Collapse Sidebar

Jaunted posits VIPR as the greater long-term problem

Discussion in 'Railways, Highways, Waterways' started by M, Mar 24, 2012.

  1. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member

    You're right, people would probably roll over and take it. A lot of people wouldn't though. And various privacy and civil liberties organizations would sue. I'm talking about checkpoints on highways.

    By the way, we've had so many politicians screaming at us to be afraid, be very afraid, that most people respond with a yawn.

    And as we've discussed, there is movement. People, one by one, are deciding not to fly. We just had a hearing yesterday. And we've yet to see what the fallout will be with this 200 thefts per day story. I doubt that JFK is an anomaly.
  2. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Exactly. I said as much in this post:
    TSA News Blog: DHS Scanning People Everywhere Even Without Their Knowledge
  3. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member

    I'll look it up too. I heard about the VIPR operations at the bus stations, but that's different than a search on the highway.
  4. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    TSA News Blog: Can We Still Say "No" to the Government's Warrantless Searches?

    TSA News Blog: TSA Makes Its First Reported VIPR Car Checkpoint

    TSA News Blog: TSA Expands Beyond Airport Screening
  5. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member

    No.... I'm a west coast girl. :) I did do a drive once from the Atlanta airport to Charleston, SC, but I don't know which road that would have been.

    I'm not trying to be annoying, but is this just your basic, run-of-the-mill weigh station? If so, I'm not talking about those. I'm only talking about private passenger cars that are not subject to rules regarding truckers.

    Right, very true.
  6. barbell

    barbell Coach Emeritus

    VIPR operations took place during a similar time period in Jackson, Mississippi and Tampa, Florida (YouTube warning).

    :td:

    Jackson, Mississippi. YHGTBFKM.

    Notice that last little nugget? The first day. The first day...

    And in the video from Tampa? They openly admit they are looking for cash (0:39). And look at the airport-style groping at a Greyhound station, a Greyhound station! (0:19 and 0:49)

    "This is ongoing for us. We do this every day," Tampa PD (1:08)

    "The bad guys are on notice that we'll be back," TSA (1:30)

    Oh, and I just found this little gem from Former Spook:

    That's right: multiple internal checkpoints. Heil Hitler!
  7. barbell

    barbell Coach Emeritus

    I know you aren't. I'm being rhetorical for our lurking "friends". Hi assholes from DHS!

    These weigh stations could easily be set up as a diversionary point for everyone. I'm not trying to be paranoid, but the infrastructure is such that everybody could be sent through one with no problem.

    You indeed drove I-20 on that route!
  8. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    ^ ^ ^
    N965VJ and Sunny Goth like this.
  9. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    I remember writing about VIPR at the Cogblog two years ago. Got nothing but screams of "paranoid!" "conspiracy theorist!" etc.
  10. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member

    Right. But --- I'm trying to distinguish an administrative search from a warrantless car search. Think of metal detectors - they're the classic administrative search. Everyone goes through them and you're only searched more if you alarm the machine (back in the good old days). The goal is to prevent people from bringing weapons onto planes. Body scanners fail the administrative search rules, as do the gropes, imo, for all of the reasons stated in EPIC's lawsuit.

    The case law on car searches is pretty explicit and the goals are very different. Once a police officer has a reason to stop you, there are things he/she can and can't search for. The police are looking for criminal activity by you individually, and the search will be intrusive. Once you consent, the police will go through everything in your car including bags, glove compartments, etc., depending on what they're looking for. Do not talk to the police except to give them your driver's license, or insurance card. If asked if they can search your car, politely decline. No good can come of allowing them to search your car. The police or TSA may try to intimidate you, or make you stay put while they get a warrant, but enforcing your rights isn't always easy.

    In each of the examples above, one could argue that the administrative search was appropriate - the cars were approaching the airport, and the rest were in public transportation areas similar to those at airports. Personally I don't view these types of administrative searches as reasonable, but I do think the 'other side's' argument is a defensible one.
    barbell likes this.
  11. barbell

    barbell Coach Emeritus

    Do you have to stay and wait for them to get a warrant?

    What if you drove off while they attempted to procure one?

    I doubt in today's environment that judges deny many warrants, but if time is on your side could you leave the area? It's not like you'd be leaving the scene of a crime.
  12. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Well, talk about the proverbial slippery slope. How far away constitutes "approaching an airport"?
  13. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member

    You have to stay there. Just wait them out. They don't want to be there any more than you do.
  14. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member

    That would be a question to pose for a court in a lawsuit. :)
  15. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member

    Hi from me too! {waves}

    Yes, they could. Two thoughts on that.

    What would that look like? Just imagine it. You've already described what the road is like when only truckers are sent to the weigh stations. What does it look like when every car is sent through? It becomes impassible and you have who knows how many cases of road rage when people are stopped to answer questions and/or searched.

    Two - this kind of a search is SO vague, there is no value in it (I would argue). And it goes against all the case law on car searches. I can't imagine that this type of checkpoint would be upheld by the Supreme Court - even in today's climate.

    It was a long time ago, but I think I remember it as being a pretty drive.
  16. barbell

    barbell Coach Emeritus

    It's a beautiful drive!

    Back to the warrantless "administrative" car searches: I put nothing past DHS/TSA in these asinine VIPR searches. Don't you know we live in a post-9/11 world?!?!!? Can't be too careful.

    For instance, the lines are slower airports now take an average of 30 minutes are more to traverse with the introduction of NoS as primary screening. These airports would have lines of 10 minutes on a bad day with Shoe Carnival and War on Water fully intact, at that. They don't care about their inconvenience of you. They don't. While I was waiting for an opt-out grope at one of these airports I overheard Large Marge and her equally annoying male counterpart whose sole job was to block the WTMD with his own body discussing the now not-uncommon hour-plus waits at this airport. They both mentioned how they wished the NoS wasn't primary because it made the lines so slow. And then ended it with, "Well, it's just a job."

    :confused:

    Traffic jams at a standstill for your safety to go on a wild goose hunt creating backups for miles and actually creating terrorist targets? That's what they already do on a daily basis in America's airports. No difference from my PoV.
    DeafBlonde likes this.
  17. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    I guess the only way I could see this not happening is because, for a lot of people in this country, the Car is God.
  18. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member

    Oh, right! Sorry, I forgot for a moment. :eek::eek::eek: <--- Okay, there was my momentary freak-out. ;)

    Fortunately for us the rules for checkpoints on the roads are different than the rules at airports. With no Supreme Court decision on the current practices at airports, the TSA is able to run amok - and they do!

    There are plenty of decisions available for checkpoints on roads though and the TSA will need to abide by them. I fully expect them to push the envelope, but I don't think they're going to get very far.

    DUI checkpoints are generally okay (if they're done correctly)
    Drugs checkpoints are not okay -- and the Court explicitly distinguishes drug checkpoints/ordinary crime control from searches that go on at airports.
    Checkpoints near the borders are okay when looking for illegal aliens are okay too

    I'd expect to see TSA pushing their VIPR experiments at exactly the places where we're seeing them -- at roads leading to airports (because of some viewpoint that they have that we have less of an expectation of privacy there), with truckers and weigh-stations (see the reasons listed in this thread), and with people at bus stations (probably based on the same legal theories that allow for searches at airports. These areas are largely unlitigated, so who knows how the Supreme Court will rule.

    But for cars on highways? The Court has been pretty clear, particularly in the drugs checkpoint case that I cited. The Court is looking for the particular purpose of the checkpoint. What would be the particular purpose of a VIPR checkpoint? To find evidence of criminal activity? The Court has already said no to that....

    And by the way, Hartwell is the case that best illustrates the administrative search doctrine at airports. If you read it (it's not that painful, I promise), you'll probably agree that if airport administrative search cases involving body scanners and gropings get to the Supreme Court, the Court will likely not find the searches reasonable. (see sections 20 through 23)
  19. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Dear god, when will this happen??

    I can't keep track of all the lawsuits out there. EPIC is still pursuing this, yes? Do you think it's likely any of these cases will make it to the Supreme Court? Really, one of those 9 (or his or her family members) needs to get groped, stripped, or otherwise abused.
  20. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Re Hartwell case that Sunny Goth posted above:
    I don't get this at all. The search sounds unreasonable to me. (I know they get into this further on -- I read further. I still disagree with their reasoning.)

    Bolding mine. So the courts haven't, in fact, settled this question? So the courts -- any court? -- might still find airport searches unreasonable? Isn't that what this is saying?​

Share This Page

submit to reddit      Digg This          Delicious