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.

[Viva Le Dissention]

"Why are you coming to the airport?"

But what is an "acceptable" answer here? Maybe I just want to people watch. Maybe I just want to buy a really expensive Big Mac. Maybe there's no porn store in my town and I'd like to pick up the latest issue of "18 and Hardcore."

they don't appear to be Middle Eastern terrorists

What do Middle Eastern terrorists look like? Is it like Airplane where they all carry rocket launchers or whatever?

[Naspino]

It doesn't give police the right to search brown Honda hatchbacks driven by senior citizen men.

It only requires "reasonable" suspicion. If the authorities know that "someone" is going to drive a 2000 lb bomb in to the airport garage in order to bring it down then I don't see a problem. I certainly would rather be searched than be blown to bits or have my airport's garage levelled with 10,000 vehicles -- but thats just me. I don't see the principles of the country crashing like everyone else does. Its reasonable and we'd all be pissed off if the terrorist succeeds.

Now -- if they just decided that it would be good today to search then I agree 100%. It has to be based on something credible -- but I don't think necessarily specific.

[Viva Le Dissention]

You might have heard of it. Fourth Amendment. Pretty important one.

[303george]

Last time I flew out of Lansing-Capital City Airport in Michigan was during the last Orange Alert and Airport Police were searching every car coming into the Airport. The search consisted of opening the trunk, and a quick scan under the car with a mirror.

Of course this is much easier at a smaller regional airport like Lansing than Atlanta, but it is happening elsewhere.

[Pharmboy]

I assume you do not like random drunk (car) stops by the police...neither do I.

[Naspino]

What laws oversee entrance to a military base? Its public property -- paid for by taxes but you cannot enter it and if you do your vehicle gets searched thoroughly as it should be.

[oceanview]

these "4th amendment everywhere, all the time" people believe the constituion is essentially a suicide pact. we had a thread on it the other day, people complaining that the FBI had no right to Las Vegas hotel records, others even saying that even airline ticket purchases could not be screened against terror watch lists without specific warrants from judges in each and every case. then, when a terror attack occurs, these same people will be complaining that "law enforcement did nothing to stop it".

[Viva Le Dissention]

You have a right not to consent by not driving into it.

But my point is that this doesn't fly, because you can take that logic to its (not so) absurd extreme and say, "If you drive on roads, you consent to be searched." Or, "If you leave your house, that is consent to be searched." you don't HAVE to leave your house or drive on roads, so you're consenting.

By the way, private property or public is not relevant. 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.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

This concept has been trumped over and over by DWI sweeps, upheld (sadly)in the High Court.

[Explorer89]

Question? Is BWI part of the DC traffic pattern?

In short, no. There is a connector road, I-195, that joins I-95, and MD-295 (the BW-Parkway, of which I am far too familiar....), and the main entrance to BWI is from I-195. So, if the car-checks create REALLY long back-ups, the traffic might back up onto the Parkway or I-95. There are other roads that lead to the airport, just not as big as those two.

[palmer]

Whose property is it?

Mine. And yours. We paid for it with our tax money. We also pay the police to protect it, not search us arbitrarily.

[eastforker]

Let me put it in simple terms. You have the right to travel to the airport with out being searched however, to enter the airport you are subject to being searched since it is a restricted area. Why do you think they put a fence around it?

[Viva Le Dissention]

I do not.

When it comes time for the Supreme Court to review this subject again, as I said before, given Thomas's comments in Edmond, I do not think this policy will not survive its next trip to Washington.

[Hatteras]

"Oh, right, I forgot that clause in the constitution that says, "in case of war, ignore this document."

You are soooooo right. I tell you what you ought to do. Get in your car and scurry on out to the traffic jam at BWI. Wait in line and get very agitated. As you get closer start mouthing off to the authorities. When it's your turn and they ask you to pop the hood and trunk tell them to kiss your @$$ and then whip out your copy of the constitution.

That will show them!

[Naspino]

But my point is that this doesn't fly, because you can take that logic to its (not so) absurd extreme and say, "If you drive on roads, you consent to be searched." Or, "If you leave your house, that is consent to be searched." you don't HAVE to leave your house or drive on roads, so you're consenting.

No I think there is a point of reasonability in this. I agree that shutting down the interstate like they did with the DC sniper is unconstitutional. That was like declaring martial law. They cannot interfere with your ability to move from point A to point B -- but when you arrive at the destination then I see no problem with security measures being in place being that its a high value target. You can walk to the airport, take a bus, take a taxi, take the subway (?) if you don't want to consent to the search. Its not the same as shutting down your driveway.

[T.Smith]

"Atlanta-Hartsfield-Ugh-Jackson is private property. Don't know about this one. I'm sure driving a personal vehicle is not the only way into the airport. Searching cars that enter would be in response to a particular threat. I don't see anything unconstitutional about it."

I thought Hartsfield was owned by the people, hence the lack of privatization? Regardless, it is not a private security company that is conducting the search. It is a government mandated search conducted by government agents. As such they are subject to the fourth amendment.

"You have a right not to consent by not driving into it."

Odds are if they 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.

[eastforker]

As I stated earlier, not in the state of Texas. Drunk check point was thrown out of court.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Let me put it in simple terms: the Fourth Amendment still applies at airports. It doesn't go away.

To board a flight you are subject to be searched. You consent by buying the ticket.

Look: if I have drugs in my suitcase, and I am in line to board my flight and they start to search my suitcase, I have every right to refuse the search and not board the airplane.

If they search my luggage after I refuse and I do not attempt to board the plane, it is an illegal search.

Contrary to popular opinion, airports are not a Fourth Amendment-free zone.

[mountaineer]

Maybe "I want to people watch" is an acceptable answer, I don't know. The article doesn't say what the police are asking, nor does it say that anyone is being prohibited from entering airport grounds, so why presume what the security people would say or do? Why don't you find out the facts first?

[oceanview]

soon we'll have people posting that we should tear down all the fences, the metal detectors, and fire all the police too. just like on the vegas thread where they said that requiring airlines to turn over their passenger lists was also unconstitutional. all of those things violate the 4th amendment. what right does the government have to restrict my access via a fence to drive onto the tarmac at the airport? suppose I just like to look at the wheels on the plane up close?