When was I chirping over photography beyond the standard and often encountered response from airport and street police when they see someone taking photos and try to invent non-existent authority or laws to stop it, or even try and confiscate the camera equipment. If a facility wishes to control commercial photography, they do, as you point out, have a right to offer or deny permission. A private citizen has the right to photograph any public building or facility, except where a prohibition is posted (military base, etc.). A private citizen may photograph any private facility or building if they are doing their photographing from public property - which is why, for example, American Airlines cannot prohibit me from taking photos of their aircraft from public property, but can prohibit photography of their crew while onboard the plane (private property).
I agree, but the main airport Terminal (although open to the public) can create and enforce its own policies.
MNAA Code #2.60.230 Photography.
No person shall take still, sound or motion pictures for commercial use on airport property without the approval of the executive director or his designated representative. This does not apply to those taken on lease airport tenant areas for private or promotional purposes.
(Prior code § 4A-1-15)
If you are in the Terminal building and/or on airport property, the above policy applies for those taking still, sound or motion pictures for commercial use. The latter of the policy indicates that we do not have control over those taking pictures in leased areas, only the leasee. So if you are in the common areas of the building (whether before or after security), or on surrounding airport properties and taking photos for commercial use, you need permission. If you do not have permission, you need to get it or you will be asked to leave. Refusal to comply could possibly lead to criminal trespass charges. You and others must understand that there are actually people who conduct surveillance for criminal purposes. We investigated some individuals not too long ago conducting surveillance on a large computer facility adjacent to airport property, who turned up a few weeks later in NC. Subsequent investigation revealed they were cargo thieves (out of South America) who had a history of stealing millions in equipment from distribution centers. Although there are probably far more that take photos with non-criminal intentions, should we allow anyone and everyone to take photos without so much as to walking up and asking them questions (non-detention/non-custodial situation)?
If the TSA or any authority conducting an administrative search (and this would include everyone from building security to the security checking your bags before you board the Statue of Liberty ferry) wants to involve the police, and the search will change from administrative to criminal, then the person being searched must be given the opportunity to refuse the criminal search, and the 'tattle' offered to the police cannot in itself be sufficient grounds to hold the person and their bags and request a warrant. Only an intelligent, properly informed and Constitutionally-aware judge would rule in this manner - but unfortunately, most of our judges have become lackeys to the criminal justice system and are no longer fair and balanced arbiters who are focused on ensuring justice is served and our rights are protected.
Here is where you and I will have to agree to disagree. I'm sure you are aware that the 9th Circuit has some of the more liberal judges than the other appellate courts across the US. There were actually many in the law enforcement community that were surprised in this ruling. I do not see many judges across the other federal courts who will disagree with the Aukai ruling, but that has yet to be determined.
In my eyes, simply allowing anyone to leave a security checkpoint after a search has been initiated (by putting bags on the x-ray belt and/or walking through the WTMD) gives every terrorist (or anyone else with the intent do to public harm) the opportunity to test the system and get away without a scratch if their test fails. If joe plumber knows that he can simply walk away from a search, then what good is a checkpoint? If his bag gets pulled for secondary screening because something is suspicious on the x-ray, and he says "no, I want to take my bag and leave the secure area," what the he** is the point of even having a checkpoint? Eventually if enough tests are conducted, someone is going to get through. Guess who is going to take the blow? TSA or whomever is doing the screening. So basically from your standpoint, they are dam*ed if they do, dam*ned if they don't.
Only an intelligent, properly informed and Constitutionally-aware judge would rule in this manner - but unfortunately, most of our judges have become lackeys to the criminal justice system and are no longer fair and balanced arbiters who are focused on ensuring justice is served and our rights are protected.
I would think that most judges who get appointed, specifically at the federal appellate level or SCOTUS are very "Constitutionally aware" of what is going on with searches, especially at federally mandated checkpoints.