|
Originally Posted by saizai
(Post 154063511)
dministrative search, carried out by TSA or cops, limited exclusively to the minimum necessary to detect weapons or explosives, because they have reason to believe they may have missed something at the checkpoint
|
Originally Posted by nasa808
(Post 15425400)
I'm fully aware of that. My statement was intended for the individual who's statement I quoted.
As posted above, a court needs to rule on the legality of post-checkpoint searches by the TSA. But then, to quote Fleetwood Mac "I might not give the answer that you want me to". Pretty much guaranteed I'd say. |
Originally Posted by Wally Bird
(Post 15426774)
As posted above, a court needs to rule on the legality of post-checkpoint searches by the TSA.
|
Originally Posted by RichardKenner
(Post 15429759)
I'd say that a court has. The same argument in Aukai applies to them.
|
Originally Posted by Wally Bird
(Post 15432369)
Aukai dealt entirely with searches (primary and secondary) at the checkpoint, the issue of a tertiary search elsewhere was not before the court.
|
There are a couple of things that let these administrative searches in the secure area fly.
1. There are signs posted that say you are subject to search 2. Gate searches are conducted with a bit of regularity 3. You can walk away, leave the airport and not be searched again Under these circumstacnes, I think you'd have almost zero chance of beating the search in court. Notice when curbside vehicle searches are conducted you will see signage posted before you get in front of the terminal and you will have the option of turning around before the search. The only reasonable explanation for a gate search that I can think of is that there is a possibility that a PAX could have received a prohibited item in the secure area. This item could have been given to the PAX by a worker or perhaps left unattended in the terminal. |
Originally Posted by fester
(Post 15459531)
There are a couple of things that let these administrative searches in the secure area fly.
1. There are signs posted that say you are subject to search 2. Gate searches are conducted with a bit of regularity 3. You can walk away, leave the airport and not be searched again |
Originally Posted by fester
(Post 15459531)
3. You can walk away, leave the airport and not be searched again
|
Originally Posted by PTravel
(Post 15459754)
None of these are relevant with respect to the standards established for administrative searches.
ETA: I just realized the case was mentioned above. |
Originally Posted by fester
(Post 15470531)
IIRC, these specific items were brought up in the 9th Circuit's decision in US v. Aukai.
ETA: I just realized the case was mentioned above. Although the constitutionality of airport screening searches is not dependent on consent, the scope of such searches is not limitless. A particular airport security screening search is constitutionally reasonable provided that it “is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives [ ][and] that it is confined in good faith to that purpose.” Davis, 482 F.2d at 913. We conclude that the airport screening search of Aukai satisfied these requirements.The search procedures used in this case were neither more extensive nor more intensive than necessary under the circumstances to rule out the presence of weapons or explosives. After passing through a magnetometer, Aukai was directed to secondary screening because his boarding pass was marked “No ID.” Aukai then underwent a standard “wanding procedure.” When the wand alarm sounded as the wand passed over Aukai's front right pants pocket, TSA Officer Misajon did not reach into Aukai's pocket or feel the outside of Aukai's pocket. Rather, Misajon asked Aukai if he had something in his pocket. When Aukai denied that there was anything in his pocket, Misajon repeated the wanding procedure. Only after the wand alarm again sounded and Aukai again denied having anything in his pocket did Misajon employ a more intrusive search procedure by feeling the outside of Aukai's pocket and determining that there was something in there. At that point, TSA Supervisor Vizcarra became involved. Vizcarra asked Misajon to pass the wand over Aukai's pocket again. When the wand alarm again sounded, Vizcarra directed Aukai to empty his pocket. Aukai again protested that he had nothing in his pocket. Using the back of his hand, Vizcarra touched the outside of Aukai's pocket and felt something inside. Vizcarra again directed Aukai to empty his pocket. This time Aukai reached into his pocket and removed either his keys or change, but a bulge was still visible in his pocket. Vizcarra directed Aukai to remove all contents from his pocket. After first claiming there was nothing more, Aukai removed an object wrapped in some form of tissue paper and placed it on a tray in front of him. Suspecting that the item might be a weapon, Vizcarra unwrapped the item, discovering drug paraphernalia. Like the Third Circuit, we find these search procedures to be minimally intrusive. See Hartwell, 436 F.3d at 180(holding similar search procedures to be “minimally intrusive,” explaining that the procedures are “well-tailored to protect personal privacy, escalating in invasiveness only after a lower level of screening disclosed a reason to conduct a more probing search”). The duration of the detention associated with this airport screening search was also *963 reasonable. Witnesses testified that Aukai entered the checkpoint area at approximately 9:00 a.m. and that the entire search at issue-starting from when Aukai walked through the checkpoint until the TSA's efforts to rule out the presence of a weapon resulted in the discovery of drug paraphernalia-took no more than 18 minutes. Although longer than detentions approved in other cases, see, e.g., Sitz, 496 U.S. at 448, 110 S.Ct. 2481 (average delay of 25 seconds); United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 546-47, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 (1976) (average detention of 3-5 minutes), the length of Aukai's detention was reasonable, especially in light of Aukai's conduct, because it was not prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to rule out the presence of weapons or explosives.FN10 See Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407, 125 S.Ct. 834, 160 L.Ed.2d 842 (2005) (stating that a seizure can become unlawful if it is “prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete [its] mission”). |
Originally Posted by PTravel
(Post 15471724)
The Aukai court did not mention these factors. Moreover, the Aukai case did not involve searches after the checkpoint -- Aukai didn't have an ID was directed to secondary after passing through the WTMD:
|
Originally Posted by fester
(Post 15472918)
I don't remember where I saw the synopsis. I'm not going back through US v. Davis and all of the other cases to find it. There were a number of factors brought up in testimony that mentioned signage, etc.
|
Originally Posted by BarbiJKM
(Post 15421732)
If you are looking for legal authority for search beyond the checkpoint, it's here: 49 U.S.C. § 44901 : US Code - Section 44901: Screening passengers and property
(VII) ensure that there are no specific privacy concerns with the technological architecture of the system. |
Originally Posted by BarbiJKM
(Post 15421732)
If you are looking for legal authority for search beyond the checkpoint, it's here: 49 U.S.C. § 44901 : US Code - Section 44901: Screening passengers and property
"In the case of flights and flight segments originating in the United States, the screening shall take place before boarding and shall be carried out by a Federal Government employee . . ." Thought that section supports gate screenings, it talks about screening in the singular, i.e. it does not support multiple screenings. It most certainly doesn't authorize random searches in the sterile area unrelated to boarding, i.e. BDOs stopping passengers and interrogating, randomly stopping passengers and searching them, demanding to see boarding passes, etc. And, of course, the constitutional limits on administrative searches remain in place. |
Originally Posted by PTravel
(Post 15476271)
It most certainly doesn't authorize random searches in the sterile area unrelated to boarding, i.e. BDOs stopping passengers and interrogating, randomly stopping passengers and searching them, demanding to see boarding passes, etc.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 5:03 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.