This is a hidden cam video of an attorney of twenty years who is refusing to be physically searched or go through a body scanner.
What do you think?
We Scour the Web, so You Don't Have To!
We Scour the Web, so You Don't Have To!
This is a hidden cam video of an attorney of twenty years who is refusing to be physically searched or go through a body scanner.
What do you think?
I think someone’s inadequate. If it were me, I’d give them a few shots.
I think he needs to study the law, the ACTUAL technical specifications of that machine and, if he feels so passionately about it, go to jail for the time necessary to adequately test his theories in court. He is, after all, just a lawyer and apparently not that good of one.
the terrorist have won
Just a another axx Hxxx attorney
Old Geezer, you clearly don’t understand the issue apparently. There’s no law that says you must be body scanned or patted down to go to court. However, there are all sorts of laws guaranteeing a person’s right to be heard in court and to have legal representation. In case you haven’t read it lately, it’s in the Constitution. It then really is unconstitutional to then create laws to limit the rights of people to their day in court.
Like eddie says above, the terrorists have won.
Or, Sander, perhaps you don’t understand the Constitution. You are protected against UNREASONABLE search and seizure. It has been up to the courts for about 200 years to decide what is unreasonable. In this courthouse the court has decided that walking through a simple metal detector (not a body-scanner or photograph-making x-ray device) is reasonable considering that people, long before 9-11 or 1993, have been known to smuggle guns into court. If he had his facts right, he would know this as would any competent attorney. If he still wanted to press his point he could bring an action for Administrative Relief, or just choose to get arrested and be a hero to all of the conspiracy nuts who just know that THEY are out there somewhere ogling our naked bodies. He seems to be all hat and no horse when it comes to the law.
Just a thought– A LAWYER should know that his fight is not with the deputy. This is sort of a stunt for the camera, really.
It’s pretty clear:
Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The argument for searches at the airport is that it’s private property and you’re dealing with a private party that can set terms of use. The issue here, more than his job, is that this is a public building and it’s not reasonable to suspect he’s smuggling something in.
And geezer, it’s not a simple metal detector, this is a full body scan, and he is absolutely correct, the hard drive in the machine does store a full body nude-ish picture then covers what it thinks the “naughty bits” are before it displays on the screen. If you listen, he asked to be wanded with a metal detector instead, but “they don’t do that” anymore.
It’s another example of something being assumed to be OK and legal because no-one said anything and set the precedent. It’s not legal, it is specifically banned by the constitution of the U.S. annd no, it doesn’t seem that bad, and heck, I’d probably just walk through without thinking about it, but everything that is “not a big deal” is just another brick in the walls we allow to hem us in.
And I don’t think even the biggest government apologizer would try to argue that things will get better and safer and these extra measures will go away. Eventually we’ll either be hemmed in and watched every minute of every day, or we’ll start standing up against bull$hit scare tactics and demand some level of sanity and logic behind measures like this.
J.D., let’s go back to some fundamentals. You can quote the Constitution all you want. It is subject to interpretation. That is why we have the Supreme Court. Virtually all challenges to constitutionality start at the level of the local court. You know, like the one in this very building. The attorney in question could, as I mentioned before, be a real hero to all of you who absolutely know more about the Constitution than the judges that sit in that building. There are two legal routes to that obvious (you assume) victory. He chose neither. Rather he chose to take a “hidden camera” into a confrontation with someone who had no authority to grant his feable wish. This is not the work of a talented attorney. Oh, and by the way, your assertion that “…(t)he argument for searches at the airport is that it’s private property…” would be utter nonsense at LAX, Kennedy, and most other municipally-owned airports and would, of course have been adjudicated long ago if it had even a scintilla of truth in it. It is, in fact, law that has not been found to be unconstitutional by any court in the land, in part because there is a belief (whether you accept it or not) that there is a benefit to preventing weapons from being brought into courtrooms and onto airplanes. Whether the methods used are the best available can be vigorously debated, but please do not spout “law” where the law does not exist.
I’m with sg552 on this. Just man-up, walk through and be proud of what you’ve got. And, what the hell…give them a few shots to talk about on their coffee breaks. If someone really wants to go through the bother of retrieving these images from the hard drive, more power to them.
I’d ask for a “fluffer” before walking through that scanner, though. 😉
Jonco, how about selling B&P underwear on here? There’d be nothing more satisfying than them laughing at the Bits and Pieces under my clothes.
There are several good points brought up here. As with airports – people unable to walk unaided (whether wheelchair or crutches) are expected to magically be able to walk through a screening device without holding on to anything.
(I have to agree with Geezer that he’s obviously not a very good lawyer). His argument should not be with the security staff; they have little control over their assignments. However, its not clear to me that the latest-and-greatest devices put in place will do anything to stop a determined (if I may use Bush terminology) “evil doer”. (By the way, just how many planes were brought down with tweezers? – Can’t they just track McGyver’s itinerary?)
The recent crotch bomber was on a watch list — the plans were to question him upon arrival… well, they did get to question him when he arrived – so that system must be working.
I think the real fear we have of having our image stored on a hard drive is that there have are so many copies of Photoshop out there; if you go back a few days on the B&P postings – see the statistics on how many images are being uploaded to the web daily. Do you really want to drop in on B&P and see yourself as the next caption contest??
I believe the legal terminology is “being a douche nozzle for the camera”. Usually it’s a teenagers’ game, but I suppose lawyers can play too.
I feel for the guards. They’re just doing their job. And it’s not like there isn’t a threat.
I’d say to the lawyer: Sorry your working conditions have changed. If you find the situation unacceptable, I hear McDonald’s is hiring.
honestly…who fucking cares? we the people, in the name of security, do not have privacy.
I wish honestly people would stop doing futile things like this. it is such a waste of time.
in order to make sure this country keeps what we hold true and dear, this is what must occurr. don’t like it? get a factory job.
Geezer, I didn’t “quote law” because there isn’t one, the point of the bill of rights is that no-one is (supposed to be) able to make a law that supersedes it. And no, the deputies couldn’t fix it, the correct course here is “Let me talk to your superior” until you reach someone who can.
Yes, thanks, some airports are municipally-owned, and you can go into them, you cannot however get onto the privately owned planes. And again, it dosen’t matter, they put them in and no-one fought them, whatever their reasons were. Then they got worse, and no-one fought it. Now we’ve got body scanners AND wanding, AND pat-downs and searches, and no-one’s fighting it AND it’s moving into more and more buildings.
That’s the point, it just stacks up. As a country we were founded by fighters and rebels who valued the individual more than they valued doing what they were told.
We’ve lost that, as a race we’re gutless and more than happy to be led. It’s a real shame that the only times someone digs in they come across as a tool like this guy does, that doesn’t mean that what they’re trying to do isn’t important.
I agree with JD 100%.
AND I’m a lawyer.
AND I went through much the same as this at Perth(Oz) Airport.
AND at NO TIME did I blame the staff. I savaged the system.
AND I went through.
BECAUSE I’m not a dumb lawyer either…..
WATTA DOUSHE-IF THE DEPUTIES WOULD HAVE TURNED HIS CAMERA OFF-HE WOULDA WENT IN OR LEFT.THEY SHOULDA JUST STRIPP SEARCHED HIM RIGHT THERE IN THE LOBBY!!