TSA now searching valet'd cars @ ROC
Jul 22, 2013, 8:43 am
#61
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
You have granted the valet a limited license to operate your car for the purpose of parking it. The valet does not have license to go looking through your car, absent a compelling reason in YOUR interest, e.g. the police want to see the registration of the car, so he opens the glove box to see if it's in there.
But I suspect that there's more to the story than this brief news article can describe.
Jul 22, 2013, 9:22 am
#62
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
It all depends on what the actual terms of the contract are --- whatever the fine print on the valet ticket says, or what the signs posted upon entry to the parking facility say, or whatever. Whether those terms are legal and/or enforceable, of course, is a matter for wiser minds than I to debate.
But I suspect that there's more to the story than this brief news article can describe.
Jul 22, 2013, 9:39 am
#63
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Prescott, AZ
Programs: US, UA, Marriott, SPG, HH Silver
Posts: 173
But have you looked at the fine print? While it might not allow for searches, it might allow "accidental" opening of the trunk, opening of the glovebox to show the registration/insurance to law enforcement, etc.
Now, some airports have signs that say that vehicles in the area may be subject to search, I'm sure there has to be probable cause, but in this case, having so many layers of people, you could easily launder the search.
That might get you in trouble, unless of course, the diesel fuel is in 3oz containers that fit inside 1qt ziploc bags, then we know it's entirely harmless.
You could also try a mannequin wrapped in bags and duct tape, or you could just do that, and the valet will have one heck of a surprise. After all, it's not illegal to have mannequins wrapped in plastic bags.
Now, some airports have signs that say that vehicles in the area may be subject to search, I'm sure there has to be probable cause, but in this case, having so many layers of people, you could easily launder the search.
If I lived there, and I don't, it might be a bit interesting to go to a farm supply and pick up a couple of bags of ammonium nitrate and a can for some diesel fuel and put it in the back up my pickup as I have a locking bed cover.
Check it at the valet and say, "Just park it, don't open the bed."
Check it at the valet and say, "Just park it, don't open the bed."
You could also try a mannequin wrapped in bags and duct tape, or you could just do that, and the valet will have one heck of a surprise. After all, it's not illegal to have mannequins wrapped in plastic bags.
Jul 22, 2013, 9:46 am
#64
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Now, some airports have signs that say that vehicles in the area may be subject to search, I'm sure there has to be probable cause, but in this case, having so many layers of people, you could easily launder the search.
(2) Your comment about "laundering" is irrelevant. My remarks go to breaking the law. Your comment goes to getting away with it.
Jul 22, 2013, 10:35 am
#65
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
For example, I have never understood how "sobriety checkpoints" can possibly be legal. They're a widespread dragnet in random locations, stopping people wholesale to conduct sobriety tests (which are a type of search, IMHO), done without warrant or probable cause.
On the other hand, were such checkpoints set up at the parking lot exits of bars and night clubs, I wouldn't have a problem with them. After all, while the percentage of people who go to a bar and drink alcohol is not 100% (some go for the food or music, some are designated drivers, etc), the percentage of people who drink alcohol while in a bar is high enough (again, IMHO) to constitute probable cause that a crime is being committed when a person exits a bar, gets behind the wheel, and attempts to drive out of the parking lot.
Jul 22, 2013, 1:06 pm
#67
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Southwest Florida
Programs: AA lifetime Gold , DL Gold, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 572
No government entity has the power to order someone to break the law. I'm going to repeat that because it's critical and no one seems to have noted it:
No government entity has the power to order someone to break the law.
That means that TSA cannot order a valet to trespass in a car by searching it. The valet can "volunteer," in which case he is personally liable for any damage done. Moreover, any evidence that results from ordering a valet to search a car is fruit of the poisonous tree and completely inadmissible in a court of law (not that TSA has much concern for the law).
No government entity has the power to order someone to break the law.
That means that TSA cannot order a valet to trespass in a car by searching it. The valet can "volunteer," in which case he is personally liable for any damage done. Moreover, any evidence that results from ordering a valet to search a car is fruit of the poisonous tree and completely inadmissible in a court of law (not that TSA has much concern for the law).
Mr. Elliott
Jul 22, 2013, 1:16 pm
#68
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Jul 22, 2013, 1:24 pm
#69
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 627
Methinks any competent defense lawyer could blow a hole right through this. If your "evidence" came from someone who was committing a crime in the first place (burglar, valet attendant searching the trunk for things to steal...), I'm going to go ahead and assume the evidence was planted. Even LEOs plant evidence, so I sure as heck am not going to trust someone who claims to have found the evidence while committing another crime. If the evidence was allowed, this opens two very scary precedents:
- The cops can't get a warrant? No problem. Just get an off-duty, plainclothes cop to commit a burglary, steal the evidence, and turn it in.
- You're valet parking, and your ex/boss who fired you/teacher you never liked in high school turns in their car for valet parking. Time to throw that big bag of weed in the trunk and "find" it.
Jul 22, 2013, 1:28 pm
#70
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Too lazy to look up a link (and I don't want to do said Google search at work), but there was a case some time ago where burglars found, in their loot, CDs containing child porn. They turned them into the police, who called the burglary victim to recover his property, and once he identified the CDs as his, he was arrested.
Methinks any competent defense lawyer could blow a hole right through this. If your "evidence" came from someone who was committing a crime in the first place (burglar, valet attendant searching the trunk for things to steal...), I'm going to go ahead and assume the evidence was planted.
Even LEOs plant evidence, so I sure as heck am not going to trust someone who claims to have found the evidence while committing another crime. If the evidence was allowed, this opens two very scary precedents:
- The cops can't get a warrant? No problem. Just get an off-duty, plainclothes cop to commit a burglary, steal the evidence, and turn it in.
- The cops can't get a warrant? No problem. Just get an off-duty, plainclothes cop to commit a burglary, steal the evidence, and turn it in.
- You're valet parking, and your ex/boss who fired you/teacher you never liked in high school turns in their car for valet parking. Time to throw that big bag of weed in the trunk and "find" it.
Look, this isn't a question of opinion, open to debate. The law is the law.
Jul 22, 2013, 1:37 pm
#71
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 616
I'm curious as to why the valet company agreed to the searches. Did they think they had to just because of "anything for security"? Were they coerced into doing so by threat of losing their contract with the airport? Are they just that dumb to think there is nothing wrong with this?
It seems like these searches would add a lot of liability for the valet company. Their legal disclaimers can only go so far. It makes me wonder what the employees are thinking too. I don't think I would be too comfortable if the boss told me to search for bombs.
It seems like these searches would add a lot of liability for the valet company. Their legal disclaimers can only go so far. It makes me wonder what the employees are thinking too. I don't think I would be too comfortable if the boss told me to search for bombs.
Jul 22, 2013, 1:45 pm
#72
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,410
I am not a lawyer ... but I suspect that one may, in fact, be granting the valet a limited license to search the vehicle. It all depends on what the actual terms of the contract are --- whatever the fine print on the valet ticket says, or what the signs posted upon entry to the parking facility say, or whatever. Whether those terms are legal and/or enforceable, of course, is a matter for wiser minds than I to debate.
But I suspect that there's more to the story than this brief news article can describe.
But I suspect that there's more to the story than this brief news article can describe.
Jul 22, 2013, 1:47 pm
#73
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
That's an interesting question. I'd like to hear from one of the criminal lawyers on FT about that. I do know that rationale applies in a house search.
Jul 22, 2013, 2:24 pm
#74
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 156
What would be interesting, is to have a car with a remote-control phone App where you could remotely lock your car, and not even the key could open it. So you lock it once it's parked, and unlock it when you request it from the valet. What would they do then?
Jul 22, 2013, 4:58 pm
#75
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,099
That would be correct.
Methinks you're unfamiliar with the rules of evidence, the standards for admissibility, the significance of evidence in a criminal trial, or the conduct of trials themselves.
In other words, break the law.
In other words, break the law.
Look, this isn't a question of opinion, open to debate. The law is the law.
Methinks you're unfamiliar with the rules of evidence, the standards for admissibility, the significance of evidence in a criminal trial, or the conduct of trials themselves.
In other words, break the law.
In other words, break the law.
Look, this isn't a question of opinion, open to debate. The law is the law.