Airport Searches Illeagal?

[Andy Neill]

RJFlyer,

It is reasonable to expect that there are criminals, illegal weapons, and drugs in some US neighborhoods. That does NOT give the government probable cause to search that nor ANY other neighborhood door to door without a warrant.

 

[RJFlyer]

Andy,

You are right, but they are not screening you in your neighborhood. See the rest of my post about implied consent, etc.

I will repeat my question from several days ago, which nobody seems to have an answer to:

Let's assume for a moment that those of you who believe airport security is unconstitutional (i.e., illegal search and seizure) are proven correct. How then would you propose to keep bombs, guns and knives off of the airplane you are flying?

Lots of people are on here complaining about their rights being violated, with nobody proposing a solution.

 

[ksu_aviator]

RJ, your argument is somewhat flawed. Just because it is reasonable to believe that someone in a group of people may be carrying something similar to a weapon does not mean that the government has probable cause to search any one individual. Especially if no prior knowledge of a weapon exists.

As for the solution, I thought I stated it. Continue with private organizations conducting the search. A simple regulation that states either the Airport or Airline is responsible for ensuring that no weapons are brought onto an airplane (save the hunting rifles, shotguns and other no explosive weapons carried in cargo). Then the issue becomes one of consent. Not only would a passenger consider the price of a ticket, but the security that the airlines and airports offer would also be a consideration. The government can still set forth guidlines that the airlines and airports must follow. But, if the government is involved in the actual search it becomes unconstitutional.

 

[aero99]

Cops at airports can walk up to you and ask if they can do a search of belongings and pat down. If you say no, they will escourt you to a back room and write up a warrant to search you right there. The fact that you denied a search gives them probable cause, and the warrant makes it legal. They can do the same thing if they pull you over for a busted taillight.

I am not a cop nor a lawer, but a buddy of mine was a narcotics officer and he did this at DFW. Of course, they usually had something else they were going off of like a tip, but thats how they busted drug runners.

This seems unreasonable to me, but it happens. They are using the same tactics as it related to terrorist, but on a much wider scale.

 

[Andy Neill]

I was under the impression that only courts could issue warrants. Am I mistaken?

 

[aero99]

Judges issue warrants. There would be a judge at the airport to issue when they did drug searches.

 

[Andy Neill]

OK. That's good. We have a judge at the airport. That will make things easy.

"Excuse me, your honor. I have 300,000 people who will be passing through here today, and I wonder if you would mind writing individual search warrants. Probable cause? Well, you see, your honor, these people are traveling and we think SOME of them MIGHT be carrying weapons. Which ones? Well, your honor, I don't know exactly WHICH ones but surely SOME of them are. What's that, your honor? Don't let the door hit what on the way out?"

By the way, on the broken tail light stop, the police would NOT have the authority to search the trunk on such a stop.

 

[aero99]

Andy,

I didn't mean to imply that I agree with searches in this matter. Just another .02 to think about. My how 911 has changed our lives.

And you are correct on the tail light. But, if the cop finds somehting else that is probable cause they could. Don't know if they need a warrant or not at that point.

Again, I'm not a lawyer nor will I pretend I know too much about the law. The security at airports is insane right now and I would bet Airport Security and how it is handled will be a hot topic for years to come.

 

[prpjt]

For passengers anyway, there is a consent to search in a document called " conditions for carriage" or contract for carriage. This document should be available at the airport. More than likely airline employees are also bound by this or another contract. I don't know. This is the document that spells out what the airline is liable for, say if they lose or destroy your bag. Here's an excerpt from Phillipene Airlines contract.
E) SUBJECT TO SEARCH - The Carrier reserves the right to search the passenger and inspect or examine his baggage(s), in coordination with the airport authorities, for any prohibited materials and substances and seize such, if discovered. A passenger refusing to be searched shall not be allowed to board the aircraft for his designated flight. The Carrier, furthermore, reserves the right to refuse to carry, at any time, any baggage discovered to contain any prohibited or unacceptable article(s) or any baggage the inspection of which is refused by the passenger.
Comair's contract says basically the same thing. Though crewmembers are not specifically mentioned, I would bet there is some written legal jizmo that adreeses the crew somewhere.

 

[Lindy]

United States Supreme Court

First, the issue of searching individuals is NOT unconstitutional. Please read Terry v Ohio, as discussed in a previous post. It was decided 30 years ago!!

If you really are going to quote the U.S. Constitution, then maybe you should understand how the United States Supreme Court has decided, over hundreds of years, the meaning.

The statement about warrants -- do you see the "and" before "issuing of warrants" The 4th Amendment has two clauses....unreasonable searches and seizures and the issuing of warrants.

The first part of the amendment is broken down into a two-part litmus test, as desribed above. Additionally, before 9-11, the purchase of your airline ticket was IMPLIED CONSENT to be searched by the Airlines. The Airlines are not providing a service to benefit the population, but trying to make money. If an Airline continually was hijacked or had bomb threats, would you, an average individual choose to fly? NO. You would fly the (allegedly) safer Airline. Security began because of hijackings and the safety of the passengers (read: it cost the Airlines less money to hire security than settle lawsuits of hijacked passengers).

And, who would you sue? You cannot make allegations that it is unconstitutional for your employer to "search" you every time you went to work? Why -- the airline is private sector. So you would bring the lawsuit in Federal District Court against the United States governent, alleging that it is a government function and all searches are "unreasonable." Any proposed lawsuit against an airport search as being unconstitutional would be denied. Why? There is not a "reasonable expectation of privacy" afforded to individuals flying on an airline. The alleged infringement of constitutional rights outweigh the "greater good" (airline safety).

And, on a business note: say an airline decides that you are correct and will stop searching passengers. It would take an insurance company only minutes to cancel any policy. That's right, aircraft hull & liability -- cancelled; personal injury -- cancelled. Now if there is any type of accident, for example, aircraft slides off the end of a wet runway, totals aircraft to the tune of several million dollars and many injured passengers. Who will pay?? The insurance companies have cancelled the policies (airlines are underwritten by several companies, not just one; additionally there exists a term called "reinsurance" thrown about on potentially large liability policies) and now the airline is bankrupt.

The arguments about airport searches being unconstitutional have no merit. If you would like a better understanding of the law, as decided by many benches, then go to the United States Surpeme Court site and research cases. Begin with Terry v Ohio.