Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

So You Want To Federalize Airport Security?
Toogood Reports ^ | November 6, 2001 | Matt Barr

Posted on 11/06/2001 7:46:27 AM PST by Starmaker

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last
To: Zeroisanumber
Checking for weapons or explosives at an airport concourse is not considered to be unreasonable search and thus not protected under the 4th.

It IS unreasonable on multiple counts:

1. "Unreasonable" in the 4th Amendment referred to performing the search with no apparent reason to believe something would be found, and no indication that a crime was being committed. In practically all cases, there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that anyone entering the "sterile area" of an airport is associated with any past, present or future flight-related crime - it is, therefore, legally unreasonable to search them.

2. Considering the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms ("...shall not be infringed", end of declaration), arbitrarily searching someone for something they have a right to is inherently unreasonable. See the latest "Emerson" and "DeCSS" court rulings for supporting legal views.

3. By your reasoning, random or pervasive searches anywhere else in society would be "reasonable" - but courts regularly deem far more "reasonable" searches unConstitutional. A guy wearing gang colors and obviously carrying a small heavy item in his pocket in a drug-dealing area cannot be searched for guns/drugs by police (despite obvious high probability of serious crimes past/present/future involved) and such a search, without corroborating evidence, would be ruled "unreasonable" - but an average person just stepping onto an airplane can be searched for just being there...this is "unreasonable" by any reasoning.

4. An otherwise baseless search performed to find items deemed "weapons" arbitrarily by an agency and not by explicit legislation is unreasonable. My right to be secure in my person & effects cannot reasonably be suspended/violated just because a faceless unelected burrowcrap, unaware of my existence, arbitrarily decided that I can't be trusted with a nail file.

5. The 4th Amendment REQUIRES that any search be predicated by probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Translation: a search may only be done upon a SPECIFIC person, with a SPECIFIC reason to believe crime-related items are possessed, with SWORN testimony to a judge, with SPECIFIC declaration of where the search will occur and what is expected to be found. Arbitrarily searching billions of passengers, especially when questionable items are RARELY found (and most of those otherwise legal without clear criminal intent), is almost as pure an example of "unreasonable search" as can be given.

41 posted on 11/06/2001 9:44:42 AM PST by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: snorkeler
"Mainly because he is always on the wrong side of the issue!!!"

At least the Senator from Arizona was for the D'Backs. Of course, that may have been political motivation as well. {;~)

42 posted on 11/06/2001 9:51:44 AM PST by d14truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: sonofagun
I knew some genius would come up with that one. Of course such matters were not included in my comment.
43 posted on 11/06/2001 10:18:14 AM PST by wny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MamaLucci
"Federal Marshalls" isn't the issue here, and you know it. The idiots in the Senate are talking about FEDERALIZING the $6.00 an hour employees already in these jobs. Very stupid idea.

Thank you for saying what has been missing from the national debate on this issue. The feds won't bring in new, skilled people to do these jobs. I can hear them now..."These are not bad people, they were just never TRAINED! We're going to give these 'workers' the training they deserve(BARF)!" So what you end up with is the same un-skilled morons who we're making $6.00 an hour, doing the same job after attending some "workshop" only now they make $20.00 an hour and have a job for life!

44 posted on 11/06/2001 10:19:15 AM PST by Orangedog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DLfromthedesert
Did you read my post before you hit the 'reply' button?

I am not in favor of federalizing airport security in the sense most are thinking. I do believe that it should be a military operation. Those folks are accountable and certainly not overpaid. If we have confidence in what these people are doing to keep our a$$es free "over there", why can they not be trusted to protect those free a$$es from these knife-wielding kooks who are still getting past our privately-owned "security" folks.

Oh, and please don't give me the liberal babble about how these poor screeners are soooooo underpaid. Police officers are underpaid. Firefighters are underpaid. Military soldiers are underpaid. They're gettin' it done. The people running these lowest-bidder security operations -- and the airlines who engage them -- are not gettin' it done.

Hope that desert sun ain't too much for you, my friend.

45 posted on 11/06/2001 10:22:25 AM PST by RightRules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DLfromthedesert
BTW, don't expect my wishes to go anywhere. This security issue has become a huge political football. Good things never happen with the hacks start trying to use an issue to make political hay.

Prediction: we will federalize this job. Then, the PC police will insist that we hire these poor, displaced screeners. We will wind up with a better-paid version of the status quo. Hence, my open plea to Ridge to take it out of the hands of Congress.

46 posted on 11/06/2001 10:26:23 AM PST by RightRules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DLfromthedesert
Incidentally, I think my proposed solution does not contribute to big gubmint.
47 posted on 11/06/2001 10:29:17 AM PST by RightRules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: scooter2
I have a cost effective,efficient and compassionate solution,given all the givens. Abolish the Fed.Dept of Ed, which does no more than augment our "great candle factory" or in other words the public school system. At this time the whole system is hell bent on melting all children into an amorphous blob and pouring them into one of several different molds so that every one will be perfectly formed to accomplish the objectives of the "candle masters".

Abolishing this department will correct this and put the responsibility back to the local levels where it belongs. Since its institution in the 70's drop out rates have gone up and SAT scores have gone down,to say nothing of the escalating costs of education.

The measure is cost effective because the monies used to fund the DOE can be budgeted to fund the new Dept of Int. Sec..Employees would go from one federal payroll to another at no extra cost to the taxpayers.

It is efficient because all of the employees can be offered transfers to the airport of their choice and the monies usually spent on massive recruiting efforts will be saved,additionally the time spent vetting candidates has already been spent.

It is compassionate because all of those many employees of that overstaffed,useless bureauracy will not be out of work unless they choose to be. Therefore no huge expenditures for unemployment comp etc..

I think this may be an oppurtunity to reorder our priorities and and get a grip. Surely it is almost beyond belief to look at the economy and not recognize a huge crisis looming. Now is the time to get a few birds with one stone. As a safety measure the individual operations will need to be headed up by several military personnel. I think this should fly unless it has too much common sense.

In summary:Abolish the Department of Education and establish the Department of Airport Security.

48 posted on 11/06/2001 10:39:54 AM PST by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RightRules
Oh, so we militarize our airports. So I have to be subjected to be searched by the military every time I want to get on a plane. What about "posse comitatus"? I guess we do away with that. Gee, maybe the military can protect our "a$$es" when we want to go to the mall, or the beach, or walk down the street.
49 posted on 11/06/2001 10:46:19 AM PST by DLfromthedesert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: d14truth
well it was hardly going out on a limb....
50 posted on 11/06/2001 11:55:44 AM PST by snorkeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
1. "Unreasonable" in the 4th Amendment referred to performing the search with no apparent reason to believe something would be found, and no indication that a crime was being committed. In practically all cases, there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that anyone entering the "sterile area" of an airport is associated with any past, present or future flight-related crime - it is, therefore, legally unreasonable to search them.

Signs posted in the airport state that baggage will be checked and you will be asked to step through a metal-detector as part of airline safety procedures. Legally, by going to the airport, you are consenting to be subjected to these searches. Searches of everyone who enters an airport are not required, only those who seek to enter a concourse. Therefore the search is not random and arbitrary, therefore it is not unreasonable.

2. Considering the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms ("...shall not be infringed", end of declaration), arbitrarily searching someone for something they have a right to is inherently unreasonable. See the latest "Emerson" and "DeCSS" court rulings for supporting legal views.

Yet the court has upheld (almost since the 2nd amendment was minted) the rights of cities and states to declare "Weapons Free" zones. Schools, airports, and other public areas are included under local statute.

3. By your reasoning, random or pervasive searches anywhere else in society would be "reasonable" - but courts regularly deem far more "reasonable" searches unConstitutional. A guy wearing gang colors and obviously carrying a small heavy item in his pocket in a drug-dealing area cannot be searched for guns/drugs by police (despite obvious high probability of serious crimes past/present/future involved) and such a search, without corroborating evidence, would be ruled "unreasonable" - but an average person just stepping onto an airplane can be searched for just being there...this is "unreasonable" by any reasoning.

No, As seen in paragraph 1, airport security is not arbitrary or non-consenual. Only people entering a concourse are searched, and even then in a non-invasive way. The rest of your argument is just "slippery-slope" claptrap. There is a compelling reason to have tight security at airports just as there is a compelling reason to have tight security at the White House.

4. An otherwise baseless search performed to find items deemed "weapons" arbitrarily by an agency and not by explicit legislation is unreasonable. My right to be secure in my person & effects cannot reasonably be suspended/violated just because a faceless unelected burrowcrap, unaware of my existence, arbitrarily decided that I can't be trusted with a nail file.

Rants against bureaucrats aside, the safety of all of the passengers on a given flight overrides your personal right to carry a handgun, rpg, knife, toothpick, fork, or salami sandwitch. I am a good citizen who has never been convicted of a crime, does this mean that I should be allowed to bring a pound of semtex into the Hoover Dam? No, and I would rightfully be arrested for criminal conduct if I tried to do so.

5. The 4th Amendment REQUIRES that any search be predicated by probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Translation: a search may only be done upon a SPECIFIC person, with a SPECIFIC reason to believe crime-related items are possessed, with SWORN testimony to a judge, with SPECIFIC declaration of where the search will occur and what is expected to be found. Arbitrarily searching billions of passengers, especially when questionable items are RARELY found (and most of those otherwise legal without clear criminal intent), is almost as pure an example of "unreasonable search" as can be given.</>

The need to ensure the smooth running and safety of airline travel provides the P.C. that the security officers require to scan each traveler comming onto a plane. I think that if there were a real legal leg to stand on the Supreme Court would've ruled against airport metal detectors and airline weapons bans a long time ago.

51 posted on 11/06/2001 12:16:00 PM PST by Zeroisanumber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DLfromthedesert
You don't have to agree with me, DL... this IS 'merica. I'm not sure I understand what you're whining about. Sounds like you're more in favor of the status quo: no security. You'd rather have your luggage a) not checked at all; or, b) checked by some $6/hour grunt who doesn't speak english and welcomes the opportunity to steal something from your luggage.

In this household, we have to fly frequently. I don't really like it, but, I would much rather be inconvenienced and subjected to scrutiny than to have myself or a member of my family turned to ash because some nut case decides to take over the plane and fly it into a building. And I would much rather that search was conducted by law enforcement or the military than some goof trying to pretend they have some sort of authority and expertise.

Because this country is free (and its borders are much more free and open than they should be), we have no choice than to make concessions to keep these kooks from killing thousands of people with such ease. If that steps on your toes, I guess there's Greyhound.

52 posted on 11/06/2001 1:59:11 PM PST by RightRules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: RightRules
How about tightening up the border and getting illegals booted OUT of the country instead of subjecting law abiding American citizens to be treated as criminals at airports? FYI, my son is a flight attendant and he agrees with ME. Arm the pilots; secure the cockpit doors, and federalize the rules. The military does NOT belong in the airport. I'd rather see them on the border!!!

No, I don't want anyone's family OR the Bill of Rights turned into ash.

53 posted on 11/06/2001 2:10:24 PM PST by DLfromthedesert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: DLfromthedesert
I totally agree with tightening borders and ejecting people that shouldn't be here. I do think it's naive to assume this alone will make our skies safer in the short run.

We're going to have airport security. Let's do it right, for a change.

54 posted on 11/06/2001 3:40:36 PM PST by RightRules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Starmaker
If Federal baggage checkers are anything like the INS, there will be ll million deaths in the next few years.
55 posted on 11/06/2001 3:44:18 PM PST by swampfox98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zeroisanumber
When searches are done as part of local jurisdiction, I'll grudgingly agree. Privately hired private security firms performing limited uniform checks on city/county-owned property on behalf of (and paid for by) private carriers is acceptable, comparable to me having the right to search anyone entering my house.

HOWEVER, this changes drastically when the guards are replaced by federal agents, at which point the voluntary business nature of searches is replaced by a plain Constitutional violation: NOTHING in the Constitution provides for such searches by federal agents (even when motivated by your vague fear of terrorists with nail files); to the contrary, the 4th Amendment plainly restricts such warrantless (in both senses of the word) searches.

Compare recent comparable decisions on the 1st and 2nd Amendments:

Re: limitations on 1st Amendment
Prior restraints on pure speech are highly disfavored and presumptively unconstitutional. (Hurvitz v. Hoefflin (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1232, 1241.) "In the case of a prior restraint on pure speech, the hurdle is substantially higher [than for an ordinary preliminary injunction]: publication must threaten an interest more fundamental than the First Amendment itself. Indeed, the Supreme Court has never upheld a prior restraint, even faced with the competing interest of national security or the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial."

Re: limitations on 2nd Amendment
In essence, Emerson, and the district court, concede that had the order contained an express finding, on the basis of adequate evidence, that Emerson actually posed a credible threat to the physical safety of his wife, and had that been a genuinely contested matter at the hearing, with the parties and the court aware of section 922(g)(8), then Emerson could, consistent with the Second Amendment, be precluded from possessing a firearm while he remained subject to the order.

These, and supporting texts, make it clear that sections of the Bill Of Rights may ONLY be suspended in very deliberate, targeted, individual cases where specific evidence is approved by a judge in a federal court - IF they may be suspended at all. Broad suspensions based on nebulous fear, as you suggest for the 4th Amendment, are not Constitutionally acceptable. Bare baseless fear that someone might carry a weapon onto an airplane with the specific intent to commit a heinous crime does NOT warrant federal agents suspending the 4th and 2nd Amendment rights of passengers.

If you still disagree and hold to having federal agents check everyone's luggage, PLEASE demonstrate a clearly Constitutional basis for suspending one of your Constitutional Rights.

Actually, I'd like to see the feds take over airline security screening - specifically so the issue can be taken to court and such warrantless searches struck down once and for all.

56 posted on 11/06/2001 4:01:58 PM PST by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: RightRules
We're going to have airport security. Let's do it right, for a change.

You expect "do it right" from the same people who can't get income tax straight?

I'm repeatedly amazed that the same people who contend the federal government is incompetent equally contend that the federal government is the only group that can do something right.

57 posted on 11/06/2001 4:04:09 PM PST by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
HOWEVER, this changes drastically when the guards are replaced by federal agents, at which point the voluntary business nature of searches is replaced by a plain Constitutional violation: NOTHING in the Constitution provides for such searches by federal agents (even when motivated by your vague fear of terrorists with nail files); to the contrary, the 4th Amendment plainly restricts such warrantless (in both senses of the word) searches.

Again I disagree, there are several instances in which citizens entering what are considered public institutions have been legally searched because of security concerns. Those entering the Pentagon, for example, are subject to the same search procedure as one finds at an airport. Even those taking the White House tour are subjected to a metal detector screening.

Actually, I'd like to see the feds take over airline security screening - specifically so the issue can be taken to court and such warrantless searches struck down once and for all.

I don't think that the security would be struck down. It is still illegal to carry any sort of weapon onboard an airplane. Since there are still those who attempt to carry weapons regardless, it is necessary to keep up some kind of security force.

58 posted on 11/06/2001 8:32:08 PM PST by Zeroisanumber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
You expect "do it right" from the same people who can't get income tax straight?

I'm repeatedly amazed that the same people who contend the federal government is incompetent equally contend that the federal government is the only group that can do something right.

You folks are missing the key point. Again, I'm not in favor of the bureaucrats taking over airport security. In fact, I'd prefer to see the FAA less-involved. I also know that simply paying the current screeners more money is not the answer.

I'd like to see the military be responsible. Doing this would de-politicize the issue, not cost us a fortune, create security people that are accountable and with excellent training.

In my opinon, this is the most cost effective and safest solution. Again, don't expect it to happen because this whole issue has become a huge political football.

59 posted on 11/07/2001 5:44:47 AM PST by RightRules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: RightRules
You folks are missing the key point.

Oh, we get it much more than you expect.

Again, I'm not in favor of the bureaucrats taking over airport security.

SOMEONE has to define what's not allowed - and it's not our duly-elected representatives.

I'd like to see the military be responsible.

The job of the military is to kill people and break things. That does not mix well with Jane Sixpack forgetting to take the nail file out of her makeup kit. It also constitutes a flat-out violation of the 4th Amendment.

Doing this would de-politicize the issue,

Oh, politics WILL get involved wherever tens of thousands of soldiers forced their will upon the public.

not cost us a fortune,

Oh? Where pray tell WILL the money for this come from? Soldiers aren't free, and they've all got assignments already!

create security people that are accountable

"Just following orders, m'am."

and with excellent training.

Do they teach (en masse) baggage screening in the military? Didn't think so.

In my opinon, this is the most cost effective and safest solution.

In my opinion, this is the most efficent route to a military/police state and will result in a lot of imprisoned or dead people.

Again, don't expect it to happen because this whole issue has become a huge political football.

Gee, I thought you said this wouldn't be politicized.

60 posted on 11/07/2001 7:51:28 AM PST by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson