(full site)
Fark.com

Back To Main
   Man who was arrested at TSA checkpoint for having text of 4th amendment printed on his torso wins court case for false arrest and violation of his civil rights to the tune of $250,000

26 Jan 2013 11:45 PM   |   29204 clicks   |   Wired
Add Comment
Showing 1-50 of 234 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
King Something    [TotalFark]  
www.mememaker.net

26 Jan 2013 08:54 PM
Reply
Voiceofreason01    [TotalFark]  
Contempt of cop is not a crime and much more importantly contempt of fake cop is not a crime

26 Jan 2013 09:10 PM
Reply
BMFPitt     
Good. I'll be flying in April and I plan on doing this.

26 Jan 2013 09:26 PM
Reply
PhiloeBedoe    [TotalFark]  
i1079.photobucket.com
Ideas for a new tattoo...

26 Jan 2013 09:33 PM
Reply
ZAZ    [TotalFark]  
He didn't win the case. He survived a motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity.

26 Jan 2013 09:52 PM
Reply
AbbeySomeone     
He's not a man subby, he's a young, toned, impressionable youth with a drive and some admirable shoulders.
I would make his liberties less than civilized if you know what I mean.
Mentoring and such.
/fap

26 Jan 2013 10:12 PM
Reply
notmtwain     

ZAZ: He didn't win the case. He survived a motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity.


Well, he didn't win damages but he did win the right to continue his suit and therefore has won a moral victory over the TSA, whose lawyers must surely be gnashing their teeth, writhing in agony and contemplating suicide over their failure to prove that the Bill of Rights is not valid when say it isn't.

26 Jan 2013 10:52 PM
Reply
Weaver95    [TotalFark]  

ZAZ: He didn't win the case. He survived a motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity.


according to the TSA (and our authoritarian lovers of security theater), lawsuits like this shouldn't have gotten even this far.  if we don't gate rape EVERY passenger who gets on a plane, then the ENTIRE WORLD will come crashing down around us.  if we ask questions, we're terrorists.  if we protest - we are mocked, derided and our names are added to watch lists.

26 Jan 2013 11:16 PM
Reply
WorldCitizen     

FTFA:

In dissent, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote:

Had this protest been launched somewhere other than in the security-screening area, we would have a much different case. But Tobey's antics diverted defendants from their passenger-screening duties for a period, a diversion that nefarious actors could have exploited to dangerous effect. Defendants responded as any passenger would hope they would, summoning local law enforcement to remove Tobey-and the distraction he was creating - from the scene.


Perhaps if the TSA agents hadn't been small minded douches having to prove how "important" they were, they would have just had a chuckle, patted the guy on the back for being snarky, and sent him on his way to his flight. Then there would have been no diversion of the "defendants" from their passenger-screening duties. THEY caused their "distraction", not some harmless kid.

26 Jan 2013 11:17 PM
Reply
namatad    [TotalFark]  

Weaver95: ZAZ: He didn't win the case. He survived a motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity.

according to the TSA (and our authoritarian lovers of security theater), lawsuits like this shouldn't have gotten even this far.  if we don't gate rape EVERY passenger who gets on a plane, then the ENTIRE WORLD will come crashing down around us.  if we ask questions, we're terrorists.  if we protest - we are mocked, derided and our names are added to watch lists.


mhmm

26 Jan 2013 11:32 PM
Reply
themindiswatching    [TotalFark]  

Weaver95: according to the TSA (and our authoritarian lovers of security theater), lawsuits like this shouldn't have gotten even this far.  if we don't gate rape EVERY passenger who gets on a plane, then the ENTIRE WORLD will come crashing down around us.  if we ask questions, we're terrorists.  if we protest - we are mocked, derided and our names are added to watch lists.


Meanwhile there are some people (mostly Freepers) who would be fine with the TSA if it only gate raped Muslims.

26 Jan 2013 11:34 PM
Reply
MurphyMurphy     

themindiswatching: Weaver95: according to the TSA (and our authoritarian lovers of security theater), lawsuits like this shouldn't have gotten even this far.  if we don't gate rape EVERY passenger who gets on a plane, then the ENTIRE WORLD will come crashing down around us.  if we ask questions, we're terrorists.  if we protest - we are mocked, derided and our names are added to watch lists.

Meanwhile there are some people (mostly Freepers) who would be fine with the TSA if it only gate raped Muslims.


You've got that wrong.

Meanwhile most people are find with the TSA because they are irrationally scared of Muslims.

The islamophobia we have is akin to walking around on a clear sunny day absolutely petrified with fear that lightning is about to strike you... and it's the reason the government gets away with making things like the TSA and DHS.

26 Jan 2013 11:50 PM
Reply
ExcaliburPrime111     
The kid created a scene in a security-screening area and was detained. Did he need to be handcuffed for 90 minutes? No. Should they have just searched him and got him on his way? Yes. In any case, he made the flight.

I doubt he'll win the case, and even if he does, the damages will likely be minimal. Hopefully this will lead to the TSA having some common sense. Hopefully passengers will also refrain from creating unnecessary distractions in security screening areas, and do something useful, like protest in front of their Congressman's office.

26 Jan 2013 11:50 PM
Reply
moothemagiccow     
FTFJudge: Tobey's antics diverted defendants from their passenger-screening duties for a period, a diversion that nefarious actors could have exploited to dangerous effect.

What's the line, again? "Shouldn't you be out catching bad guys?"

26 Jan 2013 11:51 PM
Reply
No Catchy Nickname     
FTFA: According to the suit, while under interrogation, the authorities wanted to know "about his affiliation with, or knowledge of, any terrorist organizations, if he had been asked to do what he did by any third party, and what his intentions and goals were."

Really? Writing an Ammendment to the US Constitution is now grounds for suspicion that you belong to a terrorist organization?

That's really....odd.

26 Jan 2013 11:51 PM
Reply
one of Ripley's Bad Guys     
I always opt out of the scanner. It is somewhat comical what a big deal some TSA agents make of it.

26 Jan 2013 11:52 PM
Reply
Kraftwerk Orange     

ExcaliburPrime111: The kid created a scene in a security-screening area and was detained. Did he need to be handcuffed for 90 minutes? No. Should they have just searched him and got him on his way? Yes. In any case, he made the flight.

I doubt he'll win the case, and even if he does, the damages will likely be minimal. Hopefully this will lead to the TSA having some common sense. Hopefully passengers will also refrain from creating unnecessary distractions in security screening areas, and do something useful, like protest in front of their Congressman's office.


He didn't cause a scene. The TSA agents did. They should have searched him, and finding him harmless, let him continue on his way.

26 Jan 2013 11:52 PM
Reply
Glicky     

AbbeySomeone: He's not a man subby, he's a young, toned, impressionable youth with a drive and some admirable shoulders.
I would make his liberties less than civilized if you know what I mean.
Mentoring and such.
/fap


For your reference...

www.wired.com

/Useless without pictures...
//Hot
///Hot linked that is....

26 Jan 2013 11:53 PM
Reply
ThrobblefootSpectre     
Article just says he has sued. Not won anything. With a quote from a judge about how he created a public disturbance. Doesn't sound promising for him.

Oh, and the fourth amendment doesn't let you dictate the conditions under which you go in/on other people's private property.

26 Jan 2013 11:54 PM
Reply
namatad    [TotalFark]  

Kraftwerk Orange: He didn't cause a scene. The TSA agents did. They should have searched him, and finding him harmless, let him continue on his way.


THIS

Instead, they broke the law and falsely arrested him. The TSA/government will settle out of court, unless the kids sticks to wanting 250k, hell they might even pay that is they can get him to sign an NDA.

YAY, TSA wasting more of our tax payer dollars.

26 Jan 2013 11:56 PM
Reply
tonguedepressor     
Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.

26 Jan 2013 11:57 PM
Reply
bluefox3681     

No Catchy Nickname: FTFA: According to the suit, while under interrogation, the authorities wanted to know "about his affiliation with, or knowledge of, any terrorist organizations, if he had been asked to do what he did by any third party, and what his intentions and goals were."

Really? Writing an Ammendment to the US Constitution is now grounds for suspicion that you belong to a terrorist organization?

That's really....odd.


Yeah, writing it on your body is a little odd. And taking your clothes off and making a scene when they didn't ask you to get naked is also a bit odd.

From what I gather from the story, he wanted to make a scene. And since they weren't going full anal probe on him, he made the scene by taking off his clothes. Manufactured outrage. I would probably take him in back to and make sure that we are dealing with a balanced individual. After they verified he wasn't a threat but rather an aw, they should have let him go.

26 Jan 2013 11:57 PM
Reply
justoneznot     
He only did it just to show off his hot bod.

26 Jan 2013 11:58 PM
Reply
rwhamann    [TotalFark]  

No Catchy Nickname: Really? Writing an Ammendment to the US Constitution is now grounds for suspicion that you belong to a terrorist organization?

That's really....odd.


There have been Federal law enforcement manuals exposed recently that point to possession of a copy of the Constitution as an indicator.

27 Jan 2013 12:00 AM
Reply
Earl of Chives     

tonguedepressor: Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.


fark you?

27 Jan 2013 12:01 AM
Reply
Now That's What I Call a Taco!     

ThrobblefootSpectre: Article just says he has sued. Not won anything. With a quote from a judge about how he created a public disturbance. Doesn't sound promising for him.

Oh, and the fourth amendment doesn't let you dictate the conditions under which you go in/on other people's private property.


If the Federal Government acts as gatekeepers to that property, it absolutely does. If it didn't, this case would already have been dismissed.

/If American Airlines or whatever had banned him from a flight for this, he probably wouldn't have a case

27 Jan 2013 12:02 AM
Reply
LessO2     

tonguedepressor: Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.


Do you like movies about gladiators?

27 Jan 2013 12:02 AM
Reply
namatad    [TotalFark]  

bluefox3681: Yeah, writing it on your body is a little odd. And taking your clothes off and making a scene when they didn't ask you to get naked is also a bit odd.

From what I gather from the story, he wanted to make a scene. And since they weren't going full anal probe on him, he made the scene by taking off his clothes. Manufactured outrage. I would probably take him in back to and make sure that we are dealing with a balanced individual. After they verified he wasn't a threat but rather an aw, they should have let him go.


What part of the first amendment and 4th amendment are unclear?
Toss in false arrest and it looks like the TSA over reacted like the brown shirts that they are.
I love that the appellate court sent it back for trial or settlement.
Expect the government to settle soon.

27 Jan 2013 12:02 AM
Reply
themindiswatching    [TotalFark]  

tonguedepressor: Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.


Do you get grossed out when you have to feel the balls of other men?

27 Jan 2013 12:03 AM
Reply
Last Man on Earth     
Yeah, this isn't a "win," strictly speaking. The DoJ is probably going to push for the full 15-judge panel for rehearing, and petition the SC if that's denied. It's a really good step for him, but it's far from over. Very interesting case, though. One of the attorneys on this is actually one of my professors, so I'm interested in seeing how this progresses.

27 Jan 2013 12:03 AM
Reply
LessO2     

ExcaliburPrime111: Hopefully this will lead to the TSA having some common sense.


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Keep dreaming.

27 Jan 2013 12:04 AM
Reply
fredklein     

tonguedepressor: Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.


Why do you hate America?

27 Jan 2013 12:04 AM
Reply
MurphyMurphy     

ThrobblefootSpectre: Oh, and the fourth amendment doesn't let you dictate the conditions under which you go in/on other people's private property.


True

...but I'm pretty sure it's clear on the government imposing the same conditions on said personal property when it violates an individuals own right to privacy and security.

The TSA is a government agency, not Southwest Air's.

27 Jan 2013 12:04 AM
Reply
Bumblefark     

moothemagiccow: FTFJudge: Tobey's antics diverted defendants from their passenger-screening duties for a period, a diversion that nefarious actors could have exploited to dangerous effect.

What's the line, again? "Shouldn't you be out catching bad guys?"


The dissenting opinion has to be one of the stupider things I've read in quite some time. Essentially, the logic of the argument is that one has a right to protest except to the extent that it "diverts" public safety officers.

So, it is precisely because you are doing nothing illegal that you are doing something illegal, because the officers choosing to illegally detain you have been "distracted" from catching people doing illegal things.

That's some fine jurisprudence, Lou.

27 Jan 2013 12:05 AM
Reply
BafflerMeal     
Say what you will about the TSA.

27 Jan 2013 12:05 AM
Reply
gingerjet     

justoneznot: He only did it just to show off his hot bod.


I'm ok with that.

27 Jan 2013 12:05 AM
Reply
blottoman     
He looks like a young superman...

league.jmkprime.org

/4 the ladies

27 Jan 2013 12:06 AM
Reply
gingerjet     

blottoman: He looks like a young superman...

[league.jmkprime.org image 802x600]

/4 the ladies


I bet he has better acting skills.

27 Jan 2013 12:07 AM
Reply
metlboy     

Kraftwerk Orange: ExcaliburPrime111: The kid created a scene in a security-screening area and was detained. Did he need to be handcuffed for 90 minutes? No. Should they have just searched him and got him on his way? Yes. In any case, he made the flight.

He didn't cause a scene. The TSA agents did. They should have searched him, and finding him harmless, let him continue on his way.


While this whole thing seems like a waste of time, and I hate to defend the TSA, from the article it didn't sound like they made him strip. It sounded like he just took his clothes off of his own volition. In an airport (or anywhere but a bath house), that's probably going to create a scene.

27 Jan 2013 12:07 AM
Reply
danno_to_infinity     
nice but he'll never fly again.

27 Jan 2013 12:07 AM
Reply
UlandaUnicorn     
It's about time Fark got some eye candy for the ladies.

27 Jan 2013 12:07 AM
Reply
Wolsey     
If I'm understanding Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson's opinion correctly, doesn't logic imply that it is imperative for the government to make absolutely certain that the people manning the security checkpoints are the absolute best? That is to say, not the people that are currently employed by the TSA?

27 Jan 2013 12:07 AM
Reply
winterbraid     
note to self: buy sharpie, plane ticket

27 Jan 2013 12:09 AM
Reply
ThrobblefootSpectre     

MurphyMurphy: ...but I'm pretty sure it's clear on the government imposing the same conditions on said personal property when it violates an individuals own right to privacy and security.


True. And the bolded word above is key. You don't have any "right" to other people's private property. You can enter into an agreement to use their property under agreed upon conditions.

27 Jan 2013 12:10 AM
Reply
PanicMan    [TotalFark]  

tonguedepressor: Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.


What's the trick to making really good pancakes?

27 Jan 2013 12:10 AM
Reply
tonguedepressor     

LessO2: tonguedepressor: Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.

Do you like movies about gladiators?


Yes. Yes I do. Perhaps I should've indicated that I used to work for TSA a little more clearer.

27 Jan 2013 12:11 AM
Reply
jtown     

Kraftwerk Orange: ExcaliburPrime111: The kid created a scene in a security-screening area and was detained. Did he need to be handcuffed for 90 minutes? No. Should they have just searched him and got him on his way? Yes. In any case, he made the flight.

I doubt he'll win the case, and even if he does, the damages will likely be minimal. Hopefully this will lead to the TSA having some common sense. Hopefully passengers will also refrain from creating unnecessary distractions in security screening areas, and do something useful, like protest in front of their Congressman's office.

He didn't cause a scene. The TSA agents did. They should have searched him, and finding him harmless, let him continue on his way.


He certainly did cause a scene.

Alternative "grope-search" screening doesn't involve a strip search unless they feel something under the clothing that is unusual and may pose a security risk. There was no indication that he was directed to undress and doing so served no purpose except to cause a scene.

Normal, rational people do not behave like that in an airport. It seems perfectly reasonable to secure and detain someone who behaves like that at an airport until it can be determined that he's just an attention whore and not a threat to safety.

His behavior did nothing to further the cause of freedom.

27 Jan 2013 12:11 AM
Reply
bluefox3681     

namatad: bluefox3681: Yeah, writing it on your body is a little odd. And taking your clothes off and making a scene when they didn't ask you to get naked is also a bit odd.

From what I gather from the story, he wanted to make a scene. And since they weren't going full anal probe on him, he made the scene by taking off his clothes. Manufactured outrage. I would probably take him in back to and make sure that we are dealing with a balanced individual. After they verified he wasn't a threat but rather an aw, they should have let him go.

What part of the first amendment and 4th amendment are unclear?
Toss in false arrest and it looks like the TSA over reacted like the brown shirts that they are.
I love that the appellate court sent it back for trial or settlement.
Expect the government to settle soon.


Unless you count all airport security screenings as unconstitutional, how is this a 4th amendment issue? He could have had the lines to the mickey mouse theme song written on his chest. He was detained because he took his clothing off in protest. That would get you at least a disorderly conduct pretty much in any public area.

I am not a fan of the TSA either, but this seems to me to be attention whoring. And he knew it would work because of how terribly non-common sense the TSA operates.

27 Jan 2013 12:11 AM
Reply
thisisyourbrainonFark     

namatad: Kraftwerk Orange: He didn't cause a scene. The TSA agents did. They should have searched him, and finding him harmless, let him continue on his way.

THIS

Instead, they broke the law and falsely arrested him. The TSA/government will settle out of court, unless the kids sticks to wanting 250k, hell they might even pay that is they can get him to sign an NDA.

YAY, TSA wasting more of our tax payer dollars.


As a fan of NWA, I'm not down with the TSA's NDA. Because I'm straight outta the Colorado hills, crazy motherfarker named brainon
From the gang called (sponsored) Total Farkers With Attitudes
When I'm called off, I got a sawed off
Squeeze the trigger, and liters are hauled off

/nevermind that soon I'll be a liter again

27 Jan 2013 12:12 AM
Reply
lohphat    [TotalFark]  

notmtwain: ZAZ: He didn't win the case. He survived a motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity.

Well, he didn't win damages but he did win the right to continue his suit and therefore has won a moral victory over the TSA, whose lawyers must surely be gnashing their teeth, writhing in agony and contemplating suicide over their failure to prove that the Bill of Rights is not valid when say it isn't.


No, they will get paid with your tax dollars nonetheless.

27 Jan 2013 12:12 AM
Reply
Showing 1-50 of 234 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined