ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Education and Science»
  • Law & Legal Issues

Fourth Amendment Flight

Updated on December 29, 2012

Drug Testing

According to ACLU Briefing Paper Number 5, the 4th Amendment says, "that the government cannot search everyone to find the few who might be guilty of an offense. The government must have good reason to suspect a particular person before subjecting him or her to intrusive body searches. It is wrong to do intrusive body searches "if they are not based on some kind of individualized suspicion."

A young man who applied at Oil Can Henry's for work gave a preemployment urine sample for drug testing in Arizona. In his first sample, the test came back diluted and was asked to redo the test again. Why is a diluted sample grounds for a mandatory retest? Because a diluted urine sample is more likely to result in a false negative for illegal drug metabolites,

According to the article "The Challenge of Dilute Specimens", a urine sample is considered diluted if the specimen has less than 20g/dl creatinie and less that 1.003 specific gravity. It's up to the individual employers to write a consistent policy that is uniformly applied to all preemployment and random samples.

A diluted sample can be accepted, rejected - that is considered Adulterated or require that an immediate retest be done. There is no standards with private employers in regards to drug testing procedures for a diluted urine sample. The only standard is that if retested and still obtain a diluted sample than, "the employer must accept that result and cannot continue re-collections. The second test is the test of record." [a]

According to ACLU Briefing Paper Number 5, the basic objection - even if you don't have nothing to hide is; "Innocent people do have something to hide: their private life. The "right to be left alone" is, in the words of the late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis 'the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.'"

Submitting to an cheap and unreliable drug test that effects your career, housing and freedom are considered warrantless searches that is unconstitutional under the fourth amendment.

[a] Doug, "The Challenge of Dilute Specimens" 3.14.2006

TSA warrantless searches

According the TSA website it says, "a warrantless search, also known as an administrative search, is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, " confined in good faith to that purpose," and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly. [See United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973)]."

Hubbers who responded to the question about TSA invasive searches brought some interesting points.

clark farley says "people are lining up to be controlled." People seem to think that going to the airport is somehow different that walking into a subway or train or bus or driving your car down the road. We don't have road checkpoints or cops frisking you for no reason because according the the fourth amendment, "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."

In Arizona, Border Control road blocks do not treat every single car equally and pull them over for a total take-down of the car. A working dog trained to sniff contraband is employed and is used as reasonable suspicion for a search. Border Control is trained to look for certain behaviors that flag a possible smuggler and then use the dog as a basis for a more intrusive search.

Coming of Age quoted Benjamin Franklin who said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." and I agree with that sentiment whole heartedly.

lindacee said, "I would prefer low levels of radiation over sexual assault." I believe that lindacee hit the nail on the head - that TSA intentions are to have the slower, and most offensive body search in place in order to herd passengers to the back-scatter X-ray scans scans thereby overcoming fears of radiation exposure with the threat of retributive and retaliatory body searches. TSA unconstitutional body searches are forcing people to choose the lesser of two evils.

Society Law Law Enforcement Government Agencies United States


Submit a Comment

  • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image

    Wesman Todd Shaw 6 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

    Gosh, I read this; and then was shocked that I'd already read it and commented.

    Lol. "glory hole"

  • ptosis profile image

    ptosis 6 years ago from Arizona

    Above link is what I wrote about working dogs sniffers behind a glory hole at the airport long before TSA new super 'Pat-downs"

  • profile image

    Old Empresario 7 years ago

    Good work

    Personally, I can protect myself just fine on a plane and don't need a fat TSA security guard with 4-inch painted nails sniffing my underwear to make me safe. I would rather just walk by a police dog than take a full minute to go through a body scan or search. I can't see how this can last. It may take a few years before nude x-ray photos of women start circulating the internet thanks to these TSA clowns. At some point one of them will screw up and seriously injury a kid or old person. It's ironic that the Brits can come back after 240 years and push this crap on us with their rotten company.

    I go a little further with my interpretation of the 4th Amendment simply because I often do not accept the "Supreme" court's half-cocked rulings on court appeals. Good hub; I hope it changes someone's opinion who did not initially agree with you.

  • Debby Bruck profile image

    Debby Bruck 7 years ago

    Dear Ptosis ~ Awesome hub. I listened and watched the videos of people at airports. Listening to their rational for choosing to go through scanners and/or be frisked in a compromising manner. Many prefer the scanner based upon getting through the airport in a 'timely' manner. Is that worth giving up your privacy with X-rays and subjecting yourself to potentially harmful cancer in the future? Not by my standards.

    Some say the body scanners provide the most security. What type of security will they provide really? Where is the proof that invasive body scanner deter terrorism?

    Radiation and leaked images do not provide security. Now, some are willing to go through the aggressive pad-down, to protect themselves from the radiation and the potential of X-rays getting into the wrong hands, and guards ogling and getting off on these personal images.

    I'm hearing that people will select not to fly. The main reaction we should be hearing is not only outrage, but action. Anyone who could be subjected to these government sanctioned acts of personal terrorism must speak out and call, email and write to their legislators and local newspapers. Check out my Hubs:

  • ptosis profile image

    ptosis 7 years ago from Arizona

    Thank you gulnazahmad, medor & Wesman Todd Shaw for your comments.

  • Wesman Todd Shaw profile image

    Wesman Todd Shaw 7 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

    Prison Planet Earth. . . . . .sucks.

  • medor profile image

    medor 7 years ago from Michigan, USA

    good job, well written hub... always a balancing act between liberty and preservation.

  • gulnazahmad profile image

    gulnazahmad 7 years ago from Pakistan

    Informative hub. I agree with Lindacee that low level of radiations are much better than sexual assault.