Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction against TSA\u2019s current screening procedures with backscatter screening or a patdown alternative is denied. Plaintiff fails to show a likelihood of success on the merits of his Fourth Amendment claim. Corbett v. United States, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38531 (S.D. Fla. March 1, 2011):<\/p>\n
Airport check points advance the public interest inasmuch as \u201cabsent a search, there is no effective means of detecting which airline passengers are reasonably likely to hijack an airplane.\u201d Singleton v. Comm\u2019r of Internal Revenue, 606 F.2d 50, 52 (3d Cir. 1979). \u201cIt is hard to overestimate the need to search air travelers for weapons and explosives before they are allowed to board the aircraft. As illustrated over the last three decades, the potential damage and destruction from air terrorism is horrifically enormous.\u201d United States v. Marquez<\/a>, 410 F.3d 612, 616 (9th Cir. 2005). However, even with the grave threat posed by airborne terrorist attacks, the vital and hallowed strictures of the Fourth Amendment still apply: these searches must be reasonable to comport with the Constitution. Id.<\/p>\n
Balancing the intrusion on plaintiff\u2019s privacy against the government\u2019s interest in the safety of the passengers and the public at large, the undersigned finds that the subject TSA screening procedures are reasonable and not in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Following the tragic events of September 11, 2001, Congress tasked TSA with protecting the public from violence and piracy aboard aircrafts. See 49 U.S.C. \u00a7 44903(b)<\/a>. It is evident that the security conducted by TSA is in furtherance of a legitimate governmental interest to deter and prevent terrorist attacks against this country\u2019s airline industry.<\/p>\n
To that end, TSA subjects plaintiff and other passengers to additional screening in its efforts to protect the public from terrorist attacks. The government has demonstrated that the use of AIT machine and revised pat-down procedures is not more extensive than necessary and not as intrusive as plaintiff suggests in view of the increased threat of non-metallic explosives. Specifically, the AIT machines do not produce photographs. … Rather, the AIT\u2019s applies a filter that displays body contours and outlines rather than a detailed image of a person\u2019s anatomy. … Further, the security officer viewing the image does not see the passenger as the images are viewed in separate location. … <\/p>\n
In addition, TSA provides notice to the public of the use of the AIT machines and advises the passenger that they may decline AIT screening and, instead, undergo a pat-down. … These pat-downs are necessary to detect explosives, chemical weapons or other dangerous items that could be secreted in the body. … To ensure that pat-downs are minimally invasive, they are conducted by the same gender security officers and passengers have the right to request a private screening with a witness. … <\/p>\n
While plaintiff contends that the challenged procedures are unreasonably invasive, the undersigned finds that they do not violate the Fourth Amendment. Thus, plaintiff has failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits on his constitutional claim.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading