One judge's opinion holds with the others, but he disagrees with the viewpoints the others took regarding relying solely on 9/11. As stated in the last sentence, as time passes, future challenges will come when it comes to searches at the security checkpoint and the time and reason held by TSOs and/or law enforcement. As far as your question, he and the others felt that the LEO & TSO searches and/or "holding" fell under the administrative standard.

http://vlex.com/vid/29333647

[QUOTE]GRABER, Circuit Judge, with whom HAWKINS and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, join, specially concurring: I concur in the result and nearly all of the reasoning in the majority opinion. I write separately, however, because I cannot join the majority's irrelevant and distracting references to 9/11 and terrorists. Daniel Aukai is no terrorist and yet, whether in 1997 or 2007, the search that law enforcement personnel conducted of his person falls squarely within the confines of a reasonable administrative search.


10 We note that the detention in this case was prolonged, not by delay on the part of the TSA officers conducting the screening, but by Aukai's repeated lies as to the contents of his pocket.


The majority holds, and I agree, that once a passenger enters the secured area of an airport, the constitutionality of a screening search does not depend on consent. That legal conclusion rests firmly on Supreme Court precedent and on the government's interest in ensuring the safety of passengers, airline personnel, and the general public. For decades, nefarious individuals have tried to use commercial aircraft to further a personal or political agenda at the expense of those on board and on the ground.1 And the threat continues to exist that individuals, whether members of an organized group or not, may attempt to do the same. In my view, references to a "post-9/11 world," maj. op. at 9657, do not advance the analysis. Nor is there any legal significance to whether or not an individual is a terrorist. See maj. op. at 9657-59. By relying on those factors, the majority unnecessarily makes its solid holding dependent on the existence of the current terrorist threat, inviting future litigants to retest the viability of that holding.[/QUOTE]