Airport Searches Illeagal?

[ifly4food]

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.

You forgot to say "in my opinion".

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.

So will they try to search us for driving a car next? Is buying gas consent? We're headed down a dangerous road here. It's only a condition of travel because the govervment says so... what's to stop them from future edicts that take away our freedom in the guise of "safety"?

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.

Is walking a privillege? Taking a train? A bus?
If I wanted my governmevt to tell me travelling in my own country was a privillege granted by the government, I'd move to China.

Avbug, you incessantly pass off your opinion as fact. You aren't an airline pilot and you have no idea what we're going through until you do it first hand. And that's not a "personal attack", it's statement of a fact.

 

[avbug]

I didn't state "in my opinion" because what I stated was fact.

You'll note that your ATP certificate doesn't have operating rights, but operating privileges. You'll note that any certificate issued by the FAA is conditional, and is issued as a privilege, not a right.

The validity of the FAA as established by the Federal Aviation Act is not an opinion, and yes, it is constitutionally grounded. Accordingly, so is the authority. Kick against the pricks all you like, but thems the facts.

 

[Timebuilder]

I guess it's better to discuss these issues here, rather than on television.

I don't think crew searches will go on indefinitely, so we can view this as a temporary inconvenience for those of you who are enduring them. If you decide that this is too much of a burden for you to bear, I will volunteer to take your place, and I think several of the others here will volunteer to help out, too. Seriously, we all know that the crew is not the problem, and that this practice amounts to a temporary public relations practice to placate the public fears.

As some of you know, my background includes broadcast and print journalism, and due mostly to accrued life experience I changed my political persuasion several years ago. I have to add my two cents here, and tell you that what Avbug has said in this post is correct. In our representative republic, we empower our representatives to legislate and create regulatory bodies, and the constitutionality of that practice has long been upheld. Indeed, walking CAN be a privilege, using the example of a curfew during a time of rioting or other emergency, or as applied to a group of teens that are not yet legal adults.
I won’t bore you with all of the other examples. Suffice it to say that we, as a people, have decided, albeit in an indirect way, that many activities are subject to regulatory authority for the common good. We may not always agree with every individual manifestation of that authority, but as franchised citizens we must adhere to the edicts as issued and can challenge them through our representatives. This applies even if the rules seem stupid, silly, and harassing. We should be leaders in this regard, not whiners. This is a time when we should be going out of our way to be examples of compliance with the current requirements, and register our distaste in places like this, our companies, and our congress. Every passenger should hear nary a word of disgust from seasoned captain and fresh FO alike. I’ll think about it. Then, I’ll take off my shoes (apologies to the Firesign Theatre) for our industry.


Sure, we may not like the idea that our flying is a privilege, but remember: our greatest privilege is just being who we are, Americans. Some of the countries at the Olympics this past week complained that we are over-patriotic. This is only because they don’t have so much as a clue about us, and no reason for pride in their own nations. The reason we have become a target is that we occupy the top of this earthly heap. We know it. Bin Laden knows it. Don’t forget it.

 

[Lindy]

Avbug is Constitutionally Correct

First of all, many of us are extremely unhappy and frustrated with security screening. There are avenues to "vent" regarding security screening and the judgment (or lack therefore of) the security personnel. ALPA has a list of the "rules" which are to be standardized throughout the system. As with anything, to effectuate change it will take time and patience.

With respect to the Constitutional issues (serach) and the Commerce Clause, the following needs to be addressed:

1. The Contitution does afford a right for citizens to be protected from "unreasonable search and seizures." This right pertains to GOVERNMENTAL SEARCHES. A police officer mentioned what he could or could not use to establish "probable cause" and "search" an individual. The leading authority of this type of stop is known as the "Terry Case" (Terry v Ohio; decided by the US Supreme Court). It has since been coined a "Terry Stop" if someone is searched based on similiar facts. The protection affored to citizens is the fact that we are free from searches and seizures by the GOVERNMENT.


2. Hmmmm.....Federal Government will now be providing airport screening. Does this infringe upon my Constitutional Rights? This is NOT an issue. Additionally, pursuant to the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 and the Civil Aviaiton Act of 1938 (I could be wrong about the year....) the federal government has the power to regulate security and NOT be contrary to the Constitution. The basis of the power to regulate aviation is a derviative of the Commerce Clause (the Commerce Clause is one of the strongest aspects of the regulatory powers of our government).

The complaints that I have read, seen, and heard pertain to inappropriate behavior of specific security screeners AND the "process." Flight crew members want to be treated different because we are subjected to searches every day we go to work and others are not. Additionally, we have a superiority complex about what we do and think we should be treated different in the current security process.

I think there should be a "national" type id so that pilots (and should we extend this to flight attendants also???) can breeze through security. In order to obtain such an ID, there will be fingerprinting, criminal background checks, etc., to the level of being a LEO. Additionally, not every pilot will qualify to obtain a "national" id due to the prohibitive cost factor to be endured by the employer or the employee or just by the background of the candidate.

We didn't change the rules, someone else did. Unfoturnately it is now a different game in town and we need to learn to adapt and effectuate change so that the entire security process is "fair."

Can the airport security morass bleed over into other parts of our lives? It already has...SuperBowl Security and Olympic Security are just a few recent examples. Will it continue to spread? I hope not.

And if a case does make it out of motion and in front of a Federal District Court Judge, the privacy of one will be weighed against the safety of many. Take a guess who will have the best argument?

In my opinion, the issues that are important are not whether or to what extent they can continue to search airport passengers and personnel but executing the rules in a fair and consistent manner.

Finally, one last comment. Someone stated in another thread that security took a child (about 7 or 8) into a room without her parents to "search." I find this to be one of the most distressing incidents I have heard of!! This is where the discretion of the LEO and the airport security manager need to be checked. A parent should have always been present in such a search.

I'm done with my ramblings/rantings.....

 

[aero99]

I don't see whats so wrong with what avbug stated. In fact he is correct in that flying is a privilege.

What a train or a bus or walking has to do with this post as IFFF stated puzzles me.

Avbug, just post "in my opinion" on every post so no one feels theatened next time you come to chat on this board. Why you have to qualifiy yourself everytime you post something is beyond me.

GEEZ, isn't this board for everyones opinion? Didn't know we had to pull out our qulifications to participate here.

 

[ShawnC]

Re: Avbug is Constitutionally Correct

Finally, one last comment. Someone stated in another thread that security took a child (about 7 or 8) into a room without her parents to "search." I find this to be one of the most distressing incidents I have heard of!! This is where the discretion of the LEO and the airport security manager need to be checked. A parent should have always been present in such a search.

I'm done with my ramblings/rantings.....

Wow, that is really bad, if I remeber correctly they would be breaking the law once again the consent part is still in effect, and a child that is a minor can't give that consent.

Now one thing that I must be said please lay off the personal attacks eithier way. It seems like people are constantly wanting to attack the person not the idea like they should.

 

[avbug]

Shawn,

In a blindingly confusnig twist of precedent, recently the Supreme court provided that a parent cannot sign away the right of consent for a minor. This applied specifically to a parent who signed a waiver for a child, who was subsequently injured on horseback. The partent sued, and was blocked by the waiver. Ultimately, the supremes held that the parent did not have the right to sign away the child's rights by providing a waiver, and consent. The parent won, despite having signed the waiver. Minors can't provide consent, and neither can adults. The law has never revolved around logic.

I'd like to get Bobbyamsand's input here, as a paralegal.

Furloughedgal, you were right. It was the Civil Aviation Act of 1938. The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 was basically a re-write, with organizational changes and the re-enpowerment of the FAA (changed from Federal Aviation Agency).

Something that hasn't really been addressed so far, and something that is wide open right now, is civil redress for wrongs, harrassment, and detention by airport screeners or security. While there is little debate on the subject of constitutionality (that can change, as most everything is subject to interpretation and ammendment), we haven't really touched on the civil liability of screeners in executing their duties.

Where abuses occur which are clearly outside the programs set forth, no protections will exist. The potential to bring civil law suits is still quite valid on an individual basis. If widespread and uniform enough, the potential also exists to do so on a class-action (read, Union) basis. Thoughts?

 

[Timebuilder]

I want Bobby to check me on this, but it is my understanding that the government "chooses" which suit it will allow to proceed against it. For example, if the IRS audits you and finds everything in order, the government will not allow you to sue for expenses, damages, etc. It seems that this same power of exclusion could be exercised now that the government has responsibility for airport security. It would likely take some very egregious conduct to force the gov to allow a suit against it in this situation, as it would generate a legal precedent.

 

[skydiverdriver]

I agree with IFF and others on this issue. I also feel that random drug testing is an illegal search, but that's a different matter.

One question for Avbug, is driving a priveledge or a right? Well, if it's a privledge, as I'm sure you agree, then is it okay for the police to randomly stop people and search their cars? Of course not. Flying is a privledge, true, but it's also my employment. I'm not making a choice by flying, my choice was made to take this job. They have no reasonable cause to search me because I work for an airline. I know, I know, there is a clear and present danger. Well, just because one supreme court chief justice maden up that term, does NOT mean it is true.

Of course, the only way to challenge this would be to refuse a search, lose your job, and take it to a federal court. Since most people are not willing to do this, our rights will continue to be violated. They are searching kids in high school, and by the time they are adults, they won't even know that this stuff is illegal.

I fear for our future, if nobody stands up to this infringement.

 

[Flydaplane]

A private search of a 7 year old is unexcusable!
The liability the federal govt is opening itself up to via lawsuits due to problems at the checkpoint scares me. One of the reasons why I wish congress hadn't passed this law/act.

As far as random crew searches, they aren't to be done, however, many times when you jumpseat or non-rev, even if you are in uniform, you will come up as a selectee and be selected for screening (as a selectee but not random). This is due to the same day purchase flagging the computer. Some airlines have been able to fix this and some haven't. Hope this helps.