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

Skip to comments.

Court: Airline passengers can't back out of searches (after going thru initial security screenings)
AP on Bakersfield Californian ^ | 8/11/07 | AP

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."


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: 9thcircuit; airline; airportsecurity; backout; passengers; ruling; searches; tsa

1 posted on 08/11/2007 9:09:34 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

FRom the 9th Circuit yet.


2 posted on 08/11/2007 9:10:05 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Welcome to FR. The Virtual Boot Camp for 'infidels' in waiting)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

This falls under the “even a broken clock is right once a day” rule.


3 posted on 08/11/2007 9:15:01 PM PDT by OCC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Absolutely amazing!


4 posted on 08/11/2007 9:15:06 PM PDT by jazusamo (DefendOurMarines.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Gotta be a mistake.


5 posted on 08/11/2007 9:15:10 PM PDT by neodad (USS Vincennes (CG-49) Freedom's Fortress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

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.


6 posted on 08/11/2007 9:32:53 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OCC
This falls under the “even a broken clock is right once a day” rule.

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.

Cheers!

7 posted on 08/11/2007 10:30:59 PM PDT by jws3sticks (Hillary can take a very long walk on a very short pier, anytime, and the sooner the better!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

This bit of common-sense is from the 9th Circus? Let me look out the window; pigs must be flying.


8 posted on 08/11/2007 10:38:39 PM PDT by hsalaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

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.


9 posted on 08/12/2007 12:48:36 AM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
So you decide it’s a bad time to fly today.
But you can’t decide that, you are a slave.


No one’s forcing you to get on the plane after you get through inspection, but once you’ve started the inspection process, you must finish it.
10 posted on 08/12/2007 1:45:54 AM PDT by Cheburashka (Come over to the Dark Side. We have cookies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com

They are saying you can’t avoid further searches, not that you can’t decline to fly.


11 posted on 08/12/2007 1:46:51 AM PDT by sd-joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

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.

 

12 posted on 08/12/2007 3:27:25 AM PDT by Sarajevo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sarajevo

The sheep part of it is that we fly at all, considering the state of security at airports or on flights.


13 posted on 08/12/2007 4:57:31 AM PDT by PinkDolphin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: OCC

“twice a day” rule.


14 posted on 08/12/2007 7:31:02 AM PDT by B4Ranch ( "Freedom is not free, but don't worry the U.S. Marine Corps will pay most of your share.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka
It is deplorable that under the circumstances we are discussing the rights of a meth-head, but that is how are civil rights are defined. Suppose my bag through the machine, it goes through without problem and then I decide not to fly and the feds decide that in itself is suspicious and so I am subjected to detention for a full body search and hours of questioning all to find me innocent.

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.

15 posted on 08/12/2007 8:03:18 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
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.

An airplane is not a public street. It is owned and operated by a company, just as you own and operate your own car. The airplane owners happen not to like people who get on their airplanes and then blow the planes up, and most of their customers feel the same way. They want searches to make sure people getting on the planes don't have the means and ability to blow up the planes. The government for its own political purposes decided that they would do the security, but when you get on a plane you are not standing on a public street, and you never were, even before 9/11. And you have no right to expect to be treated as if you were. If you don't like it, you have the option to take some other means of transportation. I say this as a simple statement of fact, so don't read any sort of hostility in it towards you.

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.

16 posted on 08/12/2007 8:48:33 AM PDT by Cheburashka (Come over to the Dark Side. We have cookies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jws3sticks; B4Ranch
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


17 posted on 08/12/2007 9:44:27 AM PDT by OCC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
I've been thinking recently that our society would be better off if we had more Air Marshals on more flights, no security in the airports, and allowed passengers to be armed.

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,

18 posted on 08/12/2007 9:48:59 AM PDT by Bernard (The Fairness Doctrine should be applied to people who follow the rules to come to America legally)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka
It is owned and operated by a company

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.

19 posted on 08/12/2007 11:30:07 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
One more bit of news that makes me glad I no longer fly anywhere.
20 posted on 08/12/2007 11:51:48 AM PDT by Bear_in_RoseBear (Loot it while it lasts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka
The airplane owners

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.

21 posted on 08/12/2007 11:52:39 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sd-joe

“...”Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by ‘electing not to fly’...”

Electing not to fly.


22 posted on 08/12/2007 1:22:48 PM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka

If nuts get control of the plane, the goobermint will shoot it down, possibly onto the roof of some non flyer’s house.


23 posted on 08/12/2007 1:25:17 PM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

It’s very wrong to worry about your rights, according to some here.


24 posted on 08/12/2007 1:26:54 PM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Bernard

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.


25 posted on 08/12/2007 1:28:18 PM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
When I walk into my local Safeway, I don't consent to a strip search,

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.

26 posted on 08/12/2007 1:37:01 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: OCC
Step away from the keyboard, very slowly.

/Grin

27 posted on 08/12/2007 1:40:18 PM PDT by MaxMax (God Bless America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: OCC

Too funny, pal.

The best,

John


28 posted on 08/13/2007 12:30:18 AM PDT by jws3sticks (Hillary can take a very long walk on a very short pier, anytime, and the sooner the better!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

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