Though  the public furor over the Department of Homeland Security and  Transportation Security Administration’s “enhanced” security protocols  has died down since last November, third party and independent activists  have quietly continued to organize opposition to the measures.   However, a lawsuit filed by former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura’s against the DHS and TSA has now brought the controversial  procedures back into the public spotlight.

On  Monday, Jesse Ventura filed a lawsuit in federal court against the  Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Transportation Security  Administration (TSA) for violating the Fourth Amendment right to be free from  unreasonable searches and seizures.  Under the new TSA security  protocols, prospective airline passengers who are designated for  “enhanced” screening, for instance, after setting off walk-through metal  detectors, must submit to a whole body imaging scan or a full-body  pat-down search.  Because Ventura has a titanium hip implant which sets  off metal detectors, he is forced to undergo the enhanced security  procedure every time he boards an airplane, which is frequently required  for his work as a “television performer,” as stated in the lawsuit.

Ventura’s  lawsuit amounts to a full frontal assault on the DHS/TSA’s “enhanced  security protocols.”  Essentially, the suit argues, since passengers are  not free to leave the airport security area or decline to take their  scheduled flights to avoid any additional screening, the enhanced  protocols amount to an unconstitutional search and seizure.

“Absent  reasonable grounds for suspicion,” the suit states, “ scans and pat-down body searches are unwarranted and  unreasonable intrusions on Governor Ventura’s personal privacy and  dignity and his right to be free from unreasonable searches and  seizures.”

It goes on to argue that whole body imaging scans are  tantamount to a “warrantless, non-suspicion-based” strip search, which  is “demeaning and degrading” and meets the definition of “unlawful video  voyeurism.”  The lawsuit objects to full-body pat-downs on similar  grounds, stating that they “include warrantless, non-suspicion-based  offensive touching, gripping and rubbing of the genital and other  sensitive areas of the body,” which meets the definition of “unlawful  sexual assault.”

Were  it not for the fact that so many Democratic and Republican lawmakers  have shown so little interest in addressing these ritual humiliations of  American citizens by agents of the state, such a lawsuit would not be  necessary.  As the suit states, “Governor Ventura has no other adequate  and speedy remedy at law.”  See this article for the full text of the lawsuit.

Though  Ventura was elected governor of Minnesota under the banner of the  Reform Party, in recent years he has become an outspoken advocate of  independent politics and an opponent of party politics as such.  In  October of last year, Ventura told USA Today,  “I do not support the third party movement anymore,” adding, “I now  advocate the abolishment of all political parties. We've allowed the  parties to take over the government.”  Ironically, however, third party  advocates are among Ventura’s staunchest allies in opposing the TSA’s  invasive security procedures.  As I reported here last November, Independent, Green, Libertarian, Pirate Party and  Constitution Party activists were united in their opposition to the  TSA’s new security protocols.  Since then, even some Democrats and  Republicans have begun to voice concerns about the measures.

Earlier this month, the Electronic Privacy Information Center hosted a conference entitled “The Stripping of Freedom: A Careful Scan of TSA Security  Procedures.”  Speakers at the event included Democratic Rep. Rush Holt,  former Green Party and Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader, the Executive  Director of the Libertarian National Committee, Wes Benedict, as well as  representatives of advocacy groups and think tanks, security experts,  scholars and elected officials.  In his remarks,  Benedict stated:

“When Libertarians and Ralph Nader agree a program is  bad...it's time for our government to listen,” adding, “I'm glad we have  a Congressman or two participating today. I wish more Republicans and  Democrats took our Constitution and Bill of Rights seriously.”

Indeed,  if they did, lawsuits such as Ventura’s might be unwarranted or  unnecessary to rein in the excesses of the executive branch.

A  number of lawsuits against the TSA are still pending and others have  been recently settled.  The Electronic Privacy Information Center has  itself filed a lawsuit to suspend the use of full body scanners pending  an independent review.  Their suit claims  that the TSA program violates the Administrative Procedures Act, the  Privacy Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Video Voyeurism  Prevention Act, and the Fourth Amendment.

If today’s lawmakers are  looking to cut spending on wasteful and counterproductive government  programs, perhaps they need look no further.  As Art Carden recently argued at Forbes:

“The new Republican House of Representatives  took office amidst much fanfare about the US Constitution and  respecting Constitutional limits on government . . . if they are really  serious about it, they will start by abolishing the Transportation  Security Administration.”