Newsstand - Broader search OK at airports, U.S. court rules

Broader search OK at airports, U.S. court rules
Drugs found when bag punctured
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/04/05/BA149892.DTL

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Customs agents were entitled to puncture an airline passenger's bag and examine the contents after his actions and an X-ray of the bag aroused their suspicions, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday.

In upholding the passenger's drug conviction and 20-year sentence, the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco set guidelines for "routine" luggage searches -- which can be conducted without evidence of wrongdoing. The ruling appeared to pose no obstacle to the screening required by the airline security law signed by President Bush last fall.</font>

I consider these filthy "random security" searches of my baggage and wanding/pat-downs to be quite "personally intrusive". I hope the Supreme Court disagrees with the district court on this one.

"However, the court said, a search may be considered nonroutine -- requiring a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing -- if it damages the luggage significantly or is conducted in a "personally intrusive" way"

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

Hey, you don't want a search which you consider too personally intrusive, then don't try to use commercial air transport, for which the federal government provides significant financing (for airports, etc.), air traffic control, and, most importantly, security (so that a passenger airline filled with jet fuel is, we hope, not again used as a guided missile). That is not to say that the security presently in place guarantees that it will not happen again, but the Court has to balance the personal and governmental interests. And recent events have shown the overwhelming importance of the governmental interest in security at stake here.

Private and charter transportation, as well as personal automobile transportation will allow you to avoid the searches if you consider them too personally intrusive. Frankly, given that the most recent hijackings were accomplished (apparently) with nothing more lethal than box-cutters, I think a lot of people want the searches to be somewhat intrusive, as that may be the only way of having "some" chance of preventing further such incidents (at least until much better technology is in general use).

Djlawman

I think this argument is specious, djlawman. What is happening in airports will happen on the streets, in cars, in our homes. All in the name of "terrorism."

The argument is that since we travel by air, we "consent" to this search. Well, if we travel by "personal automobile" then the next step is that we "consent" to a search there, too, and so it goes without end.

The next step is stopping us randomly whereever we are an searching us, profiling us, filming us on videotape and tracking us every moment. Unless we start taking this seriously it is the end of any civil rights we might have had.

Fine. What's your solution? Search no one? Already tried that. Didn't work very well on Sept. 11th. And thank goodness Richard Reid was too stupid to go into the lavatory to try to explode his shoe bomb(s).

There may be better technology out there somewhere, eventually, which may help (although I understand that the x-ray machines you walk through give someone a pretty good scan of what you look like without your clothes on--talk about personally intrusive). But 10,000 of those machines are not going to appear out of nowhere this month for every airport security checkpoint. And everyone would agree that new bomb-sniffing scanners for all luggage would be a great idea too, but same problem at this moment. We can't make them appear out of nowhere.

So, as of RIGHT NOW, what do you suggest we do instead? You have been made head of the new federal transportation security agency. What are you going to do to make airline travel secure (with only the presently available resources--not using machines that haven't been produced and delivered yet)?

Djlawman

Nothing surprising about this ruling; the search occured in Customs, not as part of the regular screening process for weapons. I always assumed that customs had free reign to search (or destroy) suitcases as they saw fit. The court agreed.

But just wait until they try this at the screening checkpoint - the outcome will be markedly different, unless the judges subscribe to the "Anything is OK if it Helps Prevent Another September 11" school of thought.

Actually, it didn't work very well because of 2 mistakes. The pilots opened the cockpit doors and the pax assumed that they would not be harmed if they cooperated with the hijackers. Guess what? Those days are OVER! No one is going to hijack a plane with sharp objects ever again.

Here's my solution:

X-Ray and use explosive detector on carryons and checked bags. Pass people thru magnetometer and nitrates detector. No alarm? NO WAND! Nothing suspicious on X-Ray? NO SEARCH! Something amiss? Take intelligent further action. All done? THAT'S ALL. No "random security" searches.

Permit pocket knives on a plane. No one is going to be able to hijack a plane with a Swiss Army Knife. The other pax WILL subdue the Insane Army Knife Psycho.

Stop the guns, stop the explosives, use common sense. It's all that is needed.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Djlawman:
Fine. What's your solution? Search no one? Already tried that. Didn't work very well on Sept. 11th. And thank goodness Richard Reid was too stupid to go into the lavatory to try to explode his shoe bomb(s).

There may be better technology out there somewhere, eventually, which may help (although I understand that the x-ray machines you walk through give someone a pretty good scan of what you look like without your clothes on--talk about personally intrusive). But 10,000 of those machines are not going to appear out of nowhere this month for every airport security checkpoint. And everyone would agree that new bomb-sniffing scanners for all luggage would be a great idea too, but same problem at this moment. We can't make them appear out of nowhere.

So, as of RIGHT NOW, what do you suggest we do instead? You have been made head of the new federal transportation security agency. What are you going to do to make airline travel secure (with only the presently available resources--not using machines that haven't been produced and delivered yet)?

Djlawman</font>



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

Oh, how I loathe "implied consent". What a chicken@#$% way to skirt the 4th Amendment. At this rate, the government will write some kind of "implied consent" into every mortgage. Hey, you can't be too safe and the more "random security" the better, right??

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by richard:
The argument is that since we travel by air, we "consent" to this search. Well, if we travel by "personal automobile" then the next step is that we "consent" to a search there, too, and so it goes without end.

The next step is stopping us randomly whereever we are an searching us, profiling us, filming us on videotape and tracking us every moment. Unless we start taking this seriously it is the end of any civil rights we might have had.</font>



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

Djlawman, good question. Here are four answers:

First, I would prohibit, absolutely, any law enforcement activity whatsoever at security checkpoints except that which is necessary for airplane security. No drugs, no sex, no rock 'n' roll, nothing but rooting out bombs if any.

Second, I would let regular passengers come onto an airplane armed with frangible ammunition. The passengers are what make air travel safe.

Third, I would support having an armed and informed populace rather than trusting in government.

Fourth, I would let the airlines and passengers decide on security, with adequate disclosure so people can make their own informed decisions. Let people make their decisions and let airlines compete with security -- or not -- as their customers dictate.

Fifth (bonus answer), recognize that stuff happens. Terror will happen on the ground, if it cannot happen in the air. We have to live with this. What we cannot do is trample over every right and liberty (happening now). We must be reasonable and be willing to live with some amount of uncertainty and insecurity and terror, because that is reality. Thinking otherwise is wishful thinking and is making 2002 into 1984.

"Second, I would let regular passengers come onto an airplane armed with frangible ammunition. The passengers are what make air travel safe."

Sorry Richard, I find it hard to understand how we allow the "regular passengers" to come on board with ammunition without letting some terrorists with guns and ammunition through. That's giving them a huge head start toward hijacking the plane. Oh, we'll rely on the other passengers to shoot them? What if no other passengers remember to bring their guns? What if the passengers on board aren't very good shots? How many bullets do we let each person have.? What if a group of terrorists act quickly and bring enough guns and ammunition to kill everyone on board quickly? We'll have the Wild Wild West in the skies.

How do we make sure it is frangible ammunition and not cockpit-armor piercing capable? I can't believe that that is going to be an easier inspection for the airport security morons than what is going on right now! Sorry, I don't believe you've proposed a realistic solution, and I am not willing to fly an airline that relies on you and your gun (maybe) to protect my safety. I would never fly an airline that adopted this method of (in)"security".

Djlawman

Djlawman, I understand your skepticism about that point. It truly looks wack-o although I believe it makes sense.

It makes sense on the ground -- an armed citizenry can protect itself against bad people -- so what's so different about the air? It is the passengers who truly protect us anyway. If the pax on 9/11 had known what we know now, there would not have been the same outcome, in all probability, as witness the brave defense that the pax put up on the UA flight in Pennsylvania.

But what of point #1, which addresses the subject of this thread, the decision by the U.S. court that lets a search ostensibly for aircraft security turn into an evidence gathering excercise for whatever else turns up? Do you agree with me or disagree with me?

This is exactly the type of niggling little issues that make a huge difference between law or no law.

Recall the case where the cops went onto a bus and began bag-squeezing. I believe the Supremes ruled this unreasonable. Someone traveling by bus does not have to have their bags squeezed (a common practice to sniff out drug evidence).

There is a public necessity for aircraft security. But beyond that, why should you have no privacy just because you choose to travel by air?