Originally Posted by
SDF_Traveler
The search allows them to search you and any belongings you intend to bring into the sterile area and onto an aircraft. The scope should be limited to items such as weapons, explosives, or anything that may harm an aircraft or passengers.
...
However, the security checkpoint is there for aviation safety and safety of passengers/individuals - it is not there to make drug busts or discover other items that could be deemed illegal. It is of my opinion, items found outside of the scope of an aviation safety search should not be admissable as evidence of a crime.
...
Now, if you find a gun, explosives, an aviation safety threat, or something like blood which could indicate the individual recently assulted or harmed someone, then by all means turn it over to law enforcement.
I like this post -- not just because I agree with many of the points, but because I felt it was a well-reasoned argument.
I did have one question, though: what's the distinction between illegal drugs found during a search (evidence of possession, which is a crime) and blood or other similar evidence that could be evidence of an assault? Both seem to be evidence of a crime that may have been committed, so it would seem you should treat both the same way.
IMHO, any evidence found as a result of a good faith security search should be admissible. Otherwise, I can just see imagine the exchange at the security checkpoint: "All you have in the bag is several pounds of coke? All right, move along then."
I don't expect the bill of rights to give me the ability to do things that are illegal with impunity; I expect it to protect me against unreasonable searches (among other things). If a search is determined to be reasonable, which I happen to think it is in the case of airport security, then the results of it should be fair game.