Wow...Quite a few good responses.
So throw 'Probable Cause' out the window? After all, if it could save people, we should be willing to go through anything? Earlier in this thread (I think) Eliza(?) talks about the security procedures in use in Israel. From what I've read (not just hear) those procedures could require HOURS (up to 5?) at the airport before your flight. They must work since El Al has never been hijacked, is it ok to implement them?
There's a pro argument in that implementing more stringent screening processes like those already in place in foreign countries would create a more secure airline industry. The down side would be that a 5 hour pre-flight arrival time would make short flights like those between DC and Newark or NYC pointless as it would take the same amount of time to drive or take the train.
I see where you are going with this. It's an interesting argument, but I don't think it applies. First, if you refuse a breathalyzer, as you point out, you'll be taken to a hospital for a true blood test. Presumably, you could refuse to give blood and fight that. In theory, what happens? What law have you broken? In the same mode, if you're picked for the WBI, refuse, then refuse the patdown, AGREE to not go through to the secure area, what laws have been broken?
I'm not 100% sure of the law, but I believe that in DUI cases once a suspect refuses the breathalyzer they must submit to the blood test. Refusal to do so is an automatic admission of guilt. If a person sets off a Walk Through Metal Detector (WTMD) and then refuses the pat down or AIT I am unsure if any actual laws have been broken, but it allows TSA to detain the passenger until such time that law enforcement can be contacted to conduct a thorough search to find what the person may or may not have been hiding. At the very least TSA can and probably will detain the suspect for a period of time that will result in a missed flight and re-booking or cancellation fees.
No, Terry stops are when the law enforcement office has reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has occurred. TSAers are not LEOs. Setting off a metal detctor is not indicative of criminal activity. Metal implants and shrapnel in the body are benign reasons to set off the alarm. So is forgetfulness . . . perhaps a spare key (or a foil wrapping) in a wallet.
I used Terry Laws as an analogy to set precedence. Refusal to submit to AIT or pat down after setting off WTMD creates reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Metal implants and shrapnel can certainly set off WTMD, but both can easily be explained by showing the officer the scar along with use of the wand for verification. Forgetfulness in placing all items into the bins is not an option. I have set off the WTMD on several occasions due to buttons, zippers, snaps, etc... and the TSA officers have always required me to step back through the WTMD and then pulled me aside for additional screening with the wand and the occasional pat down if the alarms were tripped a second or third time. The same protocols are in place where I work as well as in many high schools throughout the country.
ETA: TSA's mission is to prevent weapons and explosives off airplanes. "Contraband" such as drugs or cash is outside their mission scope.
Negative. The TSA Mission Statement says, "The Transportation Security Administration protects the Nations transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce." In keeping weapons and explosives of of airplanes how does this addition screening method not wok within the confines of the mission statement?
Also, it seems other countries have been using this type of machine as well. Why is there no "negative" data then?
Could be a couple of reasons starting with the easiest answer that the finding from JHU-APL are accurate. Could also be that other countries do not have or operate under the constant threat of FOIA being invoked.
I don't know what type of breathalyzers you are dealing with, but all the ones I have seen (never had one btw) you are provided with a new, wrapped, sterilized mouthpiece, so no chance of herpies there. Also, the blood draws are done at a hospital so again, sterilization procedures would insure that you don't get Aids.
I know, I've had a couple, but I was attempting to show the absurdity that the same safety measures would not be in place to guarantee the medical safety of the passenger when subjected to the AIT.
The only reason that DUI tests such as those are constitutional without a search warrant is because the evidence would disappear in the time it takes to get a valid search warrant.
BAC dissipates over hours whereas some weapons detonate on timers while others can be detonated remotely within seconds and as we learned on 9/11 some weapons are common everyday items. As such it could be argued that the same logic applies and that there is much more urgency in securing the evidence.
It is not a simple scan. Many people have moral, religous or just plain privacy objections to a virtual strip search.
And maybe some day TSA will contract with Hebrew National to make a Kosher AIT device, but for the time being this is the technology we have in place. Furthermore religious preferences do not allow one to circumvent established security procedures as was the case in Sultaana Freeman vs. State of Florida DMV. The case resulted in Judge Janet C. Thorpe denying the lawsuit, and a state appeals court later upheld the decision that Mrs Freeman was required to have her picture on her state issued license without her veil.
A little known fact that the advocates for big brother don't want you to know: 
