(Ratified effective December 15, 1791):

Amendment IV
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.
--------------------------------------------

Weigh in: what's unreasonable, in your opinion, and accordingly what would constitute probable cause?



[This message has been edited by essxjay (edited 09-02-2003).]

Who are you and what have you done with anonplz? We all know this is "his" question.

Well, as we've argued before, the TSA search is an "administrative search". My view is that it is effectively mandatory to be searched.

Therefore, they must look the other way if they find anything other than a threat to aircraft safety. Just the way they skirt the right against self-incrimination when they force you to sign an income tax return: nothing you say can be used against you except to make sure you pay your tax.

I hope this issue is resolved this way, then I wouldn't mind getting searched for aircraft safety purposes. I think in the long run this will be the resolution because this search issue extends into every part of our daily lives.

Only if we are assured that such "implied consent" mandatory searches are guaranteed not to bother us except for a narrow stated purpose, will we maintain a free country we all hope to continue living in.

Would searching by forcing or requesting checked bags to be unlocked without owners present, as stated on an MSNBC article, be representative as breaking the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution, if probable cause was found for a reasonable search of these "effects" and "papers" without one's knowledge until after the fact?

And after such search, the owner, now unaware what the party who searched such "effects" or "papers", would not know what personal effect is in the knowledge of the party who searched them until retrieving their property a very far distance away.

An interesting argument. An illegal search, unless the owner was present.

BTW, I should have added that I'll stay out of the thread for a while so everyone can have a say without me commenting on it.

Are you saying that this is the way it is, or should be?

Because it's certainly not the way it is.

As it is, if they find anything they don't like, you get in trouble. That means money, drugs, whatever. Countless people have had their money - legally obtained and held -confiscated under the awful drug forfiture laws which basically allow the government to take anything from anyone based on suspicion alone.

d

Unfortunately this is NOT the case in real life. On a recent return from AMS, I had to go though security in DTW. In my carry on bag, was a 16" steel ruler with VERY sharp edges and corners which I had packed into the wrong bag. Also in my carry on, were some souvenir rolling papers from the Amsterdam 'coffeeshops', where cannabis products are legally sold by licenced dealers. The TSA agent had the ruler in his hand, when he noticed the rolling papers. He immediately lost interest in the 16" blade, and started looking for 'something to go with those rolling papers'! He searched every crevice of my carry on bag, and felt me up like a horny schoolboy, looking for harmless 'contraband'. Finding no devil weed, he put the dangerous weapon back into my carry on! I was glad not to lose the ruler, but appalled by the oversight. Has any airplane ever been hijacked by joint wielding stoners?
BTW, I use cannabis medicinally with my physician's written approval.

Well, of course! The DEA pays, or at least used to pay, $250 if you give them a tip on someone with drugs or drug money.

d

To think that Amendment IV only reflects upon those who are actual US Citizens. Otherwise, everyone will have to be asked their citizenship and thus slowing down the security lines even more.

The search and seizure at the airports is for your safety. No ifs/and/or buts about it. That tube of lipstick could actually be a lipstick/knife. That pen could be switch blade. That credit card could be a card knife.

All effects should always be searched. I cannot wait for the day when there is a full body scan like that on one of Arnold Schwarzenegger's movies where you see his bones running through security. That is the type of security we need!

Just tonight, a person ran into a school with a gun running from cops here in Chicago. Minnesota this year just passed the right to a concealed weapon. How many of those people who will be concealing those weapons, just happend to 'forget' they are carrying them in the airport?

Just remember, that extra search is put forth for your safety!

Sluggo

------------------
Gordon 'Sluggo' Valentine
AA Furloughed Flight Attendant

Someone told me that by purchasing an airline ticket that one has given implied consent to security searches and all the other indignities that now accompany airline travel.

So, if you want to fly, you waive your constitutional rights, which I didn't think was possible or allowable.

Not being a lawyer, much less a constitutional expert, I had no rebuttal...

Of course you wan waive your rights: "you have to the right to be silent"... you can still talk to them.

A cop not having PC can still ask you if he can search your car. If he doesn't have a search warrant or PC he can't search it but if you give him permission he can.

At an airport security checkpoint you can refuse permission for them to check you or your belongings at any time. The only negative result of this would be not being allowed entry into the sterile area.

[This message has been edited by CATSA Screener (edited 09-03-2003).]

If anyone actually believed that their 4th amendment rights were being violated, then why would they not sue? Or better yet, seek the help of the ACLU? Where are the lawsuits?

The Supreme Court has already covered this with their ruling on "implied consent." You already KNOW your bags are subject to search, that was true pre 9/11 in case anyone forgot. The airlines had complete control over what went on "their" aircraft before 9/11 and did searches.

Why anyone would think that a screener who finds a human head (to bring back a tired example) should just turn away and "forget" that he found it is beyond me. Two glazed eyes staring at me would not be something I could easily forget, much less the shocked expression on the face that would obviously be there.

If you do not agree with the policy and actually believe that your rights are being violated, you have options. You can sue (good luck), you can quit checking bags, or you can drive to your destination, (conditions permitting of course). I have yet to see anyone forced at gunpoint to check a bag, or fly to a destination.

I do not see the policy going anywhere in the near, or distant future.

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

If this search process deters one person from doing something wrong at an airport or on a plane, I'm all for it. Safety is worth a few hassles, I don't even believe this is an issue.

Unfortunately we will never know how many if any have been deterred by our security. Its a fair assumption that it has but there are not any facts to back this up that I know of.

Rather than talking about security check points for searches with carry ons, could everyone add some comments about checked bags that are not in your possession, passed in unlocked (by a requested US governmental policy, not a law) and then searched without owners present. That, IMO, is the constitutional issue. If owners are present, it is then constitutional by agreeing to be searched, to watch this search and to move forward, or not agreeing and leaving the airport.

Build tents or restructure the airport but adhere to the Constitution.

Baggage checks are done by law, not by "policy." See... http://www.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlib...401_to_501.pdf

Also see... http://www.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlib...w_107_1771.pdf

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

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