Does the 4th amendment apply with TSA and airports.
 

1. Do we expect privacy (I'm thinking not)
2. Does society expect that expectation of privacy is reasonable(I also think not).

I'm not a lawyer but this is my understanding of the 4th. Since we have already submitted our expectations are gone so the 4th no longer applies at airports.

Tell me I am a bloody idiot.

Your a bloody idiot. Sorry, but you told me to tell you.

Several cases have been thrown out due to improper searches by TSA.

I don't mind the idiot part but what am I missing in the understanding of the 4th? I noticed that you are driving this thanksgiving but aren't all fliers already that expectation of privacy does not exist?

A large percentage of the population believes that if you refuse to grant permission for a police officer to search your car that you have given them probable cause to search your car. This could not be more wrong. But with that said, should we make it so just because people believe that it is so?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

How much f----- clearer can it be than that?

If you don't like it, move to Pyongyang.

Slow down.

This is what I saw

From 3.2 Definition of "search"


I'd like to add that you have wholeheartedly erred if you think that I support this. Why should I move to Pyongyang? I asked a question without expressing a belief because I was searching for a knowledgeable answer.

TSA airport security constitutes an "administrative search" to which passengers voluntarily submit in order to fly on commercial aircraft departing from most large U.S. airports. My understanding (admittedly as a non-attorney) is that by choosing to purchase the ticket and enter the sterile area, you are consenting to this "administrative search" limited to the kinds of things that TSA determines could pose a threat to aviation security.

But TSA screening is not a full-blown search like LEOs could carry out with a warrant or probable cause. For example, TSA screening does not include searching the electronic files on your laptop, or reading any documents in your wallet except the government-issued photo ID you provide to clear security. These things would fall outside the scope of an "administrative search."

The same goes for those bag searches at the entrance to museums. Don't like them? Then don't go to museums. Don't like TSA security? Nobody is forcing you to fly on commercial aircraft, or at all. You commit to administrative searches by CHOOSING to engage in certain activities that either the government or some organization has decided to involve security procedures. If you do not wish to consent, you cannot be forced. Just avoid the activities where administrative searches occur.

Now, I'm ambivalent on the issue of TSOs' reporting to LEOs when they see items in luggage that are illegal to possess, or legal but highly suspicious and likely associated with unlawful activities, but that do NOT pose a threat to aviation security. For exemple, TSA might notify local LEOs if the screeners see narcotics, Cuban cigars, or unusually large amounts of unexplained cash in your luggage. My opinion is that TSOs are not qualified to evaluate what is suspicious and what is not.....that function should be left to sworn LEOs who have the necessary professional training.

I started a thread a while back that led with a detailed student written law review draft article that went into great detail about the history of the administrative search. It is well documented and footnoted and will give a good idea how we got to this point. It is long and a bit tedious for the non-legal person, but it is readable.

Bag searches at museums are not conducted by the government. A private business can search whatever it wants and you don't have to enter it. That has nothing to do with the fourth amendment.

At the airport the government is doing the search. In order to perform an administrative search there must be a compelling government need and the search must be minimally intrusive. The government cannot just set up a consent search that is as intrusive as it desires and not permit you to do engage in various activities unless you consent to that search. If there were a terror alert for shopping malls, do you think the government could patdown or put through WBI everyone entering a shopping mall with no suspicion? How about going through your entire car with a fine-tooth comb before you drive across a bridge if there's a terror alert regarding bridges?

Presumptuous aren't we?

Yes, that is the test. But it's not an all or nothing proposition. Just because you're in a place where you don't have an expectation of privacy doesn't mean that you have lost the expectation of privacy as to your person or as to items you're carrying. Even in the airport situation, there's no expectation of privacy in your bags, but you still keep the expectation of privacy in the contents of the papers in your bags or your computer files.

While there is probably lesser expectation of privacy of yourself at the airport---I don't think anyone has suggested that metal detectors are wrong, for instance. I don't think you lose the expectation of privacy as to a more invasive search, at least not as primary screening when there's no cause for suspicion, although no court has yet decided the issue yet, and it's unclear how a court would actually decide the issue.

What TSA is doing is ATTACKING those expectations. Truth is with all the publicity, realistic people do NOT expect privacy in airports. Funny how that can be twisted around.

Clearly what is needed is for the laws governing TSA behavior to be reformed. And to accomplish that, Americans have to be braver people, not ready to jump into the arms of the government everytime some little incident almost happens. You think the Israelis, Indians, or Chinese are as cowardly as we have been since that attack occurred. Does everyone realize how FEW people have died from anti-American terrorism? You shoudl educate yourselves about the foreign victims of terrorism. TENS of thousands have died in Asia. Do they put their lives on hold? No. But we "freedom loving" Americans are willing to give up freedoms after what I'd say was a tiny death toll.

Sure I feel for these victims' loved ones as much as those of the thousands who got killed in Pakistan, Aftghanistan, India, Israel, Kenya, and on and on. But the "land of the free and the home of the brave" aint lookin so much like that these days.

Whoever believes that is an idiot. Its circular logic.

Can I search your car?
No.
Ah ah - that probable cause, I will now search your car.

At the risk of showing my legal ignorance (which I do with regularity so why stop now), one of the primary reasons that they can call this an administrative search and get more leeway in its application is that the result of a search that leads to passengers not getting into the security area does not become a criminal matter. They say that since it is not a law enforcement practice, it can be done administratively.

That is the reason they are very, very careful to avoid saying people are "detained" or "arrested" or "held pending investigation" or any of another several terms as they bring in the law enforcement aspect and the very different search rules associated with it.

They want the law enforcement search, in all of its aspects and practices, without the law enforcement style rules and responsibility.

IANAL, but I think the key clause you are overlooking is 'in the thing searched'. I have no expectation of privacy in my bags, but I do expect privacy of my body, especially my breasts and genitals, and I think society agrees with me.

Further, usually in determining if a warrantless search is reasonable, there is usually some sort of balancing test between the goals of the search (government interest) and the invasiveness of the search, and the effectiveness of the search.

So the questions asked would be something along the lines of
1) Do these types of searches actually achieve/accomplish the their security goals?
2) Are these searches the least invasive methods that could used to accomplish the appropriate level of security?
3) Is the government's goal of airport security so important that it outweighs the invasion of privacy?

I say the answers are no, no, and no.