Airport Searches Illeagal?

[Timebuilder]

I'd like to hear those arguments, also. Drop a PM if you hear of any.

 

[prpjt]

As far as airline employed screeeners violating someones 4th amendment rights, it's not an issue; the airline can pretty much do as they please as far as boarding requirements. A pax can always elect not to purchase the airlines service. In as much as an employee is concerned; the airline can do pretty much as they please as far as boarding requirements.
This issue Might get muddied when the Fed's employ the screeners, but probably not. The distinction lies in the fact that the screeners will be Federal bag checkers and not empowered as law enforcement personel,(I could be wrong here) there's a huge difference when it comes to the fourth amendment.
In a court challenge concerning search and seizure, the courts have a litmus test to see if the fourth amendment even applies. I've copied the plain language form from NOLO below:
The Fourth Amendment applies to a search only if a person has a "legitimate expectation of privacy" in the place or thing searched. If not, the Fourth Amendment offers no protection because there are, by definition, no privacy issues.

Courts use a two-part test (fashioned by the U.S. Supreme Court) to determine whether, at the time of the search, a defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or things searched.

1.Did the person subjectively (actually) expect some degree of privacy?
2.Is the person's expectation objectively reasonable, that is, one that society is willing to recognize?
Only if both questions are answered with a "yes" will a court go on to ask the next, ultimate question: Was the search reasonable or unreasonable?
I don't think a challenge would get past this stage because: a) How many people in our society go to get on a plane with the expectation that their bags and person will not be checked. b) if a person has the expectation that they won't be searched, will society see this as reasonable.
Let me add that I think strip searching the folks in the pointy end of a plane is a bit counterproductive, and something needs to be done to streamline the process. But I don't think a 4th amendment challenge is it.

 

[ShawnC]

Now if they aren't empowered with law enforcement powers than why can you get arrested if you have a knife in your bag, you will get arrested?

Well thats just how I see it we will probally find out in a few months.

 

[skydiverdriver]

Again I ask, if these searches are reasonable and legal, then when are they not? What is a constitutionally protected activity, and when are searches unreasonable and illegal?

I also feel that random drug testing is unconstitutional, and if they started doing it to congressmen, then it would stop immediately! Again, I'm talking about going to work, this has nothing to do with serching the passengers. I'm only talking about pilots and other flight crewmembers.

Thanks for the lively debate. I think this search precident is starting us on a very slippery slope. Perhaps I should write a letter to Thomas Sowell or Robert Bork.

 

[prpjt]

(Now if they aren't empowered with law enforcement powers than why can you get arrested if you have a knife in your bag, you will get arrested? )
The screener doesn't make the arrest, they detain until the police get there, much like the rent a cop detains a suspect trying to get out of books a million with this months Hustler stuffed in their pants.
SDD, here's an illegal one. Border Control agent boards a bus to check passports, I think. Squeezes a duffle bag and feels something that feels like a brick. Opens the bag and finds a brick of Methamphetamine, arrest is made. The court ruled that this was an illegal search and the Meth was inadmisable as evidence.
Basically they felt the border agent had no business squeezing bags, and go into detail as to what is a legal and illegal squeeze.
As far as employees being searched, is there maybe some fine print in your contract, that could be manipulated into meaning you consent to being searched by your employer? Or that by accepting employment you by default consent to the search? Just like when you make an application for a drivers license there is fine print that says you consent to a breathalizer test. Most of us don't read the legal mumbo jumbo, we just sign and get out of the DMV as quick as possible. By the way, I'm not a lawyer, just throwin' this stuff out for discussion.

 

[ksu_aviator]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

That should be all the argument needed. Show me where the governement has "probably cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person's or theings to be seized." The words oath or affirmation imply that testimony or proof of wrong doing must be presented in order to search and seize an individuals property. The government has neither proof nor testimony that I have done any thing to warrant being searched and therefore has no legal authority to do so.

How ever, like I and others have stated if the airport or airline felt so inclined as a part of our dealings/employment then that would be a completely different issue.

 

[RJFlyer]

prpjt: good points.

ksu_aviator:

How ever, like I and others have stated if the airport or airline felt so inclined as a part of our dealings/employment then that would be a completely different issue.

The airlines paid for security screening, prior to last month. Now the government has seen fit to take over, on what I assume was a Congressional vote spurred by constituent sentiment. So was it constitutional last month, but not this month merely because the airlines are no longer paying Argenbright but the government is? After all, currently those doing the searching are still employees of a private company.

 

[Flydaplane]

Skydiverdriver, I understand that jumpseaters and nonrev employees are not actually purchasing the ticket, however most, not all, airlines' computer systems input their names into the computer (as standby's or something like that) and for one reason or another they come up as selectees. Not sure why some do and some don't.

 

[ShawnC]

prpjt: good points.

ksu_aviator:



The airlines paid for security screening, prior to last month. Now the government has seen fit to take over, on what I assume was a Congressional vote spurred by constituent sentiment. So was it constitutional last month, but not this month merely because the airlines are no longer paying Argenbright but the government is? After all, currently those doing the searching are still employees of a private company.

Well thats the question that I am rasing pirior to this the only place that we could complain to is the FAA for making the regs, and the airlines for hiring the people.

Now that they are government workers (or will be in the coming months) there is now the questions of consitiutionality once they all become government employees. From what it seems like, I have done no harm and you have no probale cause to search me (traveling is an everyday activity there is nothing out of the ordinary when you travel). I could just as easily taken my care and these days for the shorter trips it would actaully take less time if you drive.

 

[RJFlyer]

I could just as easily taken my care and these days for the shorter trips it would actaully take less time if you drive.

I assume you mean you could just as easily drive and it would be faster. This is true, and this is one of the options you have when you decide to travel. This is where the issue of consent comes in - you have other travel options, and you can certainly expect to be screened when traveling by air. Therefore, in purchasing your ticket, you imply consent to be screened (this applies to airline employees, as well - you imply consent by accepting employment at an airline).

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

I think the key aspects of this quote are the terms 'unreasonable searches and seizures,' 'probable cause,' and 'particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.' Is it unreasonable for the airlines, the government, and the people of the US to assume that there are people who would like to carry weapons aboard an airliner? I don't think it's unreasonable at all, therefore it would seem to be a 'reasonable' search. Probable cause - again, there are those who would (and will) attempt to bring weapons aboard airliners. That's a pretty good cause to search for those items. And the place to be searched is the entire secure area of the airport terminals, and all effects within that area. The things to be seized have been spelled out by the FAA - knives, guns, explosives, pointed objects, nail clippers, etc.

One other aspect I think is important in this issue is that there is already precedent, in that these searches have been performed for years. The government is doing nothing new, just doing the same old stuff on a more comprehensive scale.