I was with him until I watched the actual video, where he basically comes off like a guy deliberately looking for a fight who gets one. He tries to pull the "i don't have to explain why it's a medically necessary liquid, you fuckers should screen it".
All they did was ask why it was medically necessary, which is reasonable, in order to prevent people from abusing the policy.
His citation that the special needs memo says things like "a doctors note" are recommended, not required, doesn't say anything to the contrary. Nowhere in the memo does it say "you will not be asked to explain why it's medically necessary", and in fact, the reason they probably recommend doctors notes/etc, is to avoid having to repeat a verbal explanation 100x over.
Realistically, if he challenges this in court, he's likely to end up making bad law.
People don't like to hear that non-sympathetic plaintiffs and bad actors often cause bad law to be made, but it's reality. Judges aren't automatons, and the law isn't that rigid in most cases (which is yet another thing engineers/etc don't like to hear).
He seems to act like fourth amendment law is not open to interpretation, or that fourth amendment law has not changed over time (in fact, to his detriment, since there are a lot more exceptions related to border searches and searches used to ensure security than their used to be).
By doing this he misses the one mildly likely result: He will be the cause of a new exception to the 4th amendment.
All they did was ask why it was medically necessary, which is reasonable, in order to prevent people from abusing the policy.
His citation that the special needs memo says things like "a doctors note" are recommended, not required, doesn't say anything to the contrary. Nowhere in the memo does it say "you will not be asked to explain why it's medically necessary", and in fact, the reason they probably recommend doctors notes/etc, is to avoid having to repeat a verbal explanation 100x over.
Realistically, if he challenges this in court, he's likely to end up making bad law.
People don't like to hear that non-sympathetic plaintiffs and bad actors often cause bad law to be made, but it's reality. Judges aren't automatons, and the law isn't that rigid in most cases (which is yet another thing engineers/etc don't like to hear).
He seems to act like fourth amendment law is not open to interpretation, or that fourth amendment law has not changed over time (in fact, to his detriment, since there are a lot more exceptions related to border searches and searches used to ensure security than their used to be). By doing this he misses the one mildly likely result: He will be the cause of a new exception to the 4th amendment.