Airport Searches Illeagal?

[ShawnC]

Ever since it has been that the US government has taken over the security at our nations airports I have been doing some light research on the legality of the airport searches.

It appears that the random searches are illegal, unless they are accompanied by some real reason, like setting off the metal detector or if something is suspicous in the X-ray. The only problem is that one must go though it to get on the plane.

Now I am not a lawyer but it would be an intresting case, to see what would happen if someone denied the random search. Would they have to let him on the aircraft, because any search at that point would be illegal? Just some ideas, if there are any people that know lawyers here might be something to talk to them about.

 

[rk772]

I don't have a law degree but I do have 3 years experience as a police officer. If I stop someone on the street and I have reasonable suspicion that he MIGHT be carrying a weapon, I can do a pat down search. If I then feel something questionable, I have probable cause to stick my hand in his pocket or remove his jacket and so on.
Now, reasonable suspicion can be anything from a bulge in his pocket to the person just avoiding eye contact with me because I am a police officer. It all boils down to how I write my report when it's all over. I'm sure if the airport security was ever challenged by his search, he could quickly come up with some sort of reasonable suspicion which led him to the probable cause for the search.
Again, Im not a lawyer, and there may be some special federal laws on search and seizure that I don't know about.

 

[ifly4food]

First of all, contrary to popular belief, the gov hasn't "taken over" security. They are just paying Argen-dim, ITS, Globe, etc with tax money.
The screeners are not yet federal employees.

Second, the "random" checks (which we all know aren't really random) usually happen at the gate.
These are conducted by the airlines according to profiles. Also, the first and last person to board are "randomly" checked. Some things that will get you "randomly" checked are using employee benefits, jumpseating, being in uniform, diaplaying airline ID, oh yeah, and buying a one way ticket, travelling with no luggage, paying cash, etc.
Since these checks are done by the airline, if you refuse, they will simply deny you boarding. It's their plane and they can really deny boarding to anyone for any reason. If you're an airline employee, tough luck... you're one more victim of management's efforts to show the general public we're nothing more than "overpaid bus drivers". Refuse and you're fired. The passenger denied may try to sue, but until someone sues and wins, this practice will continue.

As for the checkpoint searches being illegal, in my opinion they violate our Constitutional protection from unecessary search and seizure, especially next year when the screeners ARE government agents. Unfortunately, until someone decides to challenge it in court, the practice will not stop. Right now, they are using intimidation to keep the airline employees from challenging them and the general public is still drinking the government's red, white, and blue Kool-Aid.
Sad times are in store for our country if this continues unchalleged.

 

[Caveman]

I too believe that the searches are illegal and unconstitutional.
The government is requiring the airlines do do the screening. They have no choice. In that all airlines must do it I also have no choice but to undergo the illegal search if I want to travel freely about my own country.

I know I don't have to travel by commercial air and I could avoid the hassle by choosing to drive or charter my own a/c. Why doesn't the government search me before I travel by car or when I fly my own plane or charter one? Because it's illegal and the public outcry would be incredible. So where is the outcry about the gestapo tactics at the airport. If everybody flew everyday this crap would end. But they don't. Most folks fly once or twice a year and they have been duped into believing this is for their own good and for the safety of all. I don't want safety. I want freedom. Life is risky. Deal with it.

 

[Timebuilder]

The short answer is that your use of airline transportation is discretionary, and since the practice is well known to everyone who would anticipate that use, you are essentially volunteering to be searched as a condition of that use.

I'm not a lawyer, but I did play one on TV...

 

[XJAVRO]

here is some news for all you 121 pilots. Every time you are a "Random" selectee at the gate and you are in uniform that airline is wrong. I just got a copy of the FAA security memo, and it say that crew members in uniform are exempt from randon screening. Talk to your union about it. Our chief pilots and union reps are calling any stations we report. It doesn't matter if you are jumpseating, nonreving. If you are in uniform they can not select you. The only way this will end is if we make sure the gate agents(nazis) follow the rules the FAA has set.

 

[chperplt]

For the most part, I fly and commute on US Airways.. I always travel in unifom, and have never been selected for search at the gate.. The security area is a different story.

 

[XJAVRO]

I find most airlines are following the FAA memo, but Northwest is one of the worst. I travel on American all the time, and have never been selected. To any AA people on here you guys rule to jumpseat on!

 

[ksu_aviator]

The FAA is also hidding behind the commerce clause of the constitution. The commerce clause says that congress can create agencies to regulate commerce. The supreme court has ruled that that means regulations are not the same as laws, and therefore do not follow the same rules as laws. So, if you refuse a random screening you have actually broken a regulation and do not have the same rights as if you had broken a law. Of course congress also made laws prohibiting us from violating regulations, so if you violate a regulation you violate a law. But, because its not a law that you be randomly searched the constitution has not been violated. Its kind of iffy logic, but that's how congress and the FAA work. I don't agree with it, but then again I don't agree with most things our government does.

 

[avbug]

Airport screening, and random searches are legal, are not unconstitutional, and are not based on reasonable suspicion. The FAA derives it's powers and authority from the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, and the changes thereto. The Act is congressionally mandated, and constitutionally grounded.

Citizens are protected under the constitution against unreasonable search and siezure. The FAA is charged with ensuring (among other things) air safety. Those traveling by air do so knowing in advance that certain security requirements and measures exist. Submitting to those measures is a condition of travel. Purchasing a ticket implies consent. The execution or use of that ticket, grants that consent.

Likewise, for those of us who work in the cockpit, we have the privilege of holding an airman certificate and the privilege of exercising the certificate in our livlihood. The FAA grants that privilege. We do not have a right to fly; it is a privilege. Accoringly, we are subject to limitations established in conjunction with maintaining those privileges for the good of the general population. The FAA requires specific security functions as part of their charter; we submit to them as part of our obligations to the administrator. These searches are not illegal.

Unsavory for some, but not illegal.