Skip to comments.Court: Airline passengers can't back out of searches (after going thru initial security screenings)
Posted on 08/11/2007 9:09:29 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
Citing concerns about terrorism, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that airline passengers lose their right to object to a search after they go through initial security screenings.
The San Francisco-based court, ruling in a case involving a Hawaii man, said airline passengers couldn't refuse searches once they place their belongings on an X-ray tray or walk through a metal detector.
It was the appeals court's second decision in the case of Daniel Kuualoha Aukai because it wanted to clarify an earlier decision on the issue of consent. Last year, the court ruled Aukai couldn't back out of additional searches even after he no longer wanted to board a flight.
Aukai was arrested for crystal methamphetamine possession before boarding a scheduled flight to Kona from Honolulu on Feb. 1, 2003. Aukai was later sentenced to five years and 10 months in prison.
Judge Carlos Bea wrote that requiring authorization from passengers during ongoing searches "makes little sense in a post 9/11 world."
"Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by 'electing not to fly' on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found," the 15-page opinion said. "This rule would also allow terrorists a low-cost method of detecting systematic vulnerabilities in airport security, knowledge that could be extremely valuable in planning future attacks."
FRom the 9th Circuit yet.
This falls under the “even a broken clock is right once a day” rule.
Gotta be a mistake.
Well, any reasonable person would think that that kind of behavior was suspicious.
How did the 9th circuit get one right?
Maybe it’s time to play the lottery.
With the greatest of all due respect, unless it is an military digital clock, I think the line has to do with "TWO TIMES" a day, like 10:00 AM and 10:00 PM, unless I missed something in the translation.
This bit of common-sense is from the 9th Circus? Let me look out the window; pigs must be flying.
So you start through the checkpoint and while they strip search your grandmother, you see them passing through a dozen, rough looking men wearing their towels on their heads and you think, Oh, my, if these guys try to take over the plane, I’ll be helpless to stop them and the government will help save us by shooting down the plane.
So you decide it’s a bad time to fly today.
But you can’t decide that, you are a slave.
They are saying you can’t avoid further searches, not that you can’t decline to fly.
The San Francisco-based court said
airline passengers sheep couldn't refuse searches once they place their belongings on an X-ray tray or walk through a metal detector. There...fixed.
The sheep part of it is that we fly at all, considering the state of security at airports or on flights.
“twice a day rule.
I know - if you are innocent you have nothing to worry about. Ever here about some idiot former prosecutor named Nifong?
Whatever happened to my right as a citizen to go about my business unmolested. I may have given up some privacy rights when I walk onto a public street, but I certainly did not agree to give up all rights. The Constitution contains no, except if you are in a market, street, airport, etc. statement.
If we allow people to pick and choose how much of the security process they will undergo, it invites probes to see if the bombers can find a security weak spot, which weakens the security. I might note that this affects you even if you never fly, because if the nuts gain control of a plane they may decide to crash the plane exactly where you or someone you care about is standing.
Mr. Meth was not not interested in blowing up the plane, but he was performing an illegal act and put himself in close proximity to law enforcement people. He took his chances, he pays the price.
But I don't want Bill O'Reilly seeing that thought out loud and branding me as, whatever he needs to find a target for,
You are an idiot. When I walk into my local Safeway, I don't consent to a strip search, even if I have nothing to worry about because I am, after all, innocent.
Not only do I believe you are an idiot, but in addition you forgot that it is not the airplane owner that does this, but the federal government, TSA being a wholly owned agency of the feral gubmint, unless you forgot.
And I am not defending or regretting that this meth-head got caught. I am only decrying that my freedom to go about unmolested is compromised because under these circumstances the person who got trapped turned out to be guilty and turned out to be a stupid (redundant) meth-head.
That doesn't mean that I am wrong to worry about my rights.
“...”Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by ‘electing not to fly’...”
Electing not to fly.
If nuts get control of the plane, the goobermint will shoot it down, possibly onto the roof of some non flyer’s house.
It’s very wrong to worry about your rights, according to some here.
We can’t allow the passengers to defend themselves, but we can shoot down the plane once it’s been hijacked. Now you must feel safer.
If you were accused of shoplifting? A government agency will be contacted and conduct any search of your person looking for contraband (stolen goods).
The difference is that you might be able to sue the grocery store if you are detained and no contraband is found.
Too funny, pal.
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.