Originally Posted by copwriter
1. Under normal circumstances, an LEO must have at least reasonable suspicion to detain someone and search them for weapons. But an airport checkpoint is not a normal circumstance. Anyone going through that checkpoint, by virtue of doing this, submits themselves for search. This is because the government has asserted that it has a compelling governmental interest in insuring the security of the aircraft. The compelling governmental interest is always open to court challenge, of course, and it may have already been reviewed, or will be at some future date.
2. The airport checkpoint is not a unique situation. If you choose to visit someone in prison, you have to submit to a search. If you enter most courthouses and many government buildings, you have to submit to a search. Most of the time, these are limited to passing through a metal detector, but they can be more intrusive. If you decline, you are certainly free to turn around and leave, just as you are at a TSA checkpoint. There is no constitutional right to fly on a commercial aircraft.
3. As a court officer some years ago, I was directed by my judge to search everyone that came into the courtroom for weapons, even though they had passed through a metal detector at the courthouse entrance (this was a high-profile trial with a defendant known for violent behavior). That meant wanding everyone, searching briefcases and purses (which the attorneys really didn't like), and physically searching anyone that didn't pass the "wanding" test. Those under subpoena didn't have much to say about it, as if they had refused (no one did), the judge would simply have held them in contempt.
4. So, to sum up, there are places and circumstances where no level of suspicion is required to conduct a search. In most cases, the person being searched voluntarily places themselves in that situation, and can refuse, but is then denied the use of the facilities.
I broke your post down to numbered paragraphs in order to make responding easier.
1. I am familiar with compelling governmental interest exception and I hope that the airport checkpoint proceudres will be reviewed in Court at some future date. Most likely, it will happen as a result of a lawsuit.
2. I never have any objection to WTMD. In this case the compelling government interest certainly balances very limited intrusiveness of the search. Anything more intrusive must, IMO, be scrutinized more closely. The "free to leave" argument may not hold up if leaving involves giving up some other right, guaranteed by the Constitution. I know that we differ in our opinions whether flying on a commercial aircraft is a constitutional right. Perhaps, at some point the courts will step in and resolve it.
3. A judge certainly has the authority to give such an order. Perhaps, given the specific circumstances you described, it might have been reasonable. An appeal could have probaly been made to a higher court. If it was not, then we are in agreement that the search was, indeed, reasonable.
4. To sum up, a distinction must be made between a truly voluntary consent to a search and a situation when refusing such consent means giving up some other constitutionally protected right.