Creepy…creepy creepy.Sunday’s night’s ep of the Practice was about 4th amendment rights and that VERY same night on the local news they annouce plans to conduct random searches of cars going into the airport.Excuse me?The reasoning behind this is because they are now being allowed to open back up the 1 hr parking right in front of certain terminals,closed since Sept 11,2001.
I am confused. When did they get the right to violate the 4th amendment and just search your car without probable cause?If this were a damned border crossing,yeah,I’d understand but at the AIRPORT???
Yeah, they just got it confused with the third amendment, which says the gov’t can’t quarter troops in your house without your permission unless there’s a war.
I guess the answer would be that, because they’ve informed you that cars going into the airport may be searched, by driving your car into the airport grounds, you’ve given your consent. It’s the same way it’s not a violation for them to search your bags before getting on the plane.
I own the garage and I can set whatever conditions I like. If you don’t like my garage then just take your business elsewhere. In my garage pretty girls are subject to search and seizure. So there.
If you go by that reasoning they could say that any woman that they believe is a threat may be strip searched without probable cause.
Your probable response to that would be something like (and I am not putting words in your mouth, if you have another response than these please go ahead and say them and disregard the following) “Oh, that’s illigal! Invasion of a person’s body, sexual humiliation etc…”
-or- (again)
“You’re perfectly free to avoid the airport”
What if they don’t exactly advertise this practice? It wouldn’t be great for business, so what if some unknowing lady goes into this airport? Sure she can say no, but then she has to go get another ticket from another airport (time/$).
-or-
You might say these things are entirely different… But are they really?
I thought it was funny, myself, as a humerous confusion of the 4th and 3rd amendments. It’s the kind of joke I might have made if I got here first. Alternately, you could have said “Well, what if the value of my car doesn’t exceed twenty dollars?”
I don’t really see the second level to it, though.
Is everybody really free to avoid the airport? People on business, people on their way to having surgery, etc.? How far does that reasoning go - am I free to avoid the downtown area, if I don’t want my car searched there? The grocery store?
Does your own personal privacy carry more weight than human life? Is the privacy of not having police search your car at the airport so great you’re willing to create a situation in which a terrorist can kill more people?
The analogy is incorrect on two levels. First, everyone is subject to the same trunk searching procedures, whereas only women would be subject in your example. This inequality would make it illegal.
Second, if they believed the woman to be a threat then there must, by definition, be some sort of probable cause.
So, you reply, what if they started equally strip searching everyone who wanted to board a plane for no cause whatsoever?
Well, aside from the logistical and administrative nightmare that would cause, it may (though I wouldn’t state for certain) be legal to do so.
Why? Because you have a choice on whether you want to fly or not.
Now, if everyone decided that strip searching was taking things too far and decided not to fly anymore, the airlines would go bankrupt. OK…um, more so than they are now.
So the FAA decides to loosen up security, get rid of the strip searches, and everyone’s happy again.
It’s the Constitution and caplitalism working hand in hand.
Courts have always understood that there are levels of intrusion into privacy, and balanced those levels against the good being sought.
The Court has permitted, for example, a brief detention, and pat-down of the outer clothing, even without probable cause, for the purpose of officer safety and and investigation of a crime. But no one - no one rationally grounded in an understanding of constitutional law, anyway - could point to that and shriek hysterically that the next step was strip-searching of motorists by the side of the road… because the Court explicitly did not permit a more intrusive search without probable cause. Even reaching into the detainee’s pockets, rather than just patting down the outside, was deemed too intrusive without probable cause.
Now we turn to the airport searches.
A private entity may generally require you to concent to searches. Concertgoers, for example, are often searched before entering the venue. You are free to refuse to consent to the search, and the concert promoter is equally free to refuse to permit you to enter. None of this implicates the Fourth Amendment, which constrains only government actions.
But let’s assume, arguendo, that the actors in this case are government agents.
There is no Constitutional right to travel by air. The government can certainly point to a compelling interest in security surrounding the airport facilities. A search of vehicles entering the area, as long as it’s understood that a driver may refuse to consent, turn around, and leave, does not offend the Fourth Amendment.
Why could the government not demand that any woman be strip-searched? First, because the courts recognize that strip-searching is a far more intrusive procedure than the search of a vehicle. Secondly, subjecting only women to the scrutiny makes no rational sense; the government cannot point to a reaosn for the distinction. Courts have also been leery of surrendering unbridled discretion to the officer on the street. Checkpoints are permissible on the roads, for example, when they are run for a pre-determined time and stop cars in a pre-determined manner (every car, every fifth car) but constitutionally impermissible when they leave the decision about which car to check to the officer manning the checkpoint.
I hope, clayton_e, that this explanation clears up your concerns.
Actually, yes. The whole notion of civil liberties and the Bill of Rights is predicated on the idea that the right to live in freedom is just as important as the right to live.
Our civil liberties cost lives, period.
Freedom of expression leads to the Turner Diaries, which lead to Tim McVeigh blowing up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City
Freedom of religion leads to godhatesfags.com, which leads to murders of gays in gay-bashing attacks.
The right to bear arms leads to people shooting each other.
Freedom from search and seizure means that police miss the chance to stop criminals before they commit crimes.
Etc.
There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Live in a police state, and have a lower chance of being killed by a criminal. Live in a free state, and have a greater risk to your life.
When did they get the right to violate the 4th amendment and just search your car without probable cause?If this were a damned border crossing,yeah,I’d understand but at the AIRPORT???