FlyerTalk Forums - View Single Post - Discussion: Constitutionality of BOS (Logan) BDO program
Old Sep 13, 2011 | 11:01 pm
  #336  
ND Sol
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,957
Originally Posted by battensea
It seems pretty clear, as stated here elsewhere, that the 9th Circuit has disagreed with you, in Torbet (Torbet v. United States, 298 F. 3d 1087, 2002), Gilmore, and Davis. So long as the prospective passenger has the option of turning around and declining air travel rather than submitting to the screening process, the court has found that the security procedures have not been unconstitutional. (Important: the courts have acknowledged a constitutional right to travel, but NOT a right to travel by air per se.)
This was stated explicitly (Gilmore) with regard to the challenge on the basis of the Fourth Amendment:

And why wouldn't the court find the same for a Fifth Amendment challenge -- so long as the prospective passenger retains the option of remaining silent and turning around and leaving rather than agreeing to interrogation (or agreeing, perhaps, to secondary screening in lieu of the preliminary step of interrogation)?

It would seem that the strongest constitutional challenge to this new security procedure would be directed toward being asked to state personal private information (eg purpose of travel and with whom you are/were meeting*) in full hearing of others, on the basis of an expectation of privacy.(Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 [1967] [Harlan, J., concurring]). Is asking for that kind of personal, private information, particularly in public, reasonable and, crucially, is it "no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives"?(Davis)

*It seems very unlikely that an argument that being asked to state your name to the screener in the presence of strangers would be considered a violation of the Fourth Amendment, given that I suspect the courts would be unlikely to find that there is a reasonable expectation of keeping one's name private in the screening process. By presenting him- or herself to the checkpoint, and subsequently to the gate, a prospective passenger implicitly consents to having his name spoken in public, just as occurs in a doctor's waiting room, a school, or in many government offices.
Gilmore was presented with the opportunity to not show ID and be subjected to further screening of his person and property. Instead he chose to leave the premises and sue. Other cases revolve around the screening of persons and property for WEI, not for playing 20 questions. The standard out of Davis is “[an administrative search is allowed if] no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.”

One has to use some tortured reasoning to reach the conclusion that questioning is for the purpose "to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose". As such, I think that a passenger would have a strong case if he was denied access to the sterile area solely for refusing to play 20 questions.
ND Sol is offline