Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More than 700 million passengers board commercial air-
craft in the United States each year.]The Transportation
Security Administration (“TSA”) is given the task of ensuring
their safety, the safety of airline and airport personnel and, as
the events of September 11, 2001, demonstrate, the safety of
the general public from risks arising from commercial airplane
flights. To do so, the TSA conducts airport screening
searches of all passengers entering the secured area of the airport.
We have previously held such airport screening searches
are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches. Today
we clarify that the reasonableness of such searches does not
depend, in whole or in part, upon the consent of the passenger
beng searched.
The Fourth Amendment requires the government to
respect “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons
. . . and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
U.S. Const. amend. IV. “A search or seizure is ordinarily
unreasonable in the absence of individualized suspicion of
wrongdoing. While such suspicion is not an ‘irreducible’
component of reasonableness, [the Supreme Court has] recognized
only limited circumstances in which the usual rule does
not apply.” City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 37
(2000) (citations omitted). However, “where the risk to public
safety is substantial and real, blanket suspicionless searches
calibrated to the risk may rank as ‘reasonable’—for example,
searches now routine at airports and at entrances to courts and
other official buildings.” Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305,
323 (1997) (holding Georgia’s requirement that candidates for state office pass a drug test did not fit within this exception)
(citing Nat’l Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489
U.S. 656, 674-76 & n.3 (1989) (upholding warrantless drug
testing of employees applying for promotion to positions
involving drug interdiction)). Thus, “where a Fourth Amendment
intrusion serves special governmental needs, beyond the
normal need for law enforcement, it is necessary to balance
the individual’s privacy expectations against the Government’s
interests to determine whether it is impractical to
require a warrant or some level of individualized suspicion in
the particular context.” Von Raab, 489 U.S. at 665-66
Under this rationale the Supreme Court has repeatedly
upheld the constitutionality of so-called “administrative searches.”
In New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987), the
Supreme Court upheld the warrantless search of a junkyard’s
records, permits, and vehicles. The Supreme Court reasoned:
“Because the owner or operator of commercial premises in a
‘closely regulated’ industry has a reduced expectation of privacy,
the warrant and probable-cause requirements, which
fulfill the traditional Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness
for a government search have lessened application
. . .” Id. at 702 (internal citation omitted). Thus, New York’s
interest in regulating the junkyard industry, in light of the rise
of motor-theft and comprehensive motor vehicle insurance
premiums, served as a “special need” allowing inspection
without a warrant. Id. at 708-09; see also id. at 702. The regulatory
statute also provided a “constitutionally adequate sub-
UKAIstitute for a warrant” because the statute informed junkyard
operators that inspections would be made on a regular basis[
and limited the discretion of inspecting officers. Id. at 711.
We have held that airport screening searches, like the one at issue here, are constitutionally reasonable administra- tive searches because they are “conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, namely, to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft, and thereby to prevent hijackings.” United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973); see also United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174, 178 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 111 (2006); Marquez, 410 F.3d at 616. Our case law, however, has erroneously suggested that the reasonableness of airport screening searches is dependent upon consent, either ongoing consentor irrevocable implied consent.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 04-21-2013 at 12:00 PM..
Faisal Shahzad, who was convicted of planting a car bomb in Times Square, New York City,[23][24] was arrested after he had boarded Emirates Flight 202 to Dubai. He had been placed on the No Fly List earlier in the day.[25] The airline did not check the No Fly List for added names when Shahzad made his reservation that evening, when he later purchased the ticket,[25] or when he was allowed to board the plane. Only after a routine post-boarding check revealed that he was on the No Fly List[25] did agents board the plane and arrest him.[25]
Kind of like having universal background checks for guns, isn't it. Only the responsible gun purchasers get checked and the criminals avoid background checks and detection.
Makes one wonder why we don't have universal background checks for gun purchases but we do to board a private airplane.
[LEFT]More than 700 million passengers board commercial air-[/LEFT]
[SIZE=3][SIZE=3][LEFT]9650 U[/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=1][SIZE=1]NITED [/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=3][SIZE=3]S[/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=1][SIZE=1]TATES [/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=3][SIZE=3]v. A[/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=1][SIZE=1]UKAI[/LEFT]
[/SIZE][/SIZE][LEFT]craft in the United States each year.[SIZE=1][SIZE=1]1 [/SIZE][/SIZE]The Transportation
Security Administration (“TSAâ€) is given the task of ensuring
their safety, the safety of airline and airport personnel and, as
the events of September 11, 2001, demonstrate, the safety of
the general public from risks arising from commercial airplane
flights. To do so, the TSA conducts airport screening
searches of all passengers entering the secured area of the airport.
We have previously held such airport screening searches
are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches. Today
we clarify that the reasonableness of such searches does not
depend, in whole or in part, upon the consent of the passenger[/LEFT]
being searched.
[LEFT][1] The Fourth Amendment requires the government to
respect “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons
. . . and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.â€
U.S. Const. amend. IV. “A search or seizure is ordinarily
unreasonable in the absence of individualized suspicion of
wrongdoing. While such suspicion is not an ‘irreducible’
component of reasonableness, [the Supreme Court has] recognized
only limited circumstances in which the usual rule does
not apply.†City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 37
(2000) (citations omitted). However, “where the risk to public
safety is substantial and real, blanket suspicionless searches
calibrated to the risk may rank as ‘reasonable’—for example,
searches now routine at airports and at entrances to courts and
other official buildings.†Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305,
323 (1997) (holding Georgia’s requirement that candidates for[/LEFT]
[SIZE=3][SIZE=3][LEFT]9654 U[/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=1][SIZE=1]NITED [/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=3][SIZE=3]S[/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=1][SIZE=1]TATES [/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=3][SIZE=3]v. A[/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=1][SIZE=1]UKAI[/LEFT]
[/SIZE][/SIZE][LEFT]state office pass a drug test did not fit within this exception)
(citing Nat’l Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489
U.S. 656, 674-76 & n.3 (1989) (upholding warrantless drug
testing of employees applying for promotion to positions
involving drug interdiction)). Thus, “where a Fourth Amendment
intrusion serves special governmental needs, beyond the
normal need for law enforcement, it is necessary to balance
the individual’s privacy expectations against the Government’s
interests to determine whether it is impractical to
require a warrant or some level of individualized suspicion in
the particular context.†Von Raab, 489 U.S. at 665-66.[/LEFT] [LEFT][2] Under this rationale the Supreme Court has repeatedly
upheld the constitutionality of so-called “administrative searches.â€[/LEFT] [SIZE=1][SIZE=1][LEFT]2 [/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=3]In New York v. Burger[/SIZE][SIZE=3], 482 U.S. 691 (1987), the[/SIZE]
Supreme Court upheld the warrantless search of a junkyard’s
records, permits, and vehicles. The Supreme Court reasoned:
“Because the owner or operator of commercial premises in a
‘closely regulated’ industry has a reduced expectation of privacy,
the warrant and probable-cause requirements, which
fulfill the traditional Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness
for a government search have lessened application
. . . .†Id. at 702 (internal citation omitted). Thus, New York’s
interest in regulating the junkyard industry, in light of the rise
of motor-theft and comprehensive motor vehicle insurance
premiums, served as a “special need†allowing inspection
without a warrant. Id. at 708-09; see also id. at 702. The regulatory
statute also provided a “constitutionally adequate sub-[/LEFT]
[SIZE=3][SIZE=3][LEFT]U[/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=1][SIZE=1]NITED [/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=3][SIZE=3]S[/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=1][SIZE=1]TATES [/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=3][SIZE=3]v. A[/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=1][SIZE=1]UKAI [/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=3][SIZE=3]9655[/LEFT]
[/SIZE][/SIZE][LEFT]stitute for a warrant†because the statute informed junkyard
operators that inspections would be made on a regular basis[/LEFT]
and limited the discretion of inspecting officers. Id. at 711.
[LEFT][4] We have held that airport screening searches, like the[/LEFT]
one at issue here, are constitutionally reasonable administra-
[LEFT]tive searches because they are “conducted as part of a general
regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose,
namely, to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives
aboard aircraft, and thereby to prevent hijackings.â€[/LEFT] [LEFT]United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973); see
also United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174, 178 (3d Cir.),[/LEFT] [LEFT]cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 111 (2006); Marquez, 410 F.3d at 616.
Our case law, however, has erroneously suggested that the
reasonableness of airport screening searches is dependent
upon consent, either ongoing consent[SIZE=1][SIZE=1]4 [/SIZE][/SIZE]or irrevocable implied[/LEFT]
consent.[SIZE=1][SIZE=1]5 [/SIZE][/SIZE]
Kind of like having universal background checks for guns, isn't it. Only the responsible gun purchasers get checked and the criminals avoid background checks and detection.
Makes one wonder why we don't have universal background checks for gun purchases but we do to board a private airplane.
Okay, how do you determine if they can offer anything? Am I wrong to assume you are opposed to ANY searches at airports to include ID checks? Do you think an extremist would be more likely to board an aircraft full of western people if these unlawful and liberty threatening ID checks did not occur? How would you determine if someone is legally entering the country if you are unable to search a US citizen under any circumstances other than probable cause?
Airlines are private businesses, and they have the right to institute all of the security they want to protect their business. I have no issue with airport/airline security so long as it's reasonable.
How do i determine if immigrants have anything to offer? By their track records and education/skill set i suppose. I mean, that determination is made by people above my pay grade and i suspect that we have people that can make that call.
That doesn't mean that i'm against people with few skills coming here either. If they're willing to work hard and live by the law, then i'm cool with them being here and eventually becoming citizens if they color by the numbers and do it legally.
I wasn't asked about 300 other people (don't know where you got that silly arbitrary number from...but whatever). I was asked about my own view, and i gave it. Case closed.
There are about 300 people in a plane, but you bring up a good point. You are free to buy your own plane, and then it will be just you and no one will screen you.
Quote:
I was born a free American, and i want to die with the same damn freedoms i was born with and i don't want a single one of those freedoms molested or curtailed even the tiniest bit in exchange for security.
The Supreme Court has held the airport search constitutional, but like I said you are free to buy your own plane and fly with it. I am not willing to sacrofice my life, and the lives of my family members just to satisfy your sensitivities.
Or don't fly. If you feel violated at the airport, then stay the heck away from them.
Aviation security leaders are moving forward with plans to shift toward a risk-based system of passenger screening — an idea supported by the travel industry and government officials who want screeners to focus on travelers who may present a security threat.
But as details emerge on how governments and airlines plan to distinguish between “trusted travelers” eligible for lighter screening and those who will receive more scrutiny, civil liberties groups and some European regulators are questioning the use of vast amounts of personal data to decide which travelers to examine more closely — or to prevent from flying at all.
Quote:
Collecting and sharing information on passengers is at the heart of the new effort. The information governments use to vet passengers includes data individuals have volunteered by applying for trusted traveler programs, as well as information gathered through terrorist watch lists, criminal background checks and border checkpoint encounters.
Read the link and you will see all the references to the Supreme Court rulings on the issue. There is nothing new about this, because the first rulings were made in early 1970s when airplane hijackings were becoming a plague.
Read the link and you will see all the references to the Supreme Court rulings on the issue. There is nothing new about this, because the first rulings were made in early 1970s when airplane hijackings were becoming a plague.
Lets see those early rulings by the SCOTUS.
The 9th circuit court ruling, that you posted, regards whether a person has the right to refuse a full body search if they are not going to board an airplane. I consider that a ruling an infringement of the 4th Amendment if they did not obtain a warrant for this search.
This is what I found in about the SCOTUS's opinion in your link:
Quote:
The Supreme Court has not specifically held that airport screening
searches are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches.
(found in footnote under section III)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
