, regardless of reason (border patrol search vs. security of plane, bus, train) than "oh, it's okay, jon q just doesn't have to fly."
It's part of my "enough shit has changed since wire tapping and 70s airplane transportation decided laws that it's stupid to base today's decisions on them."
Total costs of time, motels, gas, rental/ownership of a car make driving in 2015 compared to flying very much different than it was in the 70s.
> Which they are within their rights to do, if these private aircraft are landing at public airports, but not if they are landing and taking off from private fields.
So truly, what's a private field that the TSA has no right to search in
Is it any non-government owned field?
http://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/passenger_allcargo_stats/categories/
I see no logic to restricting the TSA from privately owned, public use airports.
TSA logic and behavior would seem to suggest they will eventually go after all fields that can be classed as public fields regardless of ownership leaving only the farmer's field open to his four buddies taking aviation virtually entirely out as a mode of transportation not subject to search.
I am not eager to cede to the TSA every future form of transportation apart from privately held privately used beam down pads because we still have horses and a network of trails. And beam down transporter pads? Well, they still use the public airwaves.
jerry at April 13, 2015 10:33 AM
"I see no logic to restricting the TSA from privately owned, public use airports."
The law isn't always logical. However, to some extent it does follow precedent, and it tends to have general applicability, which means that an appellate court, like the Supreme Court, doesn't decide facts, it only determines if the law is constitutional and was applied correctly in the case it is reviewing.
Right now, the TSA isn't even operating at all public airfields.
The airports were required by law to screen passengers, and luggage. Some opted to do that through private screeners.
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/12/132748544/airports-consider-using-private-security-screeners
Isab at April 13, 2015 4:45 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn0WdJx-Wkw
They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let them crash
=======================================
CBS4 Investigation: TSA Screeners At DIA Manipulated System To Grope Men’s Genitals
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/04/13/cbs4-investigation-tsa-screeners-at-dia-manipulated-system-to-grope-mens-genitals/
> DENVER (CBS4) – A CBS4 investigation has learned that two Transportation Security Administration screeners at Denver International Airport have been fired after they were discovered manipulating passenger screening systems to allow a male TSA employee to fondle the genital areas of attractive male passengers.
It happened roughly a dozen times, according to information gathered by CBS4.
jerry at April 14, 2015 1:59 PM
I came here to post the link to the Denver TSA screener's targeted gropefests that Jerry posted. So disgusted. And disappointed with the people who are permitting the travesty to continue.
felicity bandersnatch at April 14, 2015 5:12 PM
Leave a comment