Robert Dean Cites 4th Amendment Violation, Sues TSA Over Full-Body Scans

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — An Arkansas man has filed a federal lawsuit against the Transportation Security Administration, claiming that the agency's new screening rules are detrimental to his "emotional, psychological and mental well-being."

Robert Dean filed the lawsuit Monday in federal court in Little Rock, even though the Little Rock National Airport does not yet have the full-body scanners that have drawn criticism throughout the country. Dean's lawsuit asks a federal judge to issue an injunction stopping the TSA from conducting full-body pat-down searches and using the full-body imaging scanners.

The lawsuit claims that the new practices violate Dean's civil rights and his Fourth Amendment right protecting against unlawful searches and seizures.

TSA says it does not comment on pending litigation.

Comments

[Voting citizen]

02:40 PM on 11/26/2010

The truth is....bit by bit our constitutional rights are being erased in the name of terror. Truth be known....Bush and a bunch of his cronies brought this to us for cold hard cash in their pockets. Don't believe? Look who made a profit from the war or rebuilding the land where the towers were just to start.

I would rather give my life than have our entire country loose their constitutional rights. It's all paranoia instigated by our government to make us compliant to their wishes by scaring us enough to comply. Sick state of affairs isn't it.

[Lev Raphael]

06:27 AM on 11/26/2010

This is a must-read NYT opinion piece about the insanity of our current security system: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/opinion/26iht-edcohen.html?ref=opinion

Cogent, powerful, demanding work. I don't typically agree with the author, but he's nailed it.

[RA2]

07:16 PM on 11/25/2010

From what I’m reading, the Republicans are ginning up the fake outrage over the TSA and body scans. Just a year ago the Christmas Day bomber was the outrage saying Obama doesn’t’ or didn’t do enough concerning National Security. Republicans are stalling the Start Treaty for purely political reasons. Guess the illegal wiretapping, e-mail searches, rendition or even torture didn’t get this folks riled up about their rights but body scans or pat-downs crossed the line!?!

[rjhuntington]

06:41 AM on 11/27/2010

Outrage over the TSA body scans and pat-downs is genuine. It is not fake outrage.

[jhafz1]

04:15 PM on 11/25/2010

I would like to see how is everybody would react if that man who is suing the TSA is Arab or an Arab American!! I would love to hear fox news opinion about that!

[PaiaGirl]

01:40 PM on 11/25/2010

Whoa.  What a sweet deal RapiSCAM has.  Not only did they steal the design from Lunar Corporation but they are indemnified against being sued by the very taxpayers who would like to sue them.

[ABQ-Mike]

10:23 PM on 11/24/2010

I would like to see the government publish a list of terrorists who have been caught at airport screenings. I'll bet I know how many will be on the list...

ZERO.

[Roadrun]

08:05 AM on 11/25/2010

Mike I think you are wrong. That 86 year old lady looked very suspicious to me. The guy in the wheelchair makes me feel extra scared.

[Fightnmad]

09:49 PM on 11/24/2010

Go, Robert Dean!! Go!

[iblog2]

08:48 PM on 11/24/2010

MaryJane 22 minutes ago (8:13 PM)
861 Fans
Become a fan
Unfan
As in buying an airline ticket you agree specifically to be physically searched? I am guessing the language is broad and vague.

Chief Justice Taney, "as members of the same community, must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption..."

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN wrote for the Court, "[T]o justify the deterrent effect . . . on the free exercise . . . of their constitutionally protected right . . . a ". . . subordinating interest of the State must be compelling.""

United States v. Guest, "this constitutional right, which, of course, includes the right of entering and abiding in any State in the Union, is not a mere conditional liberty subject to regulation and control under conventional due process."

Where is the due process and where is the compelling evidence that each and everyone of us are under suspicion and subject to warrantless searches?

_______________________________________

Short answer. What does the background of this case have to do with interstate travel? specifically Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241.

[iblog2]

08:50 PM on 11/24/2010

I guess that's why you have so many ellipses in an opinion.

[iblog2]

08:53 PM on 11/24/2010

Let me clear something before you get confused. A COURT opinion.

[PhilipB]

02:42 PM on 11/25/2010

Thank you. Fanned iblog2

Thank you for getting to the real issue here which is important.
Best to you, and Happy thanksgiving.

[Vegan Girl]

02:29 PM on 11/24/2010

And why search the pilot? They have complete control over the plane to begin with. The pilot's union have privacy issues and logic on their side.

[KarasudaJay]

03:08 PM on 11/24/2010

This makes no sense at all, does it? Remember when the Egypt Air pilot decided that everybody was going for a swim? You really cannot stop that. He had nothing but the controls.

[Righterthenthou76]

02:25 PM on 11/24/2010

If you follow this suit to it's logical conclusion, then ALL bag and person searches and x rays would have to be tossed, with air travel becoming like riding the bus, no searches, nothing, no security, just some prayers that terrorists don't bring bombs and box cutters onto planes . Were do we draw the line? bag x rays? Metal detectors? Shoe searches? Liquid searches? What about federal buildings? Should they be included under this suit, so we can have Tim Mcveigh times ten? They wouldn't even have to sit outside the building like Oklahoma city, but they could walk right in and blow stuff up. But hey, maybe we could arm the pilots and everything would be peachy. The pat downs are extreme I'll grant, so to me, it's simple, keep the scanners, and thoroughly interview people who refuse.

[Vegan Girl]

02:30 PM on 11/24/2010

Flying WAS like that in the eighties and nineties, and to me it was a pleasant experience to fly. I miss that.

[Andy Manor]

09:58 AM on 11/25/2010

I always remembered metal detectors at the airport but then again I didn't fly until the mid 90's and then it was only a couple of times a year.

[DakkonA]

03:09 PM on 11/24/2010

The point is "reasonable" search.

[Vegan Girl]

02:21 PM on 11/24/2010

This country is quickly shedding the illusion of democracy and lawfulness. Where is the point when we stand up and fight back? I admire this guy for taking a stand for our right to privacy.

I thought I would never say "then the te.rroris.ts win" but here I go: as we turn our open society into a hostile, unfriendly, authoritarian, militarized police state, we do exactly what they want. We destroy our democracy.

Those who sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

For the powerful, the attacks are just a good excuse to advance their foreign imperial agenda and to discipline the US population.

[PhilipB]

02:45 PM on 11/25/2010

Fanned Vegan Girl!
:)

[Lev Raphael]

06:32 AM on 11/26/2010

Fanned and faved. They won as soon as they disrupted our way of life and caused us to feel constant fear and our government to fruitlessly pour tens of billions of dollars over the wound as if it could heal the fear. It can't. The NYT today has a superbly argued opinion piece on that side of the issue here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/opinion/26iht-edcohen.html?ref=opinion

And I just blogged for HuffPO on a different aspect of the problem. We've gone from a government making us afraid to a government making us ashamed:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lev-raphael/the-tsa-and-the-power-of-_b_787168.html

We think and say it can't get worse, and then it does.

[CrazyEyes]

01:18 PM on 11/24/2010

I've been looking for an excuse to flash a stranger.

[JasonBong-Waters]

01:08 PM on 11/24/2010

Big points for initiative, but you have to get scanned or have your goodies handled before you can sue. You cannot sue unless you've been damaged. My boyfriend, who has a medical condition that automatically shoves him into the molestation line, will be filing a lawsuit (if I can actually coax him into flying ever again).

[AZProfessor]

01:02 PM on 11/24/2010

This issue is further proof that we are a "Culture of Complaint." Somehow, we believe we have "rights" in certain situations in which we really don't. Nobody (absolutely NOBODY) is twisting your arm and forcing you to fly on an airplane, thus subjecting you to full body scanning. If you don't like it, then take the train or drive or buy your plane and learn to fly it. Otherwise, follow the rules for air travel in the United States.

[JasonBong-Waters]

01:21 PM on 11/24/2010

Pure sophistry. The search is at the direction of the government without probable cause. This is the government overstepping its authority and we do have rights in this situation. It is also an affront to human dignity, on both sides of the pat-down, at the hands and insistence of cowards.

[vtrob77]

01:32 PM on 11/24/2010

I disagree, the rules are subject to continual negotiation and litigation. It's a culture of rule of law, not complaint, which is based on advocacy. The courts may or may not find that it is unreasonable to subject people to a virtual strip search prior to flying. I would say that both the enhanced pat downs and the virtual strip searches are unreasonable as a condition of flying. At what point do we sacrifice all liberty we have for security? Should cars be subjected to random bombing screenings?

A line has to be drawn where we as a society endure insecurity for freedom. What happens if terrorists begin targeting security screening checkpoints? What happens if its the buses to the terminals? What happens if it's random acts of terrorism in neighborhoods? One doesn't have to drive or leave their house technically?

Where there is a will there is a way, the only thing that we can truly safeguard is liberty.

[PhilipB]

02:52 PM on 11/25/2010

Fanned for that.

[LogicalMathMan]

01:02 PM on 11/24/2010

These issues could all be avoided if we all flew naked. Some of us might even be smiling more.
This is a joke...Don't vent about your rights.

[DakkonA]

01:24 PM on 11/24/2010

No, you could still be hiding something in an... ahem... undisclosed location.

[Vegan Girl]

02:27 PM on 11/24/2010

Based on your post (I hope you're kidding) I believe one third of your username. be careful what you wish for, most of us look awful naked! (I look best when anonymously online....)
;)