The Court does not decided cases that are not in front of it. This case was not about airport screenings or border crossings, so the court did not decided anything about airport or border stops. But we can take the principals from the case about the 4th amendment and searches and seizures generally. The principals set forth in this case are completely opposed to what the TSA is saying they have authority to do.Notice they second to last sentence. The opinion does not affect airport screenings, which are valid.
You may not like the law,but warrantless airport screenings that are not supported by probable cause are valid and legal administrative searches.
I pointed out the quotes were dicta. While not binding they strongly indicate the Court’s thinking in this area. Taken with the Court’s declining to review the various lower court rulings that have upheld warrantless searches that were not supported by probable cause, there is every reason to the new procedures are valid.The Court does not decided cases that are not in front of it. This case was not about airport screenings or border crossings, so the court did not decided anything about airport or border stops. But we can take the principals from the case about the 4th amendment and searches and seizures generally. The principals set forth in this case are completely opposed to what the TSA is saying they have authority to do.
I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said, “He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.” I’m not American, but I’ve heard of how ridiculous these so-called security measures are. Hopefully something is done about sooner rather than later.I for one don’t believe all these “cat in the microwave” type stories for one second.
Flying is a privilege and not a right. No one is forcing people to get on planes. If you don’t want to be treated this way, then don’t fly. It’s really pretty simple.
Do I like the idea of the scans and the searches, no. But I like it a lot better than some guy with a plastic bomb in his crotch blowing himself up over my city.
~Liza
I pointed out the quotes were dicta. While not binding they strongly indicate the Court’s thinking in this area. Taken with the Court’s declining to review the various lower court rulings that have upheld warrantless searches that were not supported by probable cause, there is every reason to the new procedures are valid.
Do you think a warrant or probable cause is necessary for any airport screening? Do you think all the lower courts are getting this wrong? Do you think the Supreme Court got it wrong in its dicta? Remember the Court uses dicta to signal lower courts.
No reasonable suspicion would be enough for an individualized/more indepth search. The check point are also fine, where there could be detailed questions asked, etc. Also this was before the backscatters and enhanced patdowns. So we can say that metal detectors and wand waves, and putting our bags through x-rays are also fine. If you set off an alarm or there is something suspicious in the bag then a patdown would fall under reasonable suspicion.
By the way, the part about not extending the ruling to airport screenings is not *dicta/]. The Court expressly limited the ruling.
The court was merely saying that they are not deciding these issues because they were not infront of them. You cannot read that to say that the principals involved do not apply to airports, merely that the court would have to independently decide the reasonableness of the searches and the governmental interest. *
I wrote this on my phone, which makes proofreading difficult. I apologize for any errors.
The fact that the newer scanners reveal a naked body image and most people reasonably believe that to be an unreasonable measure.What is the relevant difference between and the old and the new scanners? They are both searches.
As far as the law goes? Well we could equate this new scanner to a virtual strip search. (Which cannot be done, until the accused is arraigned and introduced into the general prison population, or in rare circumstances where the law enforcement sees the suspect trying to hide or destroy evidence. or on border controls with probable cause). This reveals things that most people would expect to be private. Therefore we can say that if someone arrested for a crime cannot be strip searched, neither can people trying to board an airplane. Not only that but it takes and potentially stores a picture. (This alone probably violates some child pornography statutes that are out there).What is the relevant difference between and the old and the new scanners? They are both searches. Sure the new scanners reveal more information, but that is what allows them to detect more materials. Short of a strip search, they offer the best chance to detect things the old scans cannot. Terrorism is a real threat, and the new scanners are the least intrusive way to detect certain materials.
The least intrusive way would be to scan only those who may be carrying those certain materials.Terrorism is a real threat, and the new scanners are the least intrusive way to detect certain materials.
There is no less intrusive way to detect these materials.The fact that the newer scanners reveal a naked body image and most people reasonably believe that to be an unreasonable measure.
Anyone may be carrying the materials.The least intrusive way would be to scan only those who may be carrying those certain materials.
The point is well illustrated also by the Federal Government’s practice of requiring the search of all passengers seeking to board commercial airliners, as well as the search of their carry-on luggage, without any basis for suspecting any particular passenger of an untoward motive. Applying our precedents dealing with administrative searches, see, e. g., Camara v. Municipal Court of San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523 (1967), the lower courts that have considered the question have consistently concluded that such searches are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. As Judge Friendly explained in a leading case upholding such searches:
Code:"When the risk is the jeopardy to hundreds of human lives and millions of dollars of property inherent in the pirating or blowing up of a large airplane, that danger alone meets the test of reasonableness, so long as the search is conducted in good faith for the purpose of preventing hijacking or like damage and with reasonable scope and the passenger has been given advance notice of his liability to such a search so that he can avoid it by choosing not to travel by air." United States v. Edwards, 498 F.2d 496, 500 (CA2 1974) (emphasis in original).
Nat’l Treas. Emp. Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 (1989)Nor would we think, in view of the obvious deterrent purpose of these searches, that the validity of the Government’s airport screening program necessarily turns on whether significant numbers of putative air pirates are actually discovered by the searches conducted under the program. In the 15 years the program has been in effect, more than 9.5 billion persons have been screened, and over 10 billion pieces of luggage have been inspected. See Federal Aviation Administration, Semiannual Report to Congress on the Effectiveness of The Civil Aviation Program (Nov. 1988) (Exhibit 6). By far the overwhelming majority of those persons who have been searched, like Customs employees who have been tested under the Service’s drug screening scheme, have proved entirely innocent – only 42,000 firearms have been detected during the same period. Ibid. When the Government’s interest lies in deterring highly hazardous conduct, a low incidence of such conduct, far from impugning the validity of the scheme for implementing this interest, is more logically viewed as a hallmark of success. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520, 441 U. S. 559 (1979).
Anyone with a spine would know who to search.Anyone may be carrying the materials.
Yes, there is.There is no less intrusive way to detect these materials.
So what?Anyone may be carrying the materials.
I agree. Dogs are easily trained, and will target only those people who are likely to be carrying dangerous materials. Searches can then be conducted, with probable cause, on those whom the dog points out.Yes, there is.
Dogs could readily detect the materials.
Here is what the Supreme Court had to say on this issue:It would be much more logical to utilize the limited resources where they will be most effective.
Dogs cannot detect a composite or plastic knife.Yes, there is.
Dogs could readily detect the materials.
Dogs can detect whatever they are trained to detect - every object has a distinct scent that dogs are more than able to distinguish - and they cannot be fooled by “cover-up” scents - burying it in coffee or even in a dirty diaper won’t hide anything from a dog.Dogs cannot detect a composite knife.
So we are racist sheep now?The TSA has been doing this nonsense for almost 10 years and only NOW we are hearing major protests? I’ll bet a good couple grand that the ones only protesting now will once again act like sheep for the TSA once a white person is president again