When a California geezer was told he'd have to be searched, he turned on his the horn video camera. John Tyner a software planner refused the search, and was told he then could not fly. He agreed to leave, but then was detained, and told he'd be fined $10,000. The Federal sway wants to toward a sound covering against the gentleman for refusing the X-ray sweep and entire body pet down.
MSNBC reports, "Tyner said that after he declined the body scan, a TSA deputy told him he could have a pat-down instead. Once the policy was described, Tyner said he responded, 'If you response my junk, I'll have you arrested.'" The now well-known words have sparked deliberate across the nation. Tyner is on the subsidiary of actual privacy, and even though the Federal regulation is the Federal ministry does that give them the claim to advance a canon that is against our constitutional rights? According to what is heard on the tape, a victim will be brought against Tyner, but Tyner wants to espouse his non-military rights because he was detained even after dispiriting to leave the airport.
So who is right? Did the federal spokeswoman hold Tyner without cause as he tried to dispensation the airport? Is this flawed imprisonment, or is the TSA granted powers not in the Constitution?
Honoured site: read here
