Woman suing TSA over alleged invasive search at Sunport

a woman suing the t-s-a for an invasive patdown at the albuquerque sunport speaks only with kob eyewitness news four. eddie garcia joins us with why the woman and her lawyer think they have a strong case. this california woman tells me the t-s-a patdown was nothing short of molestation and she hopes this lawsuit will stop the agency from doing it to anyone else. adrienne durso of carlsbad, california spoke to kob eyewitness news four over the phone - she describes her experience during a t-s-a patdown at the sunport back in august. heavily concentrating on my breast area where i told her i had a mastectomy the year previous and in just seemed to go on and on. durso says she felt humiliated as the extensive pat-down happened in front of her 17 year old son and hundreds of other travelers. i felt as though i didn't have any rights other than i had to stand there and let them do what they want to do to my body. she says she knew her rights had been violated: so she asked to speak to a supervisor who she thought would help her. all the while her son stood by her side and couldn't remain silent anymore my son, who i'm very proud of spoke up and said 'i went through the metal detector and i did not get a pat-down' to which the supervisor said 'well you don't have boobs'." that statement was the last straw for durso - so she contacted an attorney alex brodsky who says this whole ordeal violates 4th amendment righ which protects americans from unreasonable search and seizure. we think that these searches given the invasivness and given the extensiveness of these searches are really more akin to something like a strip search and certainly as a result we think we have a strong case. durso says she isn't doing this for money or fame but rather for countless other americans who take to the skies for travel. i thought, 'you know, surely this story must mean something to somebody, maybe this will help somebody who is trying to change the situation at airports because i don't think anybody should have to go through this. the t-s-a says it's asking government security experts if there is a way to make the security pat-down less invasive but just as thorough...but they haven't commented on this case specifically

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• abq

[adm1ackbar]

This is a Police State. The TSA and DHS are nothing short of BigBrother. People need to wake up to this sick government corruption raping our liberty.

[MrSafetymeeting]

All pat downs are intrusive. Nobody is going to hijack a plane. They have cockpit doors with locks and the pilots have guns. Would people also like to have pat downs at the mall or at football games? Having a bomb at either would kill more Americans. Maybe my car should get searched before I cross a busy bridge. I might be trying to kill Americans with some sort of tire bombs! What will it take for Americans to notice that this is all bullshit?

[JoyceJeffersonTV]

Title: Woman suing TSA over ALLEGED invasive search at Sunport? Clearly she has the right to sue for intrusion!

[PullenJoe]

"exactly two things have made us safer since 9/11: reinforcing the cockpit door and convincing passengers they need to fight back. Everything else is a waste of money." We should scrap most of the security measures that people hate—and not replace them with anything. Ideally, the money that was saved wouldn't be spent on airport security at all: it would be spent on trying to stop terrorists before they got to the airport. That means better-funding law enforcement and intelligence.

[PullenJoe]

No Josh actually I don't have to surrender my 4th ammendment rights. The constitution and ammendments are supreme. The federal government cannot override them period. What they are doing is illegal and they are attempting to use the terms of "administrative" search to get around the fact that what they are doing is illegal. Additionally, what sense does it make when the selection is "random" unless it applies to all, it's not effecive anyway.

[Joshd8705]

@PullenJoe If you want on the plan, and to remain on the property. You must surrender your 4th amendment rights. I didn't mean you can't refuse and leave, and give up your flight. That's perfectly legal, but if you want on the flight and you enter a security check point you are surrendering your 4th amendment to continue past it. By all means though don't consent, and enjoy driving =).

[mcovalt]

@PullenJoe Good point. I like the sound of that

[PullenJoe]

@mcovalt - there are other ways to provide security without violating the rights of American citizens. I for one am all for the BlueLight Iris scan technology. You offer up a bunch of info for background check and they take a pic of your eye. You get a card and next time thru the airport you zip past an eye scanner that knows it is you - no hands down pants, no porno scanners. I don't mind the background check - I do mind somone seeing or touching my naked body.

[PullenJoe]

@Joshd8705 - Just because you enter the security check point does NOT mean you give up your 4th ammendment rights you moron. You ALWAYS have the ability to say no to the scanner and the groping - they may not let you fly but you always have the right to say no. The TSA is not the police GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT THEY CANNOT TOUCH YOU UNLESS YOU CONSENT SO DON'T CONSENT.

[Joshd8705]

You're never forced to fly. Once you make the decision to enter the security check point you've surrender you right to protection by the 4th amendment. I do believe she has a case though. The "It's because you don't have boobs." statement to her son is what wins in this case.

[sirjohn113]

Good for her, SUE THE Government, the TSA & White house is violating American citizen's 4th amendment rights by un-reasonable search & seizure. If no one speaks up & speaks out against the behavior of our governmental agencies..........more & more of our rights as a society will be threatened & will one day, just become the norm. Basically allowing the government to violate any & every constitutional right US citizens have in the name of anti-terrorism.