ron mexico at it again

[HoyaFanNY]

you can't get any dumber than this


sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2735061

[RDF]

hoyafanny said:

you can't get any dumber than this


sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2735061

"The Original Whizzanator" is my only response.

[HoyaFanNY]

onterrio must have been a role model for mike

[HealyHoya]

"Two Transportation Security Administration screeners recognized the 6-foot, 215-pound Vick."

....hmmmm, we really are safer.

[AustinHoya03]

Question for the lawyers out there. If TSA (and not a police officer called to security), confiscated Vick's water bottle on suspicion that it contained marijuana, and not an explosive liquid, how is that not a 4th amendment violation?

I'll also add that it would be interesting to get the TSA agents, who have no drug training whatsoever, on the stand to testify re: the seizure at a motion to supress hearing and/or a trial.

[Gold Hoya]

It was a 20-oz bottle, and you're only allowed to proceed past security with bottles 3-oz or smaller, stored in a quart-sized plastic zip-top bag. So the TSA is supposed to confiscate the bottle.

The better question is why Ron Mexico flies AirTran!

[JimmyHoya]

austinhoya03 said:

Question for the lawyers out there. If TSA (and not a police officer called to security), confiscated Vick's water bottle on suspicion that it contained marijuana, and not an explosive liquid, how is that not a 4th amendment violation?

I'll also add that it would be interesting to get the TSA agents, who have no drug training whatsoever, on the stand to testify re: the seizure at a motion to supress hearing and/or a trial.

You're not allowed to bring marijuana on a plane in the first place, so I don't think that's really an issue.

It's like searching him if they suspected a gun.

It's mind numbingly stupid that he'd put it out in the open. Does his luggage not have pockets? Does he not have a jacket? PANTS? Check the luggage? Blimey. Superstar privledges? DENIED!

[AustinHoya03]

jimmyhoya said:

You're not allowed to bring marijuana on a plane in the first place, so I don't think that's really an issue.

It's like searching him if they suspected a gun.

It's mind numbingly stupid that he'd put it out in the open. Does his luggage not have pockets? Does he not have a jacket? PANTS? Check the luggage? Blimey. Superstar privledges? DENIED!

Mind-numbingly stupid, yes. However, it's not like searching him if they suspected a gun. TSA's only job is to search for weapons and explosives. A gun is a weapon. A bottle, filled with water, is not a weapon. Or, if you asked TSA, a bottle of water, or any liquid, is a potential weapon and must be inspected if and only if it fails to comport with the regulations TSA has thought up itself. Likewise, my shoes must go through the metal detector because TSA considers them potential weapons. God help us if someone ever sets his/her pants on fire on an airplane.

Let's change the scenario a bit. If Ron Mexico's bottle was 3 oz., would this still be okay? What if Ron Mexico had half an ounce inside an Altoids tin inside his bag? Is an Altoids tin a potential weapon? Do we give up all privacy rights at the x-ray metal detector in a post-9/11 world?

I just think it's interesting that an agency whose goal is to keep us all safe from terrorist attacks is making headlines for finding weed in water bottles. Does anyone seriously think that Michael Vick was going to down a 747 with a modified Nalgene bottle?

[Oh My!]

Interesting thoughts, Austin, but it was a modified out-of-the-cooler Aquafina bottle. The "residue" was in a sub-compartment hidden behind the bottle's label.

[HealyHoya]

austinhoya03 said:

jimmyhoya said:

You're not allowed to bring marijuana on a plane in the first place, so I don't think that's really an issue.

It's like searching him if they suspected a gun.

It's mind numbingly stupid that he'd put it out in the open. Does his luggage not have pockets? Does he not have a jacket? PANTS? Check the luggage? Blimey. Superstar privledges? DENIED!

Mind-numbingly stupid, yes. However, it's not like searching him if they suspected a gun. TSA's only job is to search for weapons and explosives. A gun is a weapon. A bottle, filled with water, is not a weapon. Or, if you asked TSA, a bottle of water, or any liquid, is a potential weapon and must be inspected if and only if it fails to comport with the regulations TSA has thought up itself. Likewise, my shoes must go through the metal detector because TSA considers them potential weapons. God help us if someone ever sets his/her pants on fire on an airplane.

Let's change the scenario a bit. If Ron Mexico's bottle was 3 oz., would this still be okay? What if Ron Mexico had half an ounce inside an Altoids tin inside his bag? Is an Altoids tin a potential weapon? Do we give up all privacy rights at the x-ray metal detector in a post-9/11 world?

I just think it's interesting that an agency whose goal is to keep us all safe from terrorist attacks is making headlines for finding weed in water bottles. Does anyone seriously think that Michael Vick was going to down a 747 with a modified Nalgene bottle?

I guess I'll start by asking a question: Is that (my bold above) actually true? I don't want to do the research but I know there have been several instances of TSA agents confiscating fake drivers licenses, passports and other allegedly forged documents, thus barring boarding. TSA detained and ultimately held for arrest a gentleman travelling with a small carry-on duffel containing nearly $8,000 in cash.

I'm pretty sure that TSA agents, in addition to state cops, metro airport authority cops, et al, can detain and deny boarding due to impairment (alcohol or otherwise).

While I understand the concern over privacy and the clear erosion of civil liberties we've experienced over the past five years, it seems to me that the TSA agents have a broader mandate than merely weapons and explosives.

As to the constitutionality of the Vick search, we would need more information. As to whether the TSA agents were acting within the parameters of their governing regulations, I can't cite supporting evidence but it strikes me as an appropriate action.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

goldhoya said:

The better question is why Ron Mexico flies AirTran!

That's the added level of hilarity - he flies AirTran (formerly Value Jet) for free because he does endorsements for the company.

[AustinHoya03]

healyhoya said:

I guess I'll start by asking a question: Is that (my bold above) actually true? I don't want to do the research but I know there have been several instances of TSA agents confiscating fake drivers licenses, passports and other allegedly forged documents, thus barring boarding. TSA detained and ultimately held for arrest a gentleman travelling with a small carry-on duffel containing nearly $8,000 in cash.

I'm pretty sure that TSA agents, in addition to state cops, metro airport authority cops, et al, can detain and deny boarding due to impairment (alcohol or otherwise).

While I understand the concern over privacy and the clear erosion of civil liberties we've experienced over the past five years, it seems to me that the TSA agents have a broader mandate than merely weapons and explosives.

As to the constitutionality of the Vick search, we would need more information. As to whether the TSA agents were acting within the parameters of their governing regulations, I can't cite supporting evidence but it strikes me as an appropriate action.

Lucky for you I'm working on a case similar to Mr. Vick's and have a few cases for you. Excuse the sloppy citation.

United States v. Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d 899, 902 (9th Circuit, 1986):

"a visual inspection and limited hand search of luggage which is used for the purpose of detecting weapons or explosives, and not in order to uncover other types of contraband, is a privacy intrustion we believe free society is willing to tolerate."


Torbet v. United Airlines, Inc., 298 F.3d 1087 (9th Circuit, 2002).

"Airport security screen procedures must comply with the Fourth Amendment. The procedures must, therefore, be reasonable. An airport screening search is reasonable if: (1) it is no more extensive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives; (2) it is confined in good faith to that purpose; and (3) passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly." (NB: Torbet holds that a passenger must "elect not to fly" before entering an airport screening area.)

Note that these are both 9th Circuit cases. The 5th Circuit, in U.S. v. Skipwith, 482 F.2d 1272, held that a person who fit a "hijacker profile" and/or exhibited suspicious behavior within an airport could be searched. The court held anyone in an airport boarding area impliedly consented to a government search. This holding came in 1973, and Skipwith, who was smuggling cocaine, did not travel through a metal detector or x-ray machine on his way to the boarding area. A US Marshal, not a TSA agent, performed the search. Still, I think "implied consent" is probably the best counterargument to the 9th circuit cases. Arguably, nobody has any reasonable expectation of privacy inside an airport in the United States in this day and age.

Also take a look at Title 49, Section 44901 and Section 44903 of the U.S. Code. Those are the transportation statutes relating to airport screening.

If you're interested in poking around, and you can find anything that really blows up those 9th Circuit cases, that would actually help me a lot. So far I have not been able to find anything.

And my apologies for boring the hell out of everyone else.

[AustinHoya03]

vegasrain said:

Interesting thoughts, Austin, but it was a modified out-of-the-cooler Aquafina bottle. The "residue" was in a sub-compartment hidden behind the bottle's label.

I will grant that perhaps anything that looks suspiciously concealed might be subject to a search by TSA agents on the grounds that any concealed foreign object that TSA cannot identify via x-ray could be a weapon. In this case TSA agents might have even suspected it was a timer attached to a liquid bomb. What do you think about the hypothetical above not involving an Aquafina bottle?

[HealyHoya]

That's interesting stuff, Austin. Re Vick: I think he's pretty much screwed (if I may leave the legal terminology aside for a moment) from both the legal and public relations standpoints.

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to drill down into the issue; it's just too far from what I do (corporate/financial services law). I'll see if any of my many, many, many lawyer friends out there have come across anything.

[TigerHoya]

All of these cites are pre-9/11 right?

Are TSA agents who do the screening considered federal LEOs like their Air Marshal colleagues who work for TSA?

[AustinHoya03]

tigerhoya said:

All of these cites are pre-9/11 right?

Are TSA agents who do the screening considered federal LEOs like their Air Marshal colleagues who work for TSA?

The incident covered by Torbet happened before 2001, the court's holding came in 2002. Nothing of importance has transpired post-9/11 that I am aware of. In any case, I'm not sure 9/11 should have any effect on the previous rulings: the 4th amendment hasn't changed, and the TSA's job is the same as before 2001: to keep Americans safe from would-be hijackers and terrorists.

While Congress amended the statutes governing the TSA/airport screening following 9/11, those changes do not appear to bestow police power on regular ol' TSA security screeners. TSA may authorize law enforcement officers to carry firearms and detain persons suspected of committing a felony under federal law (like air marshals). However, it is my understanding that TSA has not given officer status to baggage/security screeners.

[TigerHoya]

Turned out the tests revealed no marijuana, so no charges.

I did hear a rumor, not sure where it got started, that the Raiders offered Porter, Moss and their #1 pick for Vick.