Police Stopping All Cars Entering BWI (Baltimore-Washington Int'l Airport)

ABC 7 News ^

[Sub-Driver]

Police Stopping All Cars Entering BWI Tuesday January 06, 2004 11:20am

Linthicum, Md. (AP) - Maryland Transportation Authority police are stopping all cars entering Baltimore-Washington International Airport for security checks.

Police officials say that the "100 percent security checks" began after 10 a.m. Police say the sweeps are not a response to a specific threat.

Police aren't saying how long they will continue checking every car that enters the airport.

Airport officials say that the sweeps are not expected to create major delays entering the airport. And they still recommend that passengers plan on arriving 90 minutes before their scheduled flights.

[RightWhale]

Property, use and dominion thereof, is at the base. The Constitution does not explicitly recognize private property, nor does the Ten Commandments, and those are the two documents that might. Private property is inferred to exist based on the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment, and the 8th Commandment. Divide the issue into private and public property and find the present situation.

[Naspino]

You said you don't understand. The question posed to you was "so then all luggage searches at airport check-in violate the 4th amendment too?" and you answered "If done by Federal Employee's, YES. Do they have a warrant to search?"

That would mean you are opposed to security searches as airports which is the equivalent of surrendering our airports to the terrorists. So instead of our arguement "if you don't want to be searched then don't fly" -- yours would appear to be "if you don't want to be blown up don't fly".

[glannon]

If the airport is private or government property and it is a condition to enter the property

but if its a search to enter private property can that evidence then be used in a criminal prosecution?

[Blue Jays]

Good Afternoon All-

"...Odds are if they (the police) see you turn around to avoid the search they will chase you down and search you more forcibly. That's what they do at random traffic stops..."

PRECISELY! I am a pro-police person from a police family who has married into yet another police family and these actions are shocking and COMPLETELY unacceptable.

At what point do decent Conservatives say:

"Whoa, hold on there, officer. While I'm certainly NOT a criminal, nor do I have anything to hide...I'm NOT going to allow you to snoop around on some hunting expedition. The Fourth Amendment protects me and all Americans and says so."

The idea that officers can approach drivers to inspect cars and personal effects without cause and this is regarded as "OK" by many leaves me with my jaw on the floor. Yes, we need to secure ourselves, but we should scrutinize, scrutinize, and scrutinize some more. Our policies should be up for review on a weekly basis to prevent overreaching.

Don't be surprised when your front door gets kicked-in because of a "tip" from an undisclosed person suggested you might be dangerous. One absolutely shouldn't complain if they have supported so-called "reasonable" searches all along. It's a slippery slope out there, folks!

Regards,

~ Blue Jays ~

[Iron Eagle]

Sorry: there are many concepts being mixed-up here. First, the report says the police are stopping all cars. That is legal. (i.e. the Supremes have said you can have roadblocks to check and verify licenses and I.D. See Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990); Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979).

Now -- we don't know 1) where they are being stopped, and (2) what is being done when stopped.

For example, if you are on the terminal road and you pass a sign that says "all cars subject to search," and you proceed to the search zone, you may have "consented" to the search under the law. (There are multiple cases that hold that hold, for instance, that once one goes through an x-ray or security check-point at an airport, one has "consented" to being searched. Same certainly could apply here.

But, let's say there is no such sign. Let's say you proceed up the road and the police stop you for an I.D. verification. I agree, they cannot search your vehicle without your permission, or without probable cause, or in thios case, a reasonable suspicion. (Which may arise subsequent to the stop -- plain view etc.)

It has also been held that drug-sniffing dogs can give "probable cause." Accordingly, bomb sniffing dogs can do the same. Putting a dog on each individual car as it is stopped has been held by Courts to be a "search." Thus, the Dog would have to give some indication from afar. (They have a six million times better scent detection than humans -- so this is easy).

My guess is the roadblock is nothing more than a "change of tactics." It is a deterrent. In addition, the police willuse every legal method to search a car within the parameters of the given exceptions.

Your original point, of course, is that we can't just stop people and search them for no apparent reason. That is correct. My point was only this, Courts have recognized numerous exceptions to the 4th Ammendment that permit, in essence, stops and, in my view, preliminary searches. All of which are legal -- at least under the current Supreme Court law.

The power to stop vehicles for I.D. checks is awesome in itself. My guess is it is that deterrent effect the police seek by moving to an all vehicle stop procedure. (It also increases the likelihood of more lawful searches.).

[MontanaBeth]

Thanks for setting me straight, I've been thinking the Constitution was perfect. But I guess a lot of people prefer personal safety, over personal freedom. I always thought the eroding of the Constitution because it's not up to date with the times was a bad idea. But gee, if it means I'll be safe from terrorists, I guess throwing the Constitution out and bringing in a police state won't be so bad....(sarcasm off)

[RightWhale]

It's a slippery slope out there, folks!

It's good to invoke the Slippery Slope Argument right away and get it out of the way. Did the police act on their own, or were they sent to do a job by some civil authority?

[Naspino]

Thanks for setting me straight, I've been thinking the Constitution was perfect.

Why would you think that? The law provides for a means of ammending it. Why would they have provided for that unless they believed it would be necessary? Does the law provide for our protection during a war in which the enemy lives among us? No. These terrorists could "destroy" our nation. What would the impact be if NYC was destroyed or LA? I quoted destroy because they cannot take it over but they can dramatically change our quality of living and our place in the world.

My point was that there should be an ammendment somewhere between martial law and no security that would provide for the president to enact and explain a situation why Joe citizen cannot stroll through the bowels of Norad unsearched or through a military base, or why he or she would need to voluntarily submit to searches in order to visit known terrorist "targets".

[oceanview]

and if major cities in the US were nuked because the 4th amendment prohibited arbitrary searching of trucks, the same people would be posting here about "my rights", even as the country was dissolving.

[Sloth]

Government is doing the search. It doesn't matter whether it is done on private or public property. Government conducts the search, the Fourth Amendment is implicated.

Good point. If private airlines wish to search passengers as a condition of boarding, they're welcome to. But in absence of probable cause, the government has no business doing it... and IMO, the major airlines are pretty much arms of the government now, anyway.

[B Knotts]

Very well said. We can have reasonable law enforcement and security within the confines of the Constution. We must never lose sight of who we are, or what we stand for.

[CollegeRepublican]

you're absolutely right...but we baltimoreans don't like being thought of as a suburb of dc, so our traffic tie-ups are our own, thank you very much.

Yeah I agree, I live in Northern AA county but work twice a week in downtown DC so I know all about the traffic patterns around this area. However, it would be nice if the Dc and Bal'mer talk radio stations would give traffic reports to the north of Dc for the DC stations and South of Charm City for their stations. It is almost impossible to get a traffic report for Rt. 100, I-95 from Baltimore to DC, Rt. 29, Rt. 32, or Rt. 295. It is like those areas don't exist. Of course you could just say that during rush hour you should just know that they will be backed up. :)

[palmer]

I seriously doubt you can stroll back to the holding cell area unsearched.

You're probably correct. It's a good example of the public interest in the security of suspects and the possibility of escape trumping my 4th amendment rights to walk around unsearched on public property. Like I said before, the cops don't need a good reason to prevent my access to prisoners, I need to present them with a good reason to be there. But they will need a reason to search my person in the front of the station.

What's been presented in the BWI case so far is no specific reason to search everyone. What that means to me is this is just more experiments at the BWI security lab. The security bureaucrats perform these experiments to test the acceptance of new security measures. Those who believe these searches materially improve security have passed the test.

[CollegeRepublican]

The 100% check every car ended at noon, so it ran from 10 am - noon. I heard on the radio that they just do this during orange alerts from time to time. No real threat.

[CollegeRepublican]

Every Car Checked At BWI
Tuesday, January 06, 2004
WBAL Radio

Maryland Transportation Authority police stopped every car and truck driving into BWI Airport for two hours Tuesday morning, but not because of any specific threat, Maryland's Homeland Security Director told WBAL Radio.

"This is a time-tested technique that's been used around the country at different airports," Dennis Schrader said.

Officers resumed random vehicle checks around noon.

They could resume "100-percent security checks" at any time, Schrader says. They purposely want the technique to be unpredictable.

Schrader says it will not cause major delays at BWI, since most cars aren't stopped for very long.

[Naspino]

Which is why I'd like to see an ammendment that would clarify what is reasonable for the government to do and when? Security should be 100% active for bases, etc and switchable on and off by the president or terror alert in other cases (airports, courthouses).

[cajungirl]

I suggest that the searches go on if that is the recommendation of the people we hire to protect us. If people are wronged by the searches, hire a lawyer and go to court. By then, the problem may be solved. If power has been abused there is redress. But I for one do not want a bunch of people who are ready to play russian roulette with my safety on a plane by invoking the constitution because they somehow think this is all about them. Let the courts sort it out the old fashioned way. And keep searching. I volunteer to be the first searchee.

[palmer]

Even though I'm not a lawyer, I at least know the Sitz case was allowed because of the effectiveness in stopping drunk drivers. Are you arguing the same effectiveness at BWI, or just leaving that part out?

[MontanaBeth]

I thought all those things had been tried in some other failed countries but if we're all safer what the heck. And just so you'll know, if myself or a family member were killed in a terrorist attack, I still wouldn't except throwing out the Constitution or adding an amendment that would just make us one of crowd of socialist countries that already exists. Live free or die. I would choose death, if it means living in a country ruled not by the people but by the government, unchecked.

[Pro-Bush]

Thank you for the update. I appreciate it.