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
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.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.)
"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.
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.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Two comments...
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 ]
Re: Two comments...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two comments...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Purple Tiger Patrol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Purple Tiger Patrol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Purple Tiger Patrol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Poor truckers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Poor truckers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only other place...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Progression
"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 ]
Re: The Progression
At this rate "don't walk in public" will be added by the end of the year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Progression
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Progression
McCarthyism is dead, Long Live McCarthyism.........
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Progression
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Progression
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Progression
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Progression
Yet here we are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Progression
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Progression
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Progression
;-P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Progression
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Progression
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Progression
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 ]
Re: Re: The Progression
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Progression
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Progression
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is very disturbing news.We really need to get these asse4s out of our lives.
DISGUSTING !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We gave up our 4th amendment rights long ago
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We gave up our 4th amendment rights long ago
Too obvious, more like The war on treason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We gave up our 4th amendment rights long ago
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We gave up our 4th amendment rights long ago
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[/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 ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Country music?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> breaking the law
There's no such thing as 'probably cause'. It's 'probable cause'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> 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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> 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 ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Amazingly, we landed safely and without incident.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scoreboard
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 ]
Re: Scoreboard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 ]
it's Probable Cause i said so.
Next on the list: car trunks, office building false floors, home attics, and body cavities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it's Probable Cause i said so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: it's Probable Cause i said so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it's Probable Cause i said so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: it's Probable Cause i said so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> without probably cause.
There's no such thing as 'probably cause'. It's 'probable cause'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 ]
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 ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> 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 ]
Re:
> 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 ]
Re: Re:
Would you care to try again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Would you care to take another stab?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> 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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing the obvious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought The Crazies was supposed to be just a film.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see something suspicious...
Who can I report that to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
abate vs 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 ]
Just replace the references to children with the word "truckers".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
V for Vendetta
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Driver recruits---report please
So is Rudy gonna report all the glory holes in rest stop bathrooms...especially if they see something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Parroting a comment I saw on techdirt....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Terrorists live in houses, too!
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 ]
Re: Terrorists live in houses, too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is about casting a wider net, plain and simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 ]
USA inc
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 ]
Re: USA inc
> 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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
t.s.a.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Things that make you go hmmm...
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 ]
Down, down, down, down, down
Down with the Patriot Act.
End the bureaucracy! We need our liberties back!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uncontrolled search and seizure
Justice Robert Jackson, chief U.S. prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course, such a thing would never happen in California.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't like it? Don't live in the USA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They're already working on that "walking in public" thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They're already working on that "walking in public" thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]