No, ignorant hack, as I already told you, I cited it to debunk the proposition that a WARRANT was ALWAYS required in EVERY circumstance. You were the one that than began twisting it. NEXT.
Second, we are not talking about searching airports. The government can have at it all they like. We are talking about searching human beings.
United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955 (2007).
Third, you state "Please see: (Terry v. Ohio) (protective frisk with reasonable suspicion")
Uh huh, I was just pointing out ANOTHER exception. Since you seem to think that ALL searches EVERYWHERE, require probable cause. I didn't say that this was the exception that was applicable to airport searches. You are apparently too stupid to see the distinction
But that is exactly my point and the point raised in Carroll. It has to do with "reasonable suspicion, probable cause, etc. etc." Since when is their reasonable suspicion to finger the private parts of a blond 4 year old girl? When, my learned pompous attorney friend?
Once again, hack, United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955 (2007).
And you go on with your list of exceptions "exigent circumstances, hot pursuit, searches incident to lawful arrest, seizures in plain view, inventory searches, border searches and roadblocks" Now, since when is Topeka to Fresno a boarder search. What is in plain sight when it is not under granny's smock, but we go looking anyway. I don't think "hot pursuit" and pursuit of a hot female are legally the same thing, but you are the legal ass around here, not me.
You really are stupid aren't you? Your assertion was that every single search at all times requires probable cause. The other poster above claimed that every search at all times requires both a warrant AND probable cause. I listed these exceptions to the warrant requirement to show that contention was erroneous.
Once again, if you want to deal with a case directly related to airport searches, please see: United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955 (2007). I noticed that you deliberately ignored it.
particular airport security screening search is constitutionally reasonable provided that it "is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives [] [and] that it is confined in good faith to that purpose." Davis, 482 F.2d at 913. We conclude that the airport screening search of Aukai satisfied these requirements.
The search procedures used in this case were neither more extensive nor more intensive than necessary under the circumstances to rule out the presence of weapons or explosives. After passing through a magnetometer, Aukai was directed to secondary screening because his boarding pass was marked "No ID." Aukai then underwent a standard "wanding procedure." When the wand alarm sounded as the wand passed over Aukai's front right pants pocket, TSA Officer Misajon did not reach into Aukai's pocket or feel the outside of Aukai's pocket. Rather, Misajon asked Aukai if he had something in his pocket. When Aukai denied that there was anything in his pocket, Misajon repeated the wanding procedure. Only after the wand alarm again sounded and Aukai again denied having anything in his pocket did Misajon employ a more intrusive search procedure by feeling the outside of Aukai's pocket and determining that there was something in there.
IOW Aukai was not just hauled off to the side and felt up.
You have completely struck out. Neither the statute nor any of your case cites suggest that a TSA agent can just feel someone up as part of a general regulatory scheme.
Wow, I am not the one calling myself a JD who goes around spouting caseses that he apparently forgot to read.
I think by every definition of the word you are the hack. You have:
1. Put words in the mouths of others and then beat them up for it.
2. Rested on an argument to authority - your supposed JD - and stated you should not have to bother responding to anyone who does not have one.
3. Put words in the mouths of various Supreme Court Justices they did not utter.
4. Spewed off a number of cites to cases and statutes that do not say what you say they say, because apparently you never read them.
5. Put together an impossible to follow argument about why I am wrong in quoting verbatim from the text of the cases that you attempt to rely upon for your claim that TSA agents can go fingering little girls.
No, you are done here. If you want to argue your point, like a good attorney, argue your point like a good attorney.
In brief, your legal scholarship stinks like a 20 day beached whale.