TSA Decides Terrorists Must Be Driving; Partners With Tenn. Law Enforcement To Randomly Search Vehicles

from the the-United-States:-now-with-more-acronyms-than-rights! dept

Fri, Oct 21st 2011 8:01am — Tim Cushing

Pitabred sends in the distressing but completely unsurprising news that the TSA, with the cooperation of the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security, is now trolling for terrorists on the open highway.

The Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security on Tuesday partnered with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and several other federal and state agencies for a safety enforcement and awareness operation on Tennessee's interstates and two metropolitan-area bus stations.

But this was no ordinary random search of vehicles. This one had its own acronym:

The agencies conducted a Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) operation at scale complexes where trucks and large vehicles are weighed. The VIPR operation was also conducted at two regional bus terminals in Nashville and Knoxville.

As awesomely G.I. Joe-ish as VIPR sounds, one would think that random searches of vehicles might run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. The word from above is: Don't worry about it. You're probably just thinking too much. Highway patrol Colonel Tracy Trott offers some much needed perspective:

The random inspections really aren't any more thorough [than?] normal, according to Tennessee Highway Patrol Colonel Tracy Trott who says paying attention to details can make a difference. Trott pointed out it was an Oklahoma state trooper who stopped Timothy McVeigh for not having a license plate after the Oklahoma City bombing in the early 1990s.

Question, the first: If these inspections aren't any more thorough than "normal," why the extra personnel and additional super-cool acronym?

Question, the second: An anecdote about catching someone after they've already performed an act of terrorism is hardly comforting.

Still not convinced that there's a whole lot of "nothing to see here" contained within this new operation? More empty statements are available to wave away your concerns:

Larry Godwin, deputy commissioner of TDSHS, said the checks at the weigh stations were about showing the people of Tennessee the government is serious about transportation safety, and to make sure the state is ready in case something were to happen.

I'm not going to speak for anybody else, but I find that the increased presence of law enforcement and various geared-up ancillaries rarely makes me feel "safer." Usually a swarm of drug/bomb sniffing dogs and SWAT-team members leads me to believe that either a.) something bad has happened or b.) something bad is going to happen. While I would agree that this sight would make me believe that the government is indeed "serious" about something, it does very little to convince me that it is "ready" for anything.

If you (like me) are still feeling a bit less than safe (and perhaps, more likely to be randomly searched), take heart! Your fellow citizens are being recruited to turn you in, should you happen to do something perceived as "suspicious," most likely at a high rate of speed.

Agents are recruiting truck drivers, like Rudy Gonzales, into the First Observer Highway Security Program to say something if they see something.

"Not only truck drivers, but cars, everybody should be aware of what's going on, on the road," said Gonzales.
It's all meant to urge every driver to call authorities if they see something suspicious.

"Somebody sees something somewhere and we want them to be responsible citizens, report that and let us work it through our processes to abet the concern that they had when they saw something suspicious," said Paul Armes, TSA Federal Security Director for Nashville International Airport.

While I'm fairly sure that's either a misquote or just a miswording by Armes, the idea that the TSA might "abet" (aid, encourage, incite, foster, promote) concerns seems very plausible. After all, without the vague threat of terrorist activity, where would they be? (Look under your vehicle.)

Let's briefly review the Fourth Amendment and see how this new effort checks down:

The Fourth Amendment... guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.

Reasonable search? Probable cause?

Tuesday's statewide "VIPR" operation isn't in response to any particular threat, according to officials.

Ah. Well, with the TSA moving onto the highway (having already made its presence known in bus stations and subways), it's presumably only a matter of time before it decides that terrorists have been chased out of the skies and off the road by its efforts, and at that point, there's really only one place left to look for potential troublemakers.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: highways, privacy, searches, tennessee, tsa, vipr

135 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Mike C. (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 8:05am

Two comments...
1) Papiere Bitte!

2) I wonder if they have ever stopped to think about what the increased security has done. Rather than keeping a minimal profile which would encourage the bad actors to be lax in their discretion, they've ramped it up to 11 which naturally teaches people wishing to do harm to be more careful and thus much harder to detect.

Oh what am I saying... there's not a chance that #2 has even come close to forming a spark of a thought much less a full blown idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bjupton (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 11:40am
  
  Re: Two comments...
  Hmm, pointing out holes in security operations. You are obviously a terrorist.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - TSA Van 104, 21 Oct 2011 @ 7:53pm
    
    Re: Re: Two comments...
    Noted. Thank you, Citizen.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Al Chambers, 21 Oct 2011 @ 8:11am

I can't wait to get strip searched before going into Walmart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeff Rowberg (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:25am
  
  Re:
  I'm not sure if having that done by a typical Walmart Greeter would be a step down or a step up from the TSA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2011 @ 7:06pm
    
    Re: Re:
    If you're a congress critter, then you don't get searched. That's how America has two sets of laws.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- moronnorom (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:30am
  
  Re:
  If they start drug testing before you are allowed into Walmart our economy is screwed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 12:14pm
    
    Re: Re:
    not just yours - everyone's in on the ride!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- CD (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 11:03am
  
  Re:
  Be careful how you word that.... Sounds to me like you just gave consent.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 8:12am

Purple Tiger Patrol
I make it a point to run around at night screaming and banging pots together in order to chase away purple tigers. It works too. I have never been attacked by one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Grey Ferret, 21 Oct 2011 @ 10:22am
  
  Re: Purple Tiger Patrol
  I thank you for your efforts. I too have never been attacked by a purple tiger. Keep up the good work!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 10:46am
    
    Re: Re: Purple Tiger Patrol
    Banging pots may have worked before, but these purple tigers will stop at nothing to harm you because you are free. There is also intelligence that purple tigers are much more of a threat these days. Wouldn't you feel safer if you were provided with a live in TSA agent?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
WysiWyg (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 8:16am

Poor truckers.
I think the truckers got it worst - their "name" would be FOHSP. Why couldn't they have gotten something along the lines of VIPR?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:06am
  
  Re: Poor truckers.
  You have to join the club to get the cool acronyms.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
hothmonster, 21 Oct 2011 @ 8:18am

"it's presumably only a matter of time before it decides that terrorists have been chased out of the skies and off the road by its efforts, and at that point, there's really only one place left to look for potential troublemakers."

Behind the rabbit? In the sewers? The Batcave? Under the bed? In the closet? Tunneling like mole people? in the oven, rotating slowly. Their body temperature rising to over 400 degrees -- literally stewing in their own juices?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Brendan (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 12:29pm
  
  Re:
  +1 for Kent Brockman reference
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 3:30pm
  
  Re:
  You and Spaceman Spiff below make it sound as though I worded that last paragraph a bit too vaguely.
  
  What I had in mind was a new Neighborhood Watch system involving patrolling TSA agents and a snitch line to be used by your neighbors to vindictively report "suspicious" activities. For instance, someone spots some suspicious activity in your basement. The next thing you know, you're being interrupted in the middle of laundry to answer questions about your homemade drug-stuffed bomb assembly line.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - hothmonster, 24 Oct 2011 @ 1:53pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No I just spend my life looking for places to insert Monty Python and Simpsons references. Your utopia was clearly painted.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 8:23am

Only other place...
In our bedrooms? On the sidewalks? Sounds like the old "busted for being Black and walking about"... :-(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 8:25am

TSA: Proudly helping the terrorists win since 2001.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Paul Pentz (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 10:58am
  
  Re:
  This is exactly THE point. With these kind of responses, the terrorists are winning, but the TSA just doesn't see it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 8:26am

The Progression
"Well, if you don't like it, don't fly!"
"Well, if you don't like it, don't take the train!"
"Well, if you don't like it, don't ride the bus!"
"Well, if you don't like it, don't drive your car!"

Next up:

"Well, if you don't like it, don't walk in public!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- non-anonymous coward (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 8:32am
  
  Re: The Progression
  I swear I made nearly this identical post just a month ago, when TSA started at Bus stops.
  
  At this rate "don't walk in public" will be added by the end of the year.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - hothmonster, 21 Oct 2011 @ 8:34am
    
    Re: Re: The Progression
    It would be easier if they just outlawed clothes.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - tasmot (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 10:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re: The Progression
      .... and body cavities, I mean that is where all those bombs, guns and knives are stored now that they have those naked body scanners. So, after clothes are not allowed, everybody will have to have their body cavities sown closed before they can leave the house and walk naked down the street.
      
      McCarthyism is dead, Long Live McCarthyism.........
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - VMax, 21 Oct 2011 @ 7:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: The Progression
      I like that idea. There are some seriously hot women in my neighborhood.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2011 @ 1:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The Progression
        of course its a catch-22 because these women would never talk to you after seeing you naked. ZING!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 8:50am
    
    Re: Re: The Progression
    you should sue for copyright infringement!!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - non-anonymous coward (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 8:59am
      
      Re: Re: Re: The Progression
      I just meant that only a month ago, I thought I was making a joke in suggesting that the TSA would start searching cars.
      
      Yet here we are.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bob Loblaw, 21 Oct 2011 @ 1:01pm
    
    Re: Re: The Progression
    Don't they already do that in New York?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - john crawford, 20 Oct 2012 @ 4:40pm
    
    Re: Re: The Progression
    soon it will be: "if you don't like it, don't sit in your living room" or " don't live in this country" ... where does it end? WHAT 4th amendment? They don't recognize or abide by it anymore.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:10am
  
  Re: The Progression
  If you don't like it, move to another country.
  
  ;-P
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:11am
    
    Re: Re: The Progression
    Oh? And how do you expect to get there?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chris Rhodes (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:23am
    
    Re: Re: The Progression
    The US government has made it exceedingly difficult to escape its reach.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dan Smith, 21 Oct 2011 @ 12:37pm
    
    Re: Re: The Progression
    We have rights that are being trampled. It is against our constitutional ammendment (4th) to illegally search vehicles without probable cause. I have served my country and have lived in this country all my life. You sir can go to hell for even suggesting move.
    
    Seeing how their is no gain except to snoop on us, their is no probable cause - are you an illegal? :Lobo Santo?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bergman (profile), 23 Oct 2011 @ 6:06am
    
    Re: Re: The Progression
    Sure. Then the U.S. will use a drone to fire a missile at you.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Carlos Sol�s a.k.a. ArkBlitz (in the rest of the I (profile), 23 Oct 2011 @ 6:16pm
  
  Re: The Progression
  And to think that Richard M. Stallman has been doing that all of his life - and advocating us to do exactly that (no joke, just check his website).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Aha!, 4 Dec 2012 @ 10:30am
  
  Re: The Progression
  NYC already got u if you're just walking down the block....."stop and frisk"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 8:36am

What part of "transportation" are you missing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:08am
  
  Re:
  What part of "security" are they hitting?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
gorehound (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 8:37am

Frakken Washington is a Cancer...................Malignant and Putrid.
This is very disturbing news.We really need to get these asse4s out of our lives.
DISGUSTING !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 21 Oct 2011 @ 8:42am

We gave up our 4th amendment rights long ago
The license checks in the name of catching drunk drivers was the beginning of the end of the 4th amendment. Then the drug war, now the war on terror. I wonder what war is next, the war on citizens?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hothmonster, 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:03am
  
  Re: We gave up our 4th amendment rights long ago
  "I wonder what war is next, the war on citizens?"
  
  Too obvious, more like The war on treason.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - An-other-onymous, 21 Oct 2011 @ 1:36pm
    
    Re: Re: We gave up our 4th amendment rights long ago
    The war on reason?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2011 @ 2:36pm
    
    Re: Re: We gave up our 4th amendment rights long ago
    The War On Insufficient Patriotism
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 8:43am

[quote]Trott pointed out it was an Oklahoma state trooper who stopped Timothy McVeigh for not having a license plate after the Oklahoma City bombing in the early 1990s.
[/quote]

Stopping a guy with probably cause for breaking the law (for not having a license plate or tags) is significantly different than randomly stopping people. If this is the justification they give, they've obviously having a hard time justifying it.

Also, what serious terrorist threat is there in Tenessee?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:10am
  
  Re:
  If you have a bomb in a truck, you HAVE to go through Tennessee. *Everyone* knows that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hothmonster, 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:33am
  
  Re:
  "Also, what serious terrorist threat is there in Tenessee?"
  
  A lot of marijuana comes out of western Tenn., I don't know where there sting was taking place but that is the only thing I can imagine they could actually be targeting. Then again maybe Tenn. was the only state with a asswards enough state police troop to team up with these slimeballs
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    There's also a lot of meth. I lived near Dayton TN for a little while and there were 2 distinct mountains. One produced shine and pot while the other produced meth.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Grey Ferret, 21 Oct 2011 @ 10:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Also, what serious terrorist threat is there in Tenessee?"
    
    Country music?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 10:16am
  
  Re:
  > Stopping a guy with probably cause for
  > breaking the law
  
  There's no such thing as 'probably cause'. It's 'probable cause'.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 10:27am
    
    Re: Re:
    nit sufficiently picked
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 10:40am
    
    Re: Re:
    Thank you for your valuable contribution to this thread for pointing out an obvious typo. As a result, I feel much more enlightened.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 12:32pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > Thank you for your valuable contribution to this thread for pointing out an obvious typo
      
      A typo is just striking the wrong key. Funny how so many people seem to strike that same wrong key with that term, several just in this thread alone.
      
      In reality, there are plenty of people who wrongly think the term really is 'probably cause'.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - bjupton (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 12:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        and it is your job to correct them, right? make sure that you do it in such a way that you assume that the other person does think of it incorrectly and that they are a real dum dum.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701 (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 12:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > and it is your job to correct them, right
        
        Why on earth would you conclude that? Merely doing a thing hardly makes that thing one's job.
        
        Is it your job to post comments on this web site? I mean, you're doing it after all, so using your (dubious) logic, that would mean you believe it's your job to post comments here.
        
        If it is your job, please let me know where to apply. Seems like a good way to earn some extra money.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bjupton (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 12:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Whoosh!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701 (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 12:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > Whoosh!
        
        Ah, yes. Such a well-spoken rebuttal. How on earth can I possibly compete with someone making the written equivalent of cartoon noises?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bjupton (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 1:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, I'm pretty sure my point was quite clear. I think the rest of us understand exactly what I meant. The 'Whoosh!' is the sound of the idea travelling at high speed past you.
        
        So try this on for size:
        
        Your relentless focus on a phrase where a few people have typed the wrong letter distracts mightily from the conversation that people are trying to have. Yes, it is not the correct phrase. Yes, the letters are relatively far apart such that it seems as though a typo would be hard to make between 'e' and 'y' on a standard sized keyboard. Of course, I do much of my typing on my phone, and boy, those keys are a lot closer there, and if I'm off slightly to the right, maybe it thinks I'm trying to type 'probably' cause it thinks I hit the 't'. And sheesh, when you are focused on getting an idea out, sometimes the words come out slightly jumbled. I don't think most people edit their web posts as though they are turning in their dissertation, nor should they.
        
        So, there's about a zillion different ways that someone can absolutely know what they are talking about and put the wrong letter there. Your focus on that indicates that you are a bit of a self-righteous prig, more interested in playing gotcha to inflate your ego than having a conversation like an adult.
        
        Hope that gives you something to chew on.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701 (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 1:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > Your relentless focus
        > on a phrase where a few
        > people have typed the
        > wrong letter distracts
        > mightily from the
        > conversation that people
        > are trying to have
        
        If you believe two simple one-line posts qualify as 'relentless' and that all it takes to 'mightily distract you' are those two mere posts, then your problems are more profound and go much deeper than anything that can be addressed here.
        
        Good luck with them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bjupton (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 1:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I do find it interesting that you chose to go after a pretty inconsequential part of my critique: the number of times that you made the same prigish, nit-picky point.
        
        I trust that this means that you are satisfied with the rest of my analysis.
        
        You are now free to take the last word. I'm sure I've more than belabored this point. Everyone else knows what I'm saying and you will not change your mind.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701 (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 3:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > I do find it
        > interesting that
        > you chose to
        > go after a pretty
        > inconsequential
        > part of my
        > critique: the
        > number of times
        > that you
        > made the same
        > prigish, nit-
        > picky point.
        
        First you describe them as relentless and mightily distracting, then you turn around say it's inconsequential. Which is it? Can't be both.
        
        And now you've added 'interesting' to the mix, as well. Are you not distracted anymore? You're all over the map here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bergman (profile), 23 Oct 2011 @ 6:08am
    
    Re: Re:
    Sure there is. He was probably stopped 'cause he was missing his license plate. =P
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
STJ, 21 Oct 2011 @ 8:43am

"terrorists have been chased out of the skies"

With people still bringing knives, bullets, guns, saw blades onto planes, I'm sure that terrorists are running for grayhound now.

On a separate note, how long until TSA starts randomly inspecting homes and offices?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:11am
  
  Re:
  At this rate? Probably just after the new year.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bjupton (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 12:31pm
  
  Re:
  I recently flew to Germany on Lufthansa. This is my first international flight, so I have no idea if this is SOP, but we were served a meal and it came with a metal fork, metal spoon and metal knife.
  
  Amazingly, we landed safely and without incident.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chosen Reject (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 8:45am

Scoreboard
Let's take a look at the score board shall we? Specifically, who has stopped what terrorists. The US government has (at best) killed a few planners and funders of terrorist acts long after they had planned and funded successful terrorist attacks. Regular people have stopped the underwear bomber, the shoe bomber, and all 4 hijackers of United flight 93. Governments have spent billions, regular people have spent nothing.

Now, you might say that's really lousy, but it gets worse. Osama Bin Laden was originally supported by the US. So at best, the government stopped a guy that they supported after he successfully attacked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Someantimalwareguy (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 10:01am
  
  Re: Scoreboard
  To be fair here, abdullamatab stopped himself through his own incompetence thankfully...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Fenderson (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 8:45am

Yet another in the lengthy list of reasons that I avoid the south.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Southerner, 21 Oct 2011 @ 1:48pm
  
  Re:
  Yeah, you would think that maybe in your fancy northern school they might have taught you that federal agencies have jurisdiction over all the states, not just 'the south'.
  
  But what do I know, I'm just a dumb southerner runnin' around with no shoes or education from 'yer fancy learnin places...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AJ, 21 Oct 2011 @ 8:46am

How is this legal? They are not supposed to be able so search you without probably cause. What if you just tell them to get away from your car until they have a warrant?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- FarSide (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:06am
  
  Re:
  How it works:
  
  You: I don't consent to your search!
  Them: Only people who have something to hide say that! Now we have probable cause!
  
  Although in court they just say you were "acting suspicious"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:14am
  
  it's Probable Cause i said so.
  Trucks have very large spaces where a bomb could be carried or hidden. I think that's sufficiently probable, don't you?
  
  Next on the list: car trunks, office building false floors, home attics, and body cavities.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dementia (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 11:01am
    
    Re: it's Probable Cause i said so.
    No, I don't.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Trails (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 11:08am
      
      Re: Re: it's Probable Cause i said so.
      Le sarcasme est all� au dessus de votre t�te, monsieur.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - VMax, 21 Oct 2011 @ 8:12pm
    
    Re: it's Probable Cause i said so.
    I guess women with "too much junk in the trunk" could be searched?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2011 @ 4:40am
      
      Re: Re: it's Probable Cause i said so.
      For the sake of the Union they must be searched.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 10:18am
  
  Re:
  > They are not supposed to be able so search you
  > without probably cause.
  
  There's no such thing as 'probably cause'. It's 'probable cause'.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dementia (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 11:02am
    
    Re: Re:
    You had to make the same point about typos twice?? Are you really that anal?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 12:35pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > You had to make the same point about typos twice??
      
      When two different people 'accidentally' hit the wrong key on the keyboard (a key which isn't adjacent to the correct letter, incidentally), one can logically conclude that it isn't a typo, but rather someone who doesn't know any better.
      
      That being the case, why wouldn't you want someone to point out the accurate term if you were in that position? I know I would.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - S, 21 Oct 2011 @ 1:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I know that there is a certain kind of mind who just thinks, "Oh, close enough -- I can just hit any old keys and they'll get the idea," but there are also people who think that the unchecked promulgation of obviously mistaken (and stupid and annoying) spelling or phraseology should be checked.
      
      Do you also think it's a-okay to say "lie-bary" instead of "library", to pronounce it "Feb-you-ary" instead of "February", and to say "new-qyoo-lear" instead of "nuclear"?
      
      The point has been made -- previously and again here -- that it isn't a mere typo, as multiple people are making the exact same mistake in the exact same manner.
      
      While you may differ, I tend 2 thnk tht its bttr 2 nip thingz in de bud b4 dey gett 2 far owt off hand.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 8:48am

The fourth amendment doesn't come into play when it comes to things like drunk driving stops or other actions similar by the police. The actions would only be unreasonable if they, example, targeted a racial group.

You can look at Michigan v Sitz as the key ruling that allows drunk driving checkpoints. This is because while in theory this may violate the fourth amendment, the government's interest (stopping drunk driving) is stronger than what the SCOTUS considered a minor violation.

Since it is clear that terrorism, illegal immigration, and drug smuggling are all significant government interests, it is likely that the same ruling would be applied to these sorts of stops as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AJ, 21 Oct 2011 @ 8:51am
  
  Re:
  This is not just a "stop" or "license check". These guys want to invade my property without a warrant, and without probable cause. This is not the same as a drunk driving stop or license/seat belt check.. not even close.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Doe, 21 Oct 2011 @ 8:53am
  
  Re:
  The fourth amendment doesn't come into play when it comes to things like drunk driving stops
  
  Uh, yes it does. Just because they ignore it doesn't mean it doesn't apply. It is because of sheeple like you that they get away with ignoring more and more of the constitution.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 10:28am
    
    Re: Re:
    SCOTUS says otherwise. You can sit back down now.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Doe, 21 Oct 2011 @ 10:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I will say it again, just because they (SCOTUS, WH, Congress, etc) ignore it doesn't mean it doesn't apply.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 10:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Duh didn't you realize once someone reaches the SCOTUS they become uber human and no longer make mistakes?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:10am
  
  Re:
  I'm sure every single dictator used that line of reasoning to justify oppressing their own people.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 10:21am
  
  Re:
  > You can look at Michigan v Sitz as the key
  > ruling that allows drunk driving checkpoints.
  
  Checking someone's sobriety doesn't involve searching their person and their vehicle.
  
  This does.
  
  Big difference, both conceptually and legally.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 10:26am
  
  Re:
  > You can look at Michigan v Sitz as the key
  > ruling that allows drunk driving checkpoints.
  > Since it is clear that terrorism, illegal
  > immigration, and drug smuggling are all
  > significant government interests, it is likely
  > that the same ruling would be applied to these
  > sorts of stops as well.
  
  Look at the Genesee County Sheriff narcotics checkpoints in Michigan for an example of how this isn't as legally sound as you believe it is.
  
  http://www.freep.com/article/20111021/NEWS06/110210365/Drivers-face-drug-checkpoints-highways -near-Flint?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
  
  Some key points from the article:
  
  The practice has legal experts on searches and seizures at two law schools in Michigan, a constitutional law expert in Lansing and the American Civil Liberties Union calling the practice out of bounds and out of touch with state and U.S. Supreme Court rulings that ban such practices.
  
  Based on a case out of Indianapolis, the U.S. Supreme Court held in 2000 that narcotics checkpoints where everyone gets stopped on a public road are not legal and violate Fourth Amendment protections against illegal searches and seizures, professor David Moran at the University of Michigan Law School said.
  
  Wayne State University Law School professor Peter Henning said police can set up roadblocks to search all who pass by, but only if a crime has just been committed.
  
  And Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton, who said he was not consulted by Pickell about the checkpoints, said that after a court challenge, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that so-called "sobriety check lanes," put in place to nab drunken drivers, were illegal.
  
  The new practice of narcotics checkpoints "certainly brings up probable-cause issues," Leyton said Thursday.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 10:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    Except you sort of miss: the checks are being done on transport vehicles already in inspection areas.
    
    Would you care to try again?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 10:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      except in the case we're talking about above, not the OP, these are narcotics check points where they either check every vehicle in line if you listen to first hand reports, or they wait for someone to see the sign and pull a u turn and chase them down according to the cops, either way the legal experts say this would not hold up in court, either for 4th amendment issues or entrapment.
      
      Would you care to take another stab?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 11:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They can check every truck in line. The rules are applied evenly, and without bias based on race, creed, color, gender, origin, or other. The courts have held this doesn't blow the 4th amendment, especially when a valid government interest is at hand (namely drugs, illegal immigrants, terrors, or the smuggling thereof).
        
        In your example, the car that makes a U turn may be trying to avoid the checkpoint, which creates reasonable cause for a more intense search. It's a wonderful self-incrimination step that is a bonus in this sort of thing, and certainly NOT against the law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701 (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 12:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > The rules are applied evenly, and without
        > bias based on race, creed, color, gender,
        > origin, or other.
        
        An unreasonable search doesn't become reasonable merely because it's racially fair.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 3:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They can check every truck in line. The rules are applied evenly, and without bias based on race, creed, color, gender, origin, or other. The courts have held this doesn't blow the 4th amendment, especially when a valid government interest is at hand (namely drugs, illegal immigrants, terrors, or the smuggling thereof).
        
        If the rules were really applied "evenly," they'd be checking every vehicle on the road. There's a bit of discrimination going on already if you're only going after those that are being conveniently routed through a pre-existing checkpoint.
        
        In fact, the "convenience" factor makes this even more constitutionally dubious. With the DOT doing half the work by simply manning the weigh stations, it gives the whole thing a tint of "Well... since you're already here..." Sort of like getting a speeding ticket and having the cop say, "Well, since I already have you pulled over, why don't I just take a look in the trunk and glove compartment?" without having any reason to do so.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 12:43pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > Would you care to try again?
      
      You clearly said in your original post that drunk-driving cjeckpoints are legal in Michigan, which seems to fly in the face of the prosecutor's comment that "the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that 'sobriety check lanes,' put in place to nab drunken drivers, were illegal."
      
      Would you care to try again?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 2:23pm
  
  Re:
  i do believe my state has ruled DUI checkpoints unconstitutional.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 8:54am

Can we get the TSA to patrol rivers and creeks and maybe some biking trails?

on a more serious note...go read Bruce Schneier and his essays on the encouraging ordinary citizens to report 'suspicious' behavior and how well that works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Doe, 21 Oct 2011 @ 8:56am
  
  Re:
  I haven't read that essay but does it work out something like the Salem witch hunts?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:16am
    
    Re: Re:
    It did in Germany.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
killscar (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:02am

Missing the obvious
Tennessee is home to the Oak Ridge Facility and with all the recent national security blunders I'm sure the government is aware of a potential situation that has put us all at risk. With that said, don't worry about it, Uncle Sam will handle it properly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:07am

Welcome to the new world order.

I thought The Crazies was supposed to be just a film.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FarSide (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:08am

I see something suspicious...
...there's this group of guys with guns waving people down and going through their cars.

Who can I report that to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
aldestrawk (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:10am

abate vs abet
Maybe News Channel 5 corrected it, but the article says "abate the concern" rather than abet.

I suspect that the "inspection" is similar to what happens at checkpoints set up to catch drunk drivers. In California, at least, those drunk driving checkpoints have to be set up so that a driver can see them and choose an alternate route, one that does not go through the checkpoint and does not cause a long detour. I take advantage of that rule, not that I ever drive drunk. I would like to know if VIPR checkpoints would also have to be avoidable in California, and other states with similar DUI checkpoint rules, as this would render the search for terrorists more than pointless (or is it less than pointless?).

This is the second article referenced by Techdirt dealing with VIPR stops on highways. In both cases the source article does not give enough details to tell whether the cars are actually searched, people are actually searched, and if searches ever take place without the permission of the driver. The authorities are undoubtedly looking (hoping?) for probable cause to do such a search. This bothers me enough, but it is not the wholesale dumping of 4th amendment protections that actual random searches entails.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:12am

"Nearly all children nowadays were horrible. What was worst of all was that by means of such organizations as the Spies they were systematically turned into ungovernable little savages, and yet this produced in them no tendency whatever to rebel against the discipline of the Party. On the contrary, they adored the Party and everything connected with it... All their ferocity was turned outwards, against the enemies of the State, against foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals. It was almost normal for people over thirty to be frightened of their own children."

Just replace the references to children with the word "truckers".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:20am
  
  Re:
  I'm pretty sure that reference is about 27 years out of date.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JaDe, 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    You realize 1984 wasn't actually written in 1984 don't you. But even if it was, it wouldn't matter. It is becoming more relevant by the day.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2011 @ 4:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Sorry, I was trying to make a subtle hat-tip to 1984, not actually dispute your point in any way.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lesath (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:25am

I assume Tennessee volunteered for this? (Get it?) Otherwise, why wouldn't the DHS choose a more populous state. Seems like there would be more chances or incidents in a place like Atlanta or any other big metropolitan city.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:27am

Good name for a device the snakes will be using.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeff Rowberg (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:32am

V for Vendetta
I'm sure I can't be the only one who is reminded of that scene in V for Vendetta where the spy van is driving around, its passengers listening with adolescent glee to private conversations of people inside their homes, when they stumble upon the protagonist killing the corrupt priest. That level of privacy invasion seems to be exactly one small step away from where we are right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:36am

Driver recruits---report please
Agents are recruiting truck drivers, like Rudy Gonzales, into the First Observer Highway Security Program to say something if they see something.

So is Rudy gonna report all the glory holes in rest stop bathrooms...especially if they see something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous, 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:49am

only one place left for TSA to look for potential troublemakers is down the shit chute, i would think! they seem to be full of crap, after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jim O (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:55am

Parroting a comment I saw on techdirt....
If you have "threat analysis" and "threat prevention" under the same organization then you have funding for both coming from the same place. All TSA has to do to argue for a bigger budget is to coerce their analysis team to dream up new threats, and now all of a sudden TSA is massively underfunded to combat theses new made up threats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:58am

Terrorists live in houses, too!
I just realized what a severe danger houses pose to the safety of all true Americans. Any house or apartment might be harboring a terrorist.

The TSA must search all private homes immediately or they are not protecting America!! People in these houses already travel freely from room to room without being accountable for their movements and without even having to provide a reason for such movements. They could be doing anything!!

Congress is to blame too. Searching of private homes on demand will require additional funding for the TSA. If Congress doesn't provide this, they aren't doing their job either!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 10:15am
  
  Re: Terrorists live in houses, too!
  Y'know, it'd sure be nice if this was just sarcasm, but I'm pretty sure there's at least one state out there that already ditched the whole "you have to get a search warrant first" thing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 10:12am

*sigh* When you create your own terrorists, you know where they hang out. Guess now it's Tennesse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 10:22am

When an infection occurs in a body, the cold and flu symptoms you experience are as much a result of the body's defenses going into overdrive as from the actual infection's waste products.

Even with bin Laden dead and al Qaeda in shambles, their localized terrorist actions have resulted in triggering a massive defense reaction that is crippling America more than any specific damage they could ever have done, possibly bordering on a lupus condition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2011 @ 4:49am
  
  Re:
  It's never lupus.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kyle Z, 21 Oct 2011 @ 10:33am

I'm having a hard time understanding what type of suspicious activity I could possibly observe while driving on a highway. What kind of behavoir are we really expecting from terrorists in cars? If anything, wouldnt they be driving extra careful to avoid confrontation?

This is about casting a wider net, plain and simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 10:47am

Wow, so a police state is looming ever greater. Neighbors reporting on neighbors, coming soon! Someplace I heard that at the height of the Soviet Union, 1/3 of the population was actively reporting on the other 2/3. Fun thought. People in America are still unbelievably petty and short sighted, so this should work out splendidly.

Also, I totally can see people phoning in phony "suspicious" activity on the freeway, about people that maybe did something to make them rage. Like driving like a jackass. Sure, driving like a jackass is bad and I'd love to see that person get a fine, but that's not the appropriate way to handle it. The aggressive driver hotlines seem like a less bad solution than VIPR.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Haywood (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 10:49am

USA inc
The united states of America (note lower case) was incorporated in 1868/71 by the Roman Catholic institute. The united states of America could not stay sovereign and trade with nations already within the Oleron Law system.
This is why events were engineered to destroy the sovereignty of America and bring about the 14th Amendment making all State citizens now property of this corporation D.C. In truth D.C. controls no where on the mainland other than its small patch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 1:01pm
  
  Re: USA inc
  > making all State citizens now property of
  > this corporation D.C. In truth D.C. controls
  > no where on the mainland other than its small
  > patch
  
  That makes no damn sense (not that you 'sovereign citizen' types ever do). How can DC be both powerless *and* in control of every citizen in the country at the same time?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
matics (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 11:14am

Damn, I would hate to be a visible minority living in Tennessee right now... Even more than I would hate living in Tennessee on any given day in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
d.w.a. (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 11:14am

t.s.a.
Fellers yall is hoopin @ howlin for nuttin. The answer is right under your nose. All we gots to due is find Lt. General N.B. Forrest. He is a Tennessee boy & Im sure he could handle them yankee T.S.A. folks. If old Bedford aint available then maybe Davey Crockett will help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jared, 21 Oct 2011 @ 12:16pm

I see wholesale hatred of the South is alive and well among some of you. Trust me, there are plenty of us who would love to be rid of the Feds altogether, not just the TSA thugs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jasen (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 12:16pm

Things that make you go hmmm...
So the terrorists now know to NOT drive through Tennessee. Good job TSA. What a brilliant plan!

Somehow the TSA must have caught the story about Tennessee law officers stopping cars and seizing any cash they "suspect" is drug money. So perhaps since the law in Tennessee is already violating the 4th amendment and getting away with it, then it must be ok?

The TSA has done nothing to PREVENT terrorist attacks. All the TSA has done is take away our Liberty. Now they are ignoring our 4th amendment.

It's about time to abolish the TSA. We have an election coming up, please vote for someone that is committed to abolishing the TSA. Ron Paul said he would, are there other candidates?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TheWebb (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 12:58pm

Down, down, down, down, down
Down with the TSA.
Down with the Patriot Act.

End the bureaucracy! We need our liberties back!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
panhead20, 21 Oct 2011 @ 4:13pm

Uncontrolled search and seizure
Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government. Among deprivations of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual and putting terror in every heart.

Justice Robert Jackson, chief U.S. prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 6:45pm

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 10:08pm

I don't believe this. It sounds too much like an article from The Onion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Montezuma (profile), 23 Oct 2011 @ 12:11am

I want the TSA to come to Georgia and attempt to monitor riders of MARTA, either bus or rail. If and when that occurs, then my pals at GeorgiaCarry.Org and GeorgiaPacking.Org will organize large groups of people to come and openly carry their firearms in front of the TSA, and/or any other idiots involved. Perhaps citizens will feel more safe when they see fellow citizens armed. Hell, it cannot make them feel less safe than having the TSA around.

Of course, such a thing would never happen in California.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bergman (profile), 23 Oct 2011 @ 6:12am

Sooner or later, some bright idiot in the TSA will take note of the fact that in between traveling, "terrorists" stay at home. Shortly thereafter, I expect a VIPR operation to start kicking in doors without a warrant.

Don't like it? Don't live in the USA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
qkslvrwolf, 24 Oct 2011 @ 11:09am

They're already working on that "walking in public" thing
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/bob_dylan_arrested_for_walking/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2011 @ 2:00pm
  
  Re: They're already working on that "walking in public" thing
  reminds me of one of the my favorite except from the police reports section of the newspaper. I was living in small town in northern Wisconsin and found this is in the daily police actions section of the paper: "Police respond to reports of possible terrorist activity, was two kids fishing."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]