Sheer genius. I wish I could think up stuff like that on the spur of the moment.

Do we have examples of those that have refused consent to a search airside before the boarding gate without reasonable suspicion, but yet the TSA forces the search? I am not aware of such. I believe TSA actually does know their limit, but has not formally articulated it (other than what the CFR's state).

You are welcome to your opinion, but mine is that it is IDB. Otherwise why are there rights that are not able to be exercised? If you are ticketed, have a confirmed reservation, check-in on time and are at your gate on time for boarding, why wouldn't this be an IDB. It's the airline that decides to leave without you.

The TSA is absolutely right if they make such assertions because they get the final word on the scene. All you can hope for is a court later telling the TSA they shouldn't have done it. Not a very good result when you have been potentially detained, searched, and prohibited from flying.

They get to make up the rules as they go along and claim they are SSI. That's what the TSA is doing now. When they tell you that you consented by entering the sterile area, you have nothing to contradict their assertion. At the very least, you will not be able to fly.

Realistically, you can fully expect that you are going to be detained for a lengthy period of time if you refuse to allow the TSA to conduct a search in the secure area of an airport. But you might get a court to rule later that the TSA was wrong. Maybe. I wouldn't count on it. TSA is going to claim random inspections in the secure area are essential to preserve safety of the aviation industry. Hence my earlier comment that it is not an issue of whether they can conduct such an "inspection," but what the permissible extent of that inspection is.

The statute you reference primarily concerns the right of airliners to use air space in the U.S. That "right" is still limited significantly by denying flight over prohibited areas (most of which are used for military flight purposes).

For a general discussion of the administrative right of the TSA to conduct passenger inspections, see: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...10/0410226.pdf

On the issue of travel by air not being a right, see: "The Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation." (Gilmore v. Ashcroft (N.D. Cal. 2004) unreported) at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=1&oi=scholarr. (Petition denied at 435 F.3d 1125; cert by the Supremes also denied.)

I believe N965VJ's comment actually was intended to refer to pre-security inspection area efforts by the TSA and that the reference to "airside" was mistaken.

I think it is very clear that TSA can conduct random luggage inspection on the jetway. The regulation cited above actually says so: "49 C.F.R. 1540.107(a) requires that no individual may enter a sterile area or board an aircraft without submitting to the screening and inspection of his or her person and accessible property."

I strongly believe that the TSA also believes (and that courts will uphold) random administrative inspections anywhere in the secure area.

You might want to take a look at: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...10/0410226.pdf

"We have held that airport screening searches, like the one at issue here, are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches because they are 'conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, namely, to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft, and thereby to prevent hijackings.'"

While that case dealt with initial screening, do you really think courts will not give the TSA similar authority throughout the entire secure area (particularly because so many airport employees enter it without screening)?

Neither am I, but I have no doubt it is happening.

My point is that you want to hold the airline responsible for something the TSA is doing. I don't see that happening. It's not the airline's fault.

What if you check-in on time but the lines at initial security are so long that you miss the flight. Is that IDB to you as well?

Wonderful. And why couldn't this just as easily be extended to demand an administrative search of my car on the highway to the airport? For that matter, why not demand a search of my home once I've purchased the airline ticket?

There's only 3 things I can interpret from these additional checks:

- the screening procedures at the checkpoints are deficient
- the screening procedures at the checkpoints are sufficient, but are being executed in a deficient manner
- TSA needs additional opportunities to look like it's "doing something"

I have now twice in the past week seen flights at SFO with TSO's inspecting IDs at the gate. This is announced prior to boarding. What can this possibly accomplish?

Exactly.

The same logic can be used to hold that an administrative search of your home can be warranted as part of an administrative scheme to stop street violence. Or searches as you step onto the sidewalk for the same reason.

The Constitution has so many holes in it that our forefathers would be twisting in their graves.

Yep, I was referring to the non-sterile area.

That's my understanding as well. However they still have limits, such as the other day when a screener, while resolving what an x-ray operator saw in my bag, asked me where I was flying to. I completely ignored his question without further incident and was on my way a few moments later.

Perhaps they thought you were not an English speaker? I dunno, maybe they just didn't share their employer's fetish with IDs.

It already is. For most of the day, airport police officers man checkpoints at the entrances to LAX and "inspect" vehicles entering the aiport.

Be careful. You'll give them ideas.

I agree with all, except the screening procedures are not sufficient. Not even close.

What's "IDB"?

Involuntarily Denied Boarding, which usually arises with oversold aircraft.

The gate secondary has been around since TSA established. In terminal searches are not common but popping up as part of the randomness aspect of security. DHS has authority to conduct random searches from airport access until the cabin door is closed (I suppose after as well if necessary).

Yes, I've seen that, but that's the point where entering the airport is unavoidable (I don't know if this is technically airport property yet, but you're already on a rising ramp that goes nowhere but the upper levels of the loop).

Imagine being searched 5 miles away on the 105.

Like they don't already have them. :( I'm sure they have a filing cabinet full of bad ideas, waiting for an excuse incident and/or a window of opportunity with little opposition.

I wasn't saying they were, just that that's the perception it gives: "our procedures may/may not be OK but we're botching how we implement them"

I hear you SFOSpiff. I hear you.

From Gilmore, "The right to travel, while sometimes elusive, is clearly grounded in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has located it at times in the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, the Commerce Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the 'federal structure of government adopted by our Constitution.'" Don't forget that Gilmore was during the time when one could still board without ID so long as the pax would submit to additional screening. That is no longer the case and has yet to be tested in court.

In U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973), the court “not[es] that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.” ID checking does not meet that standard. The Court goes on to state that an administrative search is allowed if it is "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose . . . ." Does WBI meet that criteria? Does the opt-out pat-down meet that criteria? Do random screenings in the secure area meet that criteria?

Yes, because they don't meet the rest of the test that you didn't include. See above.

You have no doubt that it is happening, but no proof either. If it is happening, do you think that it is being done by the parameters of the SOP?

It is the airline's fault since the airline made the decision to leave without you when you have complied with all terms of its CoC.

Of course not since you did not present yourself for boarding in the gate area within the time period required by the CoC. My prior post defining the elements of IDB listed this as one element.

Do you have a cite to that authority?