Originally Posted by
NY-FLA
Well, you are correct, currently, under the highest court ruling such a challenge has ever reached, IIRC. Good luck keeping the courts aligned with you, going forward, as you keep reciting the mantra that all who enter the sanctity of an airport check-point "implicitly consented" to your "probable cause" conclusions simply because eg, one is carrying > $10,000 in cash, took photographs of your sanctified little area, or otherwise disrupted the happy-faced, facile dragnet you seem to have constructed at BNA. And now you feel qualified to conclude what a court ruling would have been in a different time with different evidence? When earlier in the post, referring to a circuit court decision, you use such loose, impenetrable terms as "US justices?",
You are one simple, but very dangerous person, and nothing you wrote since you first appeared here makes me want to do anything save give BNA as wide of a berth as feasible. We're probably both a lot happier that way.
Probable cause has nothing to do with airport-security checkpoints. As deemed by the courts, it is an administrative search. You try so hard to make things sound so bad and twist words of others to fit your responses. I have stated time and time again that the $10k mark has nothing to do with the small amount of seizures that occur at airports. A large sum of money (normally much more than $10k) plus several other factors will lead to law enforcement intervention and possibly seizure of the currency. Unless you have law enforcement experience, and specifically interdiction experience, I would not expect you or others here to understand.
As far as "qualifications," I simply stated an opinion. Why don't you give your argument as to why you think the 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals would have ruled differently in the Aukai case had it been private security instead of TSA who discovered the felony amount of drugs? As far as "loose impenetrable" terms go, I apologize for being too lazy to type out
US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Justices. Give me a break.
Facile dragnet? How is BNA any different from any other checkpoint where possible contraband/drugs are reported by TSA that are discovered during the screening process. Are you seriously implying that this is something new to the checkpoint community? It seems that many here forget this has been done since screening began. Get over it man.
And for God's sake, why don't you and boca come off the photograph issue. I'm pretty sure I could dig up the aged-old post where I simply advised that BNA has a policy against commercial photography/video without consent from the Airport Authority. I could care less about passengers taking pictures. I love how you and others try to dig up as much as possible, twist it to make me sound like an a**hole and repost it again and again. No wonder law enforcement and others looking in from another angle are few and far between on this forum. Heaven forbid there is a difference of opinion aside from the majority on FT.
You just made an argument for putting checkpoints at every street corner, allowing random police searches of homes, throwing out the 4th Amendment completely, etc. The founders knew better than to allow that, because the perceived gain in security/safety wasn't worth the loss of liberty. It's disturbing that many if not most of our law-enforcement community doesn't understand that.
Rewording what you just said (replace aircraft with "foot"):
Not sure where you get that from, but I assure you, I am fine with the checkpoints being where they are. As I stated a page or so ago, I do not see anything that would indicate such checkpoints are going to pour out onto the streets.