NCJ Number
15803
Journal
New York University Law Review Volume: 48 Issue: 5 Dated: (NOVEMBER 1973) Pages: 1043-1062
Date Published
1973
Length
20 pages
Annotation
ARGUMENT THAT AIRPORT SEARCHES OF ALL PASSENGERS HAVE BEEN UPHELD BY COURTS ON DUBIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT IN A MANNER WHICH SERIOUSLY INFRINGES UPON PASSENGERS' RIGHTS.
Abstract
THE AUTHOR QUESTIONS THE RELIANCE ON THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN TERRY V. OHIO TO JUSTIFY AIRPORT SECURITY'S POLICY OF STOPPING AND FRISKING PASSENGERS WHO TRIGGER THE MAGNETOMETER (WEAPONS DETECTOR). THIS COURT DECISION CREATED AN EXCEPTION TO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT REQUIREMENT OF PROBABLE CAUSE BY PERMITTING A 'STOP AND FRISK' BASED ON REASONABLE SUSPICION AND THE POTENTIAL DANGER TO THE POLICE OFFICER. IT IS ARGUED THAT TERRY DOES NOT COVER THE SCOPE OF OR THE CRITERIA USED FOR AIRPORT SEARCHES. SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVES APPROACHES INCLUDE OBTAINING THE PASSENGER'S INFORMED CONSENT FOR A SEARCH AND JUSTIFYING AIRPORT SEARCHES BASED ON THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN CAMARA V. MUNICIPAL COURT. THIS DECISION UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCH (A PERIODIC HOUSING INSPECTION FOR CODE VIOLATIONS) WITHOUT A WARRANT AND WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE. THE AUTHOR PROPOSES HIS OWN SEARCH SYSTEM WHICH WOULD GIVE PASSENGERS THE RIGHT TO REFUSE TO BE SEARCHED IF THEY WERE WILLING TO NOT BOARD THE PLANE. ALSO SUGGESTED IS THE SUPPRESSION OF ALL NONWEAPON EVIDENCE FOUND IN AN AIRPORT SEARCH.