Originally Posted by PresRDC
HeelLaw, the wanding of your bare feet is without a doubt ridiculous. That said, I think the principles underlying the Edwards decision are still valid, if not more so in the wake of 9/11. Even though methods have changed since 1974, I don't think they've chnaged enough to impact the precedential value of the case. In any event, despite its age, it is binding authority on all Federal District Courts in New York, Connecticut and Vermont and is highly persuasive authority (but non-binding) in all other circuits. That the Supreme Court gave its approval to the case in 1989, only serves to make it more persuasive.
I absolutely agree that, after Terry and other SC decisions on the issue, some sort of airport screening is permissible. I would just argue that the
scope of the screening has, at many times, crossed the 'reasonable' or 'good-faith' line. So I would disagree, in that I do think that things have changed factually enough since 74 (when U.S. airliners were being hijacked on a regular basis) that a court wouldn't rubber stamp it -- or at least shouldn't.
I don't know if you looked at the 1989 case or just the lexis notes from the Edwards case, but the 89 decision was 5-4 and the approval was just a mention in a footnote. It wasn't really a ringing endorsement of any and all government activity in airports.