Originally Posted by
Trollkiller
The principle is different. If you used a better x-ray to search a randomed bag after it went through the first x-ray you would have a similar case.
Notice the Court made note that the method of detection was the same, metal detection, and it relied on the same information, the presence of metal. It also said it could not "sustain a subsequent search that differs in material respects from the search initially approved".
I think that a hand search would be different in material respects than an x-ray.
Remember as part of the argument is the "current technology" bit. Are you claiming that a hand search is "current technology"?
I believe it is the same in principle. There are many different searches conducted at the checkpoint. Yes, one is a metal detector. Others are not.
As I have been told when we receive the new whole body imagers here those who go through these machines will NOT go through a metal detector, as the pilot programs have ended.
There will eventually be better x-rays at the checkpoint, but only in the sense as they are in checked baggage. They help to detect certain components of IEDs, not other prohibited items, such as knives or guns, etc. And then only very specific parts of components. When we get such x-rays they will do little to enhance the screening for knives, guns and other items that are WEIs.
Considering that other cases cited by the case we are discussing here have uphelp the various means by which a checkpoint employees conduct searches, I believe the principles upheld by this ruling specifically apply to the various searches we conduct. Or course, under the assumption such searches are only to find WEIs and other prohibited items.