Originally Posted by
MichaelKade
Having just read it, I would say it is relevant. The point made was that once someone enters the checkpoint, they consent to be searched and cannot leave. The rationale given was that someone might use this as a way to "test" the security and allowing them to leave essentially gives them a 0-risk way to do so. For example, if I am carrying a weapon on my ankle, I can test to see if when I go through they will pat down my ankle. If they don't, I've been able to sneak the weapon through. If they attempt to do so, if I am allowed to leave this allows me the ability to get away even though what I was trying to do violates the law/security rules.
The issue I have is that the rules around what is "reasonable" are not clearly defined or are defined well beyond what I personally consider reasonable.
In what context does this "reasonable" criteria come in? Aukai says that "the reasonableness of such searches does not depend, in whole or in part, upon the consent of the passenger being searched". In other words, once you start the process, you have to finish it. There is no requirement for anything to be "reasonable" with regard to your right to back out.