Airport Searches Illeagal?

[Andy Neill]

FurloughedGal,

First, many thanks for the reference. It made for some interesting lunchtime reading. However, I remain unconvinced.

Don't you think there were some striking differences between Terry v Ohio and the everyday traveler going through security? In Terry, an EXPERIENCED (39 years as a policeman) detective observed repeated SUSPICIOUS behavior over a period of time. He eventually questioned the suspects (granted, before reaching grounds for arrest) and searched them as a PRECAUTION FOR HIS OWN SAFETY. During the couse of the searches, he found the weapons which led to their convictions.

The court, in their opinion asserted that the provisions of the 4th Ammendment protect the person, not the place meaning that the men the policemen detained, barring any suspicious behavior on their part, retained that right of privacy from search even on the streets of Ohio.

Now let's get back to the everyday air traveler. What has he done to arouse the suspicion of law enforcement authorities that would warrant a search of his person or belongings? What reasonable belief does a police officer have that he would find a weapon. Of the hundreds of thousands of searches done daily, why is it that when a weapon is found, it makes national news? The reason is that it is a one in a million event. If I am not acting suspiciously as I travel, the government has no right to detain me. If finding a weapon is a 1:1,000,000 event, the government has no reasonable basis to believe that I pose any harm to its agents.

I remain unconvinced that Terry v Ohio provides any justification for the bulk of airport searches.

 

[ShawnC]

Well you make some good point but there are some holes in your defence, first in formost I relize that before it was private and there was implied consent to be searched my an airliner representive, well now they are federal workers/officers and that changes alot.

Second from the Terry v Ohio they came about the weapons search, "Terry" Pat. They are allowed to quickly search you for guns and knives and other hazderous materials. But they can't pull out a bag of dope if they feel it, they must ask (there have been several cases dissmised due to evidence found during a Terry pat is thrown out). When they said weapon the law generally mean weapons, knives guns, etc. But it doesn't say anything about Medal of Honors, nail clippers, and nail files.

 

[RJFlyer]

Ok, once more. What would you propose be done then? How do we keep our aircraft safe from hijackers and suicidal maniacs? And ksu_aviator, your solution isn't a solution - the airlines had that responsibility before, but the public (through its elected representatives) deemed that they weren't doing a proper job and placed the responsibility on the federal government.

Currently the only difference between today and pre-911 is the type of items allowed to be carried (or not) and the thoroughness of the screening. Did you all forget that there was security screening pre-911?

When they said weapon the law generally mean weapons, knives guns, etc. But it doesn't say anything about Medal of Honors, nail clippers, and nail files.

The perception of what is (or could be) a weapon has changed.

Which portions of the screening process do you object to (those of you who think screening is unconstitutional)?

 

[ksu_aviator]

I never said that what we had before was good, I just said it was constitional. Transferring the same screeners from private to federal didn't improve anything. It was constitutional before and it can be improved. Remember the terrorists did everything legally up until they charged the cabin. They used the rules against us, not the personell. Change the rules not how writes the paychecks.

 

[flx757]

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.

Actually, the security directive states that uniformed crewmembers are exempt from random screening AT THE SECURITY CHECKPOINT. What happens at the gate is something else entirely...and it's been my experience that dead-heading crewmembers and jumpseaters will most likely be selected.

 

[Lindy]

Private Sector

The issue of constitutionality pertains, generally, to governmental entities. Flying as a passenger is a private sector issue. As such, the companies have the right to refuse boarding and/or handling of bags/freight.

The company chooses how to handle the boarding of passengers. If they wanted to make us strip down before we utilized the service they are providing, the airline could demand such actions. (Note: This is a hypothetical......)

With respect to the discussion of Terry v Ohio, why did I utilize the case for this discussion? It was decided by the US Supreme Court, upheld numerous times, and is the law regarding "searches of individuals." Yes, the facts are different...a police officer (government function) searching an individual on the street versus a passenger being searched in order to board an airplane.

What I see missing in these discussions is the purpose of the search -- access to aircraft. (Now, if you want to discuss the disparate treatment of mechanics, a/c services personnel, etc. versus flight crews, well..........).

The airline has the final authority (or should I say the Captain ...I'm digressing....looks like the American Airlines Captain versus the Secret Service Agent is beginning to heat up via legal channels.....) to decide who they will or will not board.

The whole argument about constitutionality is irrelevant with respect to security searches at the airport -- it isn't a government function. Talking out of both sides of my mouth? (I haven't read the recent legislation regarding federalizing, etc. However, I have faith that it will be attacked constitutionally in the courts, and will survive, in a meandering way, the legal attacks.)

If you want to fly on [insert name of company] airline, then that airline has the right, responsibility, and authority to decide who they will or will not permit access to the aircraft.

FYI: If anyone is interested in "landmark" cases decided by the Court, I would suggest picking up "May it Please the Court...." It is a great overview of arguments presented with respect to some of the more recent/popular issues addressing the Court. For example, the Miranda case is discussed as well as reverse discrimination.

Or, spend three years in law school.....pass the bar....and decide that flying a Learjet is cool....