[Viva Le Dissention]

No. The Constitution and the Supreme Court are quite clear on this subject.

No general law enforcement searches without particularized, reasonable suspicion.

In my mind, the Constitution requires probable cause for every search--but this is an issue on which I disagree with the Court--at the very least, though, particularized, reasonable suspicion is necessary.

[T.Smith]

Question: If during the course of one of these searches they were to find something illegal but not related to terrorism, could they arrest you? For example, if they find a bag of weed or a pirated copy of "The Reagans", could they arrest you?

I think doing so severely violates the prohibition against illegal search and seizure. That is, if the initial search didn't already.

[eastforker]

If the airport is private or government property and it is a condition to enter the property I don't see a need for a warrant.Like being subject to search before entering the gate when going to work.Don't want to be searched then don't go there.

[Stentor]

Constitution requires probable cause for every search

Does the Constitution give you the right to drive the approaches to an airport. I'm not picking with you. If you feel like it, talk me into it.

[MediaMole]

Would this apply when entering a controlled area?

Everyone who boards an aircraft is subject to search.

Everyone who enters a courthouse is subject to search. (at least locally)

[Naspino]

I would agree with you -- but you don't HAVE to drive a car to the airport. If they put up blockades on an interstate or public road then I would agree. Searching cars that enter the airport could very well be in response to reasonable suspicion or known facts that someone was intending to detonate a bomb in front.

[Pharmboy]

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

[Eric in the Ozarks]

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