I introduced the 4th Amendment issue in this thread. My post is third from the last.

I was surprised that this discussion and debate was not continued, especially with the new backscatter screening technology with which the TSA is experimenting.

I would be interested to know what everybody�s thoughts are pertaining to that discussion.

Passengers unlocking baggage for inspection away from their property, without being present (which is my point) is not part of the law, nor is it written in the language you provided. That therefore is policy. The fact is, the policy to be away from an inspection done in secret is infact illegal.

Provide to this forum a line or text in the law for airport security that says a passenger *must* unlock their bags, submit them for a secret inspection away from such owner's property? If you can, then that law is unconstitutional.

Spin.

[This message has been edited by Sky 1 (edited 09-04-2003).]

That is of course your opinion, and one that is not shared by the Supreme Court. If you feel that they are in error, you are free to challenge the law in court. If you are unwilling to do that, then you either acquiesce to the law as it stands, or do not check any baggage. I am sure there is a screener out there who would appreciate the latter.

P.S Nowhere does it say that your bags MUST be unlocked. It is only a suggestion. Hyperbole is not always fact.

------------------
"All life is a concatenation of ephemeralities" - Alfred Kahn, American economist

[This message has been edited by The Unknown Screener (edited 09-04-2003).]

I am a lawyer by training, but I don't practice.

I'm frankly pretty hazy on constitutional law, but I remember that after my first year constitutional law class I was left with the distinct impression that it was an area of law where the individual's rights depended a great deal on the mood of the police and the courts, and that who you are plays nearly as significant a role in how you're treated as what you've (allegedly) done.

Look, you cannot provide any written language about passengers to unlock checked bags. So your comments about the Supreme Court are unrelated and irrelevent.

So, if no where does any written language exist that states passengers **must unlock** bags for a secret search, then such secret searches are against the 4th Amendment of the Constitution which is the law.

Why don't you go search an old bag, because you will be building tents.

[This message has been edited by Sky 1 (edited 09-04-2003).]

Ahhh yes. How soon they resort to name calling. Ok moron, here is the deal. I will type slowly so you can read this. When you present your baggage to the ticket agent you are also giving your IMPLIED CONSENT to having it searched. No ifs ands or buts. Now, you do not HAVE to send it through locked, but if it requires opening to resolve an alarm, or to properly identify something, then it WILL be opened. Your prescence is not required because you have already given your IMPLIED CONSENT.

Now, if you want to argue over the legality of IMPLIED CONSENT you will have to take that up with the Supreme Court as they have already ruled that such searches are LEGAL and do NOT violate the 4th amendment. So for you I would suggest that you either not check a bag, or drive.

Is this clear enough for you or do you still need help?

Timing is everything.....

Wow, that's one of the funniest jokes I've read in awhile. You must be sharing some of HigherFlyer's stash, but in your case, it's almost certainly not medicinal.

Wait until the cops toss your home 'for your safety'.

(Where is the 'stonie' or the 'druggie' smiley icon???)

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

You're a real class act, Sky 1

Okay, so an ad hominem argument has been posted and edited out. But from here on out could we please remain on topic in this thread rather than delvolving into commenting on the off topic posts? Thanks.

Anyone else?

Strictly for comparison... Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

And here's the section of the Aeronautics Act that gives us the authority to open bags without the owner being present (although by policy we don't do this except in exceptional circumstances):
Search of goods
(7) No person who, having been required by a screening officer to permit an authorized search of goods that the person intends to have transported on an aircraft, refuses to permit the search to be carried out shall place or attempt to place the goods or cause the goods to be placed on board the aircraft.

Unaccompanied goods
(8) Where goods are received at an aerodrome for transport on an aircraft and are not accompanied by a person who may give the permission referred to in subsection (7), a screening officer may carry out an authorized search of the goods and, in carrying out that search, may use such force as may reasonably be necessary to gain access to the goods.

Thats the bottom line here. Everyone is well aware of the screening of their baggage so there are no "secret" searches. Very few bags are even opened as the reports I read on here of false positives are GREATLY exagerated. If you do not want your baggage screened, then do not check a bag. I have yet to see anyone forced against their will to check a bag, or fly for that matter.

------------------
"All life is a concatenation of ephemeralities" - Alfred Kahn, American economist

Yes, if you want to go to Europe, you can row a boat. And if you have a long trip, well tough, you aren't "forced" to check your bag.

And even if you carry on a bag, you are "consenting" to having it searched because you aren't "forced" to travel

At least we agree on that. You KNOW your baggage is likely to be searched, so it is no secret. If you do not want your bag to be screened, then leave it behind or ship it seperately. Why people do not understand this and continue to wave the 4th amendment around is beyond me. You submit to the search or you don't, it is not FORCED on you. If it were, then it would be "unreasonable" and therefore a violation of the 4th amendment.

Another example, a police officer pulls you over for speeding and asks you if he can search your trunk. He has no warrant, and no speeding offense requires a search of the trunk, so no "probable cause." If you agree and he finds that stash of yours, or that human head. Do you think he should just look away because he only pulled you over for speeding? You gave him your consent so a warrant is not needed. It is the same when you present your baggage, you are giving your consent. You can withdraw your consent at any time, but your baggage will not go on the plane until it is screened.

------------------
"All life is a concatenation of ephemeralities" - Alfred Kahn, American economist

[This message has been edited by The Unknown Screener (edited 09-05-2003).]

As I've written before, I think the other aspect of this is the "in plain sight" adaptation of the 4th Amendment. I know this applies during sobriety checkpoints -- that's why the cops are so zealous about looking into your vehicle with flashlights (along with the alcohol sensors covertly placed on the flashlights). You're toast if they find a joint in plain sight on the back seat, but they can't open your glove box or trunk and find a joint unless you're dumb enough to give them permission. So, this raises the question: Was Dionne Warwick's joints inside a lipstick case "in plain sight?" ...wish she had challenged this in court...

At military bases (of which I am VERY familiar), there are signs at the entrances stating that, by entering, all your property and your person are subject to search.

If the TSA has also taken up the War on Drugs, why don't they simply put up signs similar to those at bases at all checkpoints? If non-security "discoveries" found during searches are fair game, why not simply say so? In the internal staffing process, I assume the TSA General Counsel would get a vote on the wording...

Even during pre-TSA days, I recall that law enforcement authorities viewed airports as convenient chokepoints to catch a suspected bad guy or two. The TSA (corporately and individually) has apparently assumed the authority to become "deputized" because "We, the People" have allowed them to. Shame on us.

I know I've written about the slippery slope before, so I'll end briefly. What's preventing the TSA from stopping at drugs and large amounts of cash? It doesn't take too much of a crystal ball to image the following --
1. Checking all our credit cards to make sure they aren't stolen;
2. Checking all our cash to make sure it's not counterfeit;
3. Checking all our CD's, floppies, and hard drives to make sure they don't contain bootleg software and/or downloaded music;
4. Better check my reading material to make sure it doesn't violate the "local community decency standards"; and,
5. Why not enforce state and local licquor laws why we're at it?
6. And, while you're sniffing my Nike's, better make sure they aren't counterfeit as well...