Everyday more than 8 million people go through airport security to fly. Since 1970 airports have been targeted by many terrorists and terrorist groups. Due to this, airport security has became a lot more firm than it used to be. Airport Security significantly changed after 9/11 with changes like stricter identification requirements, shoe removal, baggage x-rays, liquid bans, no welcome committees, and locked cockpit doors. The largest response to the attacks was the creation of the Transportation Security Administration, better known as TSA. Many people believe that the actions that TSA take to “protect” are invasions of privacy. The most invasive protocol that TSA is obligated to do is pat- down procedures. This procedure is used to determine whether prohibited items or other threats to transportation security are concealed on the person. Pat- downs may include inspection of the head, neck, arms, torso, legs, and feet. And in some cases more private areas such as breasts, groins, and the buttocks. While these checks are performed by an officer of the same sex, there are an alarming number of stories of officers taking advantage of the person or invading their privacy.
In Texas of 2018, Mr. and Mrs. McAdams thought they would have a normal trip through TSA with their two young daughters but instead were put through a nightmare. Daniel McAdams says that there was never a problem on other airline trips for the 10 and 13 yr old girls to be accompanied by their mother but on this occasion however TSA would not only not allow it but start shocking unnecessary procedures against the family. The 13 year old daughter was accused of opting out of scanning and forced into a gratuitous pat down out of the sight of her parents. When Mr. McAdams voiced “strong objections” to this treatment a TSA agent began to pat him down, roughly jabbing his hand into McAdams’ groin, causing him to nearly fall over in pain. The family immediately contacted the institute for legal help, but were completely shut down in only hearing “TSA agents who engage in official misconduct by ruling cannot be sued.”