Originally Posted by
TSORon
But did you comprehend it?
Gilmore had a meaningful choice. He could have presented identification, submitted to a search, or left the airport. That he chose the latter does not detract from the fact that he could have boarded the airplane had he chosen one of the other two options. Thus, we reject Gilmore's Fourth Amendment arguments.
Simple logic tells us that if Gilmore's choice wasn't meaningful (e.g. identify yourself or leave the airport) that the court's decision would have been different.
As far as I know, no court so far has ruled on the Constitutionality of whether or not the government can have a no-fly list and restrict people from traveling via such a list. TSA wiggled out of that one by saying that ID is not required to fly in
Gilmore. If ID or an identification process is not required to fly, then the no-fly list is meaningless. @:-)
I hope the
Ibrahim v DHS case that is winding its way through the Ninth Circuit is probably going to be an interesting test of the no-fly list. So far, the SFPD settled her suit for false arrest. The private contractor at the "Freedom Center" (i.e. the person who answers the phone when there is a match with the no-fly list) instructed them to arrest her because her name was on a secret government list. I wonder why the police didn't want to try and defend that?
