Interesting article! Time & time again, people on both sides of the "security debate" cite "implied consent" and/or "plain view" to make their points (I've done it a lot.).

I've struggled with this every time I fly. Plain & simple, there's something I don't like -- rather "distrust" -- about this whole TSA thing, but I can't put my finger on it. I may have complained about Argenbright a time or two in the old days, but I can't honestly recall distrusting them. Everytime I see a TSA uniform, the first emotion that comes over me is distrust -- maybe not of the individual, but certainly of what he or she represents. Distrust of government is what got our country started in the first place and is one of the fundamental characteristics keeping it going.

At a higher level, you know darn well that Ashcroft (as the nation's chief LEO) would be looking at our library records, conduct random searches on the street or in our homes, have CAPPS-II in place, and have his "Spy on Your Neighbor" program going full-blast if he thought he could get away with it. Imagine -- 200 million "persons of interest!"

It comes to mind that the only thing that comes marginally close to government-run airport screening is sobriety checkpoints. "Implied consent" and "plain view" have been tested time & time again at various levels of the judicial branch and the boundaries appear to be reasonably set. I know the "plain view" doctrine drives most cops crazy because it's very restrictive. So, their response has been to invent deceptive tactics designed to either intimidate or cajole people into giving up rights. Interestingly, the last time I got stopped in one, the two "Staties" did everything they could to see inside every visible nook & crannie of my pick-up. They shoved the requisite pamphlets at me which I could see weren't all about the dangers of drinking and driving. They were all about the justification they used to do what they did at the checkpoint.

The TSA is decades behind current police boundaries in terms of legal decisions. There aren't any, let's face it. They assume that pot buried deep within a carry-on bag, hidden inside a belt buckle, or hidden inside a cigarette case is "in plain view." They have taken on the War on Drugs as an "additional duty" because nobody in the legislative or judicial branch has told them they can't do it.

There has to be some sort of legal restraints placed on government-run airport security before it's too late. As long as the TSA focuses the public debate on getting through the checkpoint as quickly as possible rather than on the Constitution, restraints will never happen. If, as the author states, legal and illegal drugs, bootleg CDs, large amounts of cash, porn, etc, are in the TSA's job jar; and, if you give "implied consent" simply by walking into an airport terminal; and, if EVERYTHING on your person or in your personal belongings is considered "in plain view," I wish this Administration would simply have the guts to tell us that. I know perfectly well that airports have been convenient places to entrap and arrest bad guys ever since the days of the DC-3. However, the big difference is that the arrest has been carried out according to due process.

This isn't about the TSA or individual screeners. I wouldn't expect views from those in the airport security profession other than coming down strongly on the side of implied consent/plain view. It's about the bigger picture, and I'm not sure I like what I see on the horizon. The civil liberties side of the aisle really needs to start confronting the scope of screening practices in a big way while there's still an open society in which to conduct said debate.