Re: Your Rights a Airports, Your Rights to Be
Quote:
Quoting
flyingron
Yep, the feds just came out with an interpretation that the fourteenth amendment doesn't apply either to airport security or the borders. The Constitution is just a piece of paper as far as Obama is concerned.
There's nothing wrong with expressing skepticism of the limited protections from search and seizure extended to people who wish to board an airplane or come into the United States across an international border, but it's best to do so with an understanding of history as otherwise you can end up sounding like a Tea Party ignoramus.
Quote:
Quoting United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 538 (1985).
[T]he Fourth Amendment's balance of reasonableness is qualitatively different at the international border than in the interior. Routine searches of the persons and effects of entrants are not subject to any requirement of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or warrant, and first-class mail may be opened without a warrant on less than probable cause,
Ramsey, supra. Automotive travelers may be stopped at fixed checkpoints near the border without individualized suspicion even if the stop is based largely on ethnicity,
United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, 562-563 (1976), and boats on inland waters with ready access to the sea may be hailed and boarded with no suspicion whatever.
United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, supra.
These cases reflect longstanding concern for the protection of the integrity of the border. This concern is, if anything, heightened by the veritable national crisis in law enforcement caused by smuggling of illicit narcotics, see
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U. S. 544, 561 (1980) (POWELL, J., concurring), and in particular by the increasing utilization of alimentary canal smuggling. This desperate practice appears to be a relatively recent addition to the smugglers' repertoire of deceptive practices, and it also appears to be exceedingly difficult to detect. Congress had recognized these difficulties. Title 19 U. S. C. § 1582 provides that "all persons coming into the United States from foreign countries shall be liable to detention and search authorized . . . [by customs regulations]." Customs agents may "stop, search, and examine" any "vehicle, beast or person" upon which an officer suspects there is contraband or "merchandise which is subject to duty." § 482; see also §§ 1467, 1481; 19 CFR §§ 162.6, 162.7 (1984).
Balanced against the sovereign's interests at the border are the Fourth Amendment rights of respondent. Having presented herself at the border for admission, and having subjected herself to the criminal enforcement powers of the Federal Government, 19 U. S. C. § 482, respondent was entitled to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. But not only is the expectation of privacy less at the border than in the interior, see
e. g., Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 154 (1925); cf.
Florida v. Royer, 460 U. S. 491, 515 (1983) (BLACKMUN, J., dissenting), the Fourth Amendment balance between the interests of the Government and the privacy right of the individual is also struck much more favorably to the Government at the border.
Supra, at 538.
Quote:
Quoting United States v. Marquez, 410 F.3d 612, 617 (9th Cir.2005)
Airport screenings of passengers and their baggage constitute administrative searches and are subject to the limitations of the Fourth Amendment.
United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir.1973) (noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are "conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme" where the essential administrative purpose is "to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft");
see also id. at 895, 904. Thus, airport screenings must be reasonable.
See Torbet v. United Airlines, Inc., 298 F.3d 1087, 1089 (9th Cir. 2002). To judge reasonableness, it is necessary to balance the right to be free of intrusion with "society's interest in safe air travel."
United States v. Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d 899, 901 (9th Cir.1986)....
In
Davis and its progeny, we have established a general reasonableness test for airport screenings. "An airport screening search is reasonable if: (1) it is no more extensive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives; (2) it is confined in good faith to that purpose; and (3) passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly."
Torbet, 298 F.3d at 1089 (citation omitted);
see also Davis, 482 F.2d at 913;
Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d at 901.
For a rather complete explanation of how security searches at airports are permitted under the Fourth Amendment, see United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174 (3d Cir. 2006).
Re: Your Rights a Airports, Your Rights to Be
And your comments would make a lot more sense if you knew the difference between the fourth an the FOURTEENTH amendment.
I was referring to the recent DOJ statement that while racial, ethnic, and religous profiling was considered unconstitutional in other situations, they intended to keep doing it in the case of border entry and and airport screenings.
The searches aren't "random". They are targeted at people of a specific religious and ethnic background. So much for equal protection.
Re: Your Rights a Airports, Your Rights to Be
Quote:
Quoting
flyingron
And your comments would make a lot more sense if you knew the difference between the fourth an the FOURTEENTH amendment.
I was referring to the recent DOJ statement that while racial, ethnic, and religous profiling was considered unconstitutional in other situations, they intended to keep doing it in the case of border entry and and airport screenings.
The searches aren't "random". They are targeted at people of a specific religious and ethnic background. So much for equal protection.
Not too many little old Caucasian ladies plotting violent acts against aircraft, or Irish Canadians sneaking across the border into the US. Race is a viable element of a profile when screening for immigration and terror threats. The courts have consistently affirmed the right of the feds to conduct these searches even based upon race. And since the courts are the arbiters of the Constitution, it would seem that these acts are, indeed, constitutional.
Re: Your Rights a Airports, Your Rights to Be
Quote:
Quoting
flyingron
And your comments would make a lot more sense if you knew the difference between the fourth an the FOURTEENTH amendment.
I was referring to the recent DOJ statement that while racial, ethnic, and religous profiling was considered unconstitutional in other situations, they intended to keep doing it in the case of border entry and and airport screenings.
The searches aren't "random". They are targeted at people of a specific religious and ethnic background. So much for equal protection.
And you remain incredibly confused about the state of the law.
The Supreme Court long ago upheld profiling, including much of what has since been deemed "racial profiling", which is why this is a political issue and not one that is being resolved through the courts. The issue is not a profile that is predicated solely on the suspect's race or religion or other protected characteristic, but one that could potentially take those characteristics into consideration, consistent with long-standing judicial interpretations of the law. See, e.g., United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873, 878 (1975), a Fourth Amendment case holding, "The likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor, but standing alone it does not justify stopping all Mexican-Americans to ask if they are aliens." You're throwing a Tea Party tantrum based upon the DOJ's voluntarily offering protections not required by the Constitution.
The Fourteenth Amendment objections occur at a different level, predicated either on the basis that the actions of the officer were racially motivated, or that they were targeted as a result of selective enforcement -- i.e., that the challenged law enforcement practice had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose. There is nothing in the inclusion of race, religion, gender and the like along with other factors in a profile that would automatically create a Fourteenth Amendment impediment to its application and enforcement.