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.

[Naspino]

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 might be right -- there has been so much talk about ownership lately. It might be owned by Atlanta and they were discussing selling it to a private company. Maybe its only managed privately.

[unixfox]

Either way, though, the government can't just search you when you're walking down the street, or sitting in your house picking your nose, or, in this case, driving into an airport.

The 70's are over.(the 1870's that is) Move along, nothing to see hear.

[RightWhale]

If it is your property, how can the police deny you the free use of it?

[Viva Le Dissention]

The point is to search!

Indianapolis tried your argument in Indianapolis v. Edmond and lost. That argument doesn't fly. It goes nowhere.

The facts are that they are stopping people without reasonable suspicion. These are the facts. That is unconstitutional. Period.

[oceanview]

that's exactly right, there is a point of reasonability in all of these bill of rights, none are absolute.

[palmer]

They can't. They can refuse me entry for a reason, and it doesn't have to be a good one, practically speaking. But they can't search me on it without a good reason.

[Naspino]

I understand your point about searches I just disagree. I think the reasonable requirement is met simply by you driving up to an airport, entering a courthouse, or federal building given that they are known targets of our cloaked enemies in the War on Terror.

I know people will hate to read this but the consititution is DEFICIENT in respect to international terrorism. I do think the states and federal government should follow the law and get these security measures ammended to it.

I'll ask again though -- what laws oversee the security measures at a military base or for that matter the backrooms of a police station?

[Viva Le Dissention]

Actually, whether the point is to search doesn't really matter, anyway.

If the police have stopped you and you're not free to leave, that's a "seizure" for Fourth Amendment purposes.

[oceanview]

why can't we all just walk into NORAD, maybe we just want to people watch there? why are they stopping us from entering? after all, our tax dollars paid for it.

[Naspino]

Just wait till we have armed checkpoints at malls and grocery stores like the do in Israel.

[Iron Eagle]

Either way, though, the government can't just search you when you're walking down the street, or sitting in your house picking your nose, or, in this case, driving into an airport.

There are volumes of cases that are at odds with your analysis. I could not possibly do justice to the topic in one post. The Courts, however, make a great distinction between conduct that transpires in one's home, as opposed to conduct in a host of other venues. Thus, one is most secure from search and seizure in one's home. One is less free in one's car.

With respect to security checks at airports, the issue was long ago settled. If you do not want to be searched, don't go to the airport. But make no mistake about it, the Courts will give no comfort to someone using a fourth Amendment argument to defeat a security check at an airport. There is no Constitutional right to fly.

[eastforker]

You also have every right to refuse a car search and turn around and leave, it's the same thing actualy. Would you actualy prefer that we had no security at one of our nations busiest airports. How long would it take for terrorist to figure that out and try to blow up a terminal?OKC bombing occured because TM and others had the right of free travel as they still do.

[webstersII]

Check out this thread about Montel Williams. I think it answers your question.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1052587/posts?page=1

[oceanview]

we do. the short hills mall in NJ had armed checkpoints during the holiday period, they were covered on the local news. did they stop and search everyone? no. did they stop and search some people? I am sure they did.

[Viva Le Dissention]

I can't speak to military bases, because I know nothing about them, I've never been on one, and, God willing, I'll never in the future set foot on one.
The backrooms of the police station, of course, are governed by the Constitution, like anything else.

If you want to say the Constitution is deficient, fine--then amend it. But we haven't amended it, and so we follow the rules that we have now. As it is, you can't seize or search people without reasonable suspicion.

[B Knotts]

I can still remember when most "conservatives" would find the idea of "papers, please, comrade" to be abhorrent.

[mr.sarcastic]

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.

Let me put it in simple terms for you too. In order to drive past the terminal or park in the garage immediately adjacent to the terminal at BWI, you have to pass through a police checkpoint. You have the option of turning around beforehand and parking offsite. You have the option of refusing to consent to a search and being turned around. If you do not consent and they search you anyway, then you can raise hell.

Your right to drive past the terminal or park in a garage of any privately-owned airport unchecked is not constitutionally guaranteed. And to try to compare this to driving down any generic public road is a slippery slope.

[Naspino]

In Israel they look at you. If you're not an arab wearing a thick jacket or speaking French they let you in. :) They don't observe the same political correctness that we do.

[Viva Le Dissention]

There are volumes of cases that are at odds with your analysis.

Show me one in which the Court upheld a non-administrative search or seizure without probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

You're also not quite correct about security checks. It's boarding planes, not entering airports.

[Naspino]

I can still remember when most "conservatives" would find the idea of "papers, please, comrade" to be abhorrent.

Its insulting but the government isn't implementing security for nefarious reasons or to protect us from the influence of foreign capitalists. They are trying to keep people from being blown up by our enemy. I would expect that if the Soviet Union had invaded us in the 80's that we'd been subjected to the same scrutiny.