Interesting People mailing list archives
more on Right to Travel Case - for IP?
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:31:31 -0500
Begin forwarded message: From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf () sethf com> Date: February 27, 2006 7:40:39 AM EST To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net> Cc: ip () v2 listbox com, Steven Hertzberg <stevenstevensteven () gmail com> Subject: Re: [IP] Right to Travel Case - for IP?
From: Steven Hertzberg <stevenstevensteven () gmail com>I do not understand this decision and hope that some from IP may shed someadditional light on the matter. Given that a US citizen's rights areunalienable, how are we, as men, able to waive these god-given rights and grant the gov't the ability to admittedly operate outside the bounds of theConstitution? ... Decision can be found at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0415736p.pdf
I think the key passages on that point are around page 22: "... The identification policy's search option implicates the Fourth Amendment. See Davis, 482 F.2d at 895 (holding that the government's participation in airport search programs brings any search conducted pursuant to those programs within the reach of the Fourth Amendment). Airport screening searches, however, do not per se violate a traveler's Fourth Amendment rights, and therefore must be analyzed for reasonableness. Id. at 910. As we explained in Davis: To meet the test of reasonableness, an administrative screening search must be as limited in its intrusiveness as is consistent with satisfaction of the administrative need that justifies it. It follows that airport screening searches are valid only if they recognize the right of a person to avoid search by electing not to board the aircraft. [...] "... [17] Additionally, the search option "is no more extensive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives . . . [and] is confined in good faith to [prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircrafts]; and . . . passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly."12 Torbet, 298 F.3d at 1089 (describing the requirements for reasonableness as laid out in Davis) (citations omitted). Therefore, the search option was reasonable and did not violate Gilmore's Fourth Amendment rights." Let's put it this way: Agree or disagree, the reasoning seems straightforward. The passage about "license" is saying that what would be unreasonable as a general Fourth Amendment matter is reasonable in the specific context of "weapons or explosives aboard aircrafts". -- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/ Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on Right to Travel Case - for IP? David Farber (Feb 27)