Chủ Nhật, 27 tháng 1, 2013

The case of the airport 'stripper'

17685 483405 aaron tobey

Aaron Tobey was arrested after partially undressing as part of an airport protest. Picture: US government




A PASSENGER who was arrested after partially undressing as part of an airport protest is a step closer to winning a $250,000 lawsuit over the incident.


Aaron Tobey stripped to his shorts at a Richmond airport checkpoint in the US in 2010 to protest security procedures – he didn’t want to go through the “naked” body-scanners.

He had written part of the US Constitution’s Fourth Amendment on his chest with a magic marker.

It read: “Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated”.

He claimed he was handcuffed and detained for about 90 minutes by Transportation Security Administration officials. A disorderly conduct charge against him was dropped two weeks after the incident, and he decided to sue.

The case has now been sent to trial by a court of appeal, reversing an earlier lower court judge decision.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

According to Judge Roger Gregory: “Here, Mr. Tobey engaged in a silent, peaceful protest using the text of our Constitution – he was well within the ambit of First Amendment protections.

“And while it is tempting to hold that First Amendment rights should acquiesce to national security in this instance, our Forefather Benjamin Franklin warned against such a temptation by opining that those ‘who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety’.

“We take heed of his warning and are therefore unwilling to relinquish our First Amendment protections – even in an airport.”

The lawsuit alleged wrongful detention and, according to the suit, while under interrogation, the authorities wanted to know “about his affiliation with, or knowledge of, any terrorist organisations, if he had been asked to do what he did by any third party, and what his intentions and goals were.”


The case of the airport 'stripper'

Không có nhận xét nào:

Đăng nhận xét