Are TSA pat-downs and full-body scans unconstitutional?
As the debate about the Transportation Security Administration鈥檚 screening procedures pings across the Internet, a growing chorus of critics is asserting that electronic imaging scans and 鈥渆nhanced pat-downs鈥� both represent an unconstitutional violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches.
鈥淓nough is enough. I should not have to submit to a digital strip search or being groped by a glorified security guard," writes commenter vrwc1 in a typical post on cnet.com. "This is the largest violation of personal privacy we've ever seen.鈥�
The choice to get on an airplane, the argument goes, is not probable cause for such invasive searches, nor does buying a ticket constitute consent to be subjected to a 鈥渧irtual strip search鈥� and 鈥済roping,鈥� as critics call the two searches.
For the courts, however, it is a matter of balancing personal privacy rights against public safety.
鈥淎re the conditions that you鈥檙e consenting to so draconian and so unreasonable that there鈥檚 a Fourth Amendment problem?鈥� asks William Schroeder, a professor of law at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 think that argument is going to carry the day, given that people have hidden bombs on their bodies in ways that cannot be found through less invasive searches.鈥�
'You don't have to fly'
At the heart of the issue is consent, says Professor Schroeder. Have people consented to this search, simply by buying a ticket? "I certainly understand why people are not altogether pleased about it,鈥� says Schroeder, but 鈥測ou鈥檝e consented. You don鈥檛 have to fly 鈥� that鈥檚 your choice.鈥�
Others, however, suggest that the searches overreach. In order to pass the Supreme Court鈥檚 test for constitutionality, searches must balance a 鈥渞easonable鈥� amount of privacy invasion against the likelihood of finding evidence of a crime.
RELATED: Number of full-body scanners at US airports to triple in 2010
In other words, it comes down to a cost-benefit analysis.
The "costs" of the scans have been reported from every corner of the Internet. Stories are emerging of TSA officers commenting inappropriately on scans, and of passengers reporting their pat-downs as 鈥渟exual assault.鈥�
What is not yet clear are the benefits.
John Pistole, head of the TSA, told a Senate committee Tuesday that pat-down techniques are so thorough that they would have detected the explosives concealed in the underwear of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab on Christmas Day last year.
鈥淚t鈥檚 more invasive than I鈥檓 used to,鈥� acknowledged Mr. Pistole, when asked by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D) of North Dakota if he had received an enhanced pat-down himself, during a Wednesday morning hearing of the Senate Commerce, Science, Transportation Committee.
After acknowledging his own personal discomfort with the search, Pistole stood by the procedure as a screening technique. 鈥淭he bottom line is, we need to provide for the best possible security,鈥� he said.
Do full-body scanners work?
But the value of the full-body scans, which are used 50 times more often than the pat-downs, are less certain.
鈥淚t remains unclear whether the AIT [scanners] would have been able to detect the weapon Mr. Abdulmutallab used in his attempted attack,鈥� says a from the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Italian security officials stopped using the scanners in . "We didn't get good results from body scanners during testing,鈥� said Vito Riggio, the president of Italy鈥檚 aviation authority, describing the scans as slow and ineffective.
British scientists found that the scanners picked up shrapnel and heavy wax and metal, but missed plastic, chemicals and liquids, reported UK newspaper in January.
鈥淪ome of these technological responses to terrorism really start to seem like placebos,鈥� says Susan Herman, President of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and law professor at Brooklyn Law School. 鈥淭o the extent that people understand what the benefits are, and the invasion of privacies are, they can make more informed decisions about giving up their privacy for machines that make them feel better, but don鈥檛 do the job of preventing any terrorist device from getting on an airplane.鈥�
Professor Herman says the scanners present a significant threat to privacy.
鈥淭his technology can go right up a woman鈥檚 skirt," and it can reveal medical conditions via the presence of an adult diaper, a colostomy bag, or other personal medical equipment 鈥� information that individuals have the right to keep private, she adds.
The TSA has relented in the face of some complaints. It announced Tuesday that it will no longer screen children under 12.
Chris Calabrese, a privacy lobbyist for the ACLU, says 鈥渢he balance seems to be missing here.鈥�
鈥淯ntil it鈥檚 restored, I think TSA is going to continue to hear these concerns," he adds. "This is pretty far outside the norm of what people expect when they travel, even in these days. We鈥檝e certainly seen the normal shift over the past decade, but there鈥檚 still a line, and both these procedures are on the wrong side of that line.鈥�
