[Archive Home][Date Prev][Date Next][Index]

         

"Airport Security vs. The Constitution"


 
Friday, August 19, 2011

Column
Airport Security vs. The Constitution
Government critics deserve their day in court.
By A. Barton Hinkle
The Richmond (VA) Times-Dispatch


You wouldn't think Aaron Tobey and Donald Rumsfeld have much in common.
Tobey is the guy who stripped down to his shorts at the Richmond, Virginia
airport last December. Rumsfeld is the former Defense Secretary under George
W. Bush. Tobey, who was protesting the invasive airport screening practices
that have outraged a good portion of the traveling public, is a stickler for
constitutional rights. Rumsfeld? Not so much.
 
The two of them, however, are united by a common case: Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents. The other day a federal appeals court said two Americans who
claimed to have been tortured by U.S. armed forces in Iraq can sue Rumsfeld
for violating their constitutional rights. The court relied on the Bivens
precedent. Bivens just happens to be the hook Tobey is hanging his hat on in
his lawsuit against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and
Transportation Security Administration chief John Pistole.
 
Basically, the 1971 Supreme Court ruling in Bivens says you can seek
monetary damages for the violation of your constitutional rights. That's
what Tobey is doing, with the help of the Charlottesville-based Rutherford
Institute.

To paraphrase Kevin Bacon in A Few Good Men: These are the facts of the
case, and they are almost entirely undisputed:
 
On Dec. 30 last year, Tobey was in pre-flight screening when he was directed
toward one of those special imaging machines that can see through clothing.
Tobey paused to strip off his T-shirt and sweatpants. On his torso he had
written: "Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure against
unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated."
 
A Transportation Security Officer told Tobey he did not need to disrobe.
Tobey said he wanted to in order to express his views. At that point, the
TSO radioed for assistance. Two Richmond police officers arrived, cuffed
Tobey, and hauled him away. Tobey isn't the only person who has gone through
screening in his underclothes-but he is the only one who did it quoting the
Constitution, and he is the only one who has been arrested for it.
 
He spent the next 90 minutes in handcuffs while police officers and FBI
terrorism task-force agents questioned him, berated him, and threatened to
tell on him by calling administrators at his university. They threw some of
his personal belongings in the trash-his toothbrush and highlighter would be
considered contraband in jail, they explained. Finally they issued him a
summons for disorderly conduct before releasing him to catch his flight.
 
In court a few days later, prosecutors dropped the charge, recognizing that
Tobey's peacefully taking off his T-shirt and sweats did not rise to the
level of disorderly conduct. (Virginia law says such conduct must have a
tendency to cause violence.) Now Tobey is suing over violation of his First,
Fourth, Fifth, and 14th Amendment rights. Along the way he has picked up
some notable supporters: the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of
Free Expression, former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr, and civil-liberties champion
Nat Hentoff.
 
Tobey claims his arrest was unjustified and unconstitutional, and the blame
for it falls in part on Napolitano and Pistole, who put in place the
policies that permitted it. The federal government naturally says otherwise.
First, it says Tobey "disobeyed a command" to proceed through the scanner.
That is questionable; Tobey claims he did as he was told.
 
The feds also say three other things: (a) The extent to which the Fourth
Amendment requires probable cause to detain someone in Tobey's situation is
a "novel question." Nevertheless, (b) nobody violated Tobey's rights, and
(c) even if they did, Napolitano and Pistole are immune anyway.
 
For all those reasons, say the feds, U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson should
dismiss Tobey's lawsuit.
 
If the name sounds familiar, that's because it is. Hudson is the first judge
to have ruled against ObamaCare's individual mandate-the provision that says
Washington not only can tax your income but tell you how to spend what's
left by forcing you to enter into a contract with a private insurance
company. Hudson struck down the mandate Dec. 13, 2010-just two weeks and
change before Tobey made his shirtless statement at RIC.
 
Hudson said he would rule on whether Tobey's suit can proceed within two
weeks. That was last week. So the decision in the Rumsfeld case could not
come at a better time. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Rumsfeld
enjoys no immunity: "Plaintiffs [Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel] have alleged
sufficient facts to show that Secretary Rumsfeld personally established the
relevant policies that caused the alleged violations of their constitutional
rights during detention."
 
As in Tobey's case, the federal government has argued that Rumsfeld enjoys
immunity. The 7th Circuit says: No, he doesn't. That doesn't mean it has
ruled in the plaintiffs' favor or found Rumsfeld personally culpable for the
torture they claim to have endured. It merely means the case can go
forward-just as it ought to.
 
Americans have cheered when foreign dictators in Romania, Egypt, and
elsewhere have been made to answer for grinding citizens under their boots.
It would be curious indeed if American officials were harder to hold
accountable. Vance and Ertel will get their day in court. So should Aaron
Tobey.

 Do you have an opinion about this story?
Share it with other readers in our CAA Discussion Forums

http://www.californiaaviation.org/dcfp/dcboard.php


*****************************************

Current CAA news channel:


Fair Use Notice
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. If you have any queries regarding this issue, please Email us at stepheni@cwnet.com