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."
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.
/Grin
Too funny, pal.
The best,
John
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.