Re: [Leica] airport security kinda long. ;-)

[Jeffery Smith <jls@runbox.com>]

Whenever someone invokes the old "we are at war" clause (which G.W. does 
incessantly), it seems that the Bill of Rights goes on the back burner. 
Before 9/11, the airlines had to revoke Freedom of Speech (yes, people 
making offhand remarks got bounced from flights) and Right to Bear Arms, 
and they have had to take the search and seizure thing one rung higher. 
Apparently our founding fathers didn't think of terrorism when they penned 
those rights (and this was only 3 years after America's first act of 
terrorism...the Boston Tea Party!).

JLS

At 09:23 PM 7/6/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>Hello Bryan:
>
>You're right, it is the fourth amendment.
>
>Your citation is most interesting.   It appears that once you allow the
>screening process to begin, you cannot retreat from it.
>
>Also, it appears that the fourth amendment has been quite hollowed out in
>this arena.
>
>Best regards,
>Roland Smith
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bryan Caldwell" <bcaldwell51@earthlink.net>
>To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
>Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2002 8:07 AM
>Subject: Re: [Leica] airport security kinda long. ;-)
>
>
> > On 7/5/02 9:59 PM, "Roland Smith" <roland@dnai.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects us from unreasonable
> > > searches and seizures under both criminal and civil law.   The
>justification
> > > for airport security search must be based on some type of contractual
> > > implied consent when we use the airport.
> >
> >
> > Roland,
> >
> > I think you mean the Fourth Amendment. I'm not sure how you find it
>applies
> > to civil law - it only applies to government action. The Fourth Amendment
> > does not cover, say, a search of employees by a private employer.
>Privately
> > conducted searches can be (and are) a matter of state law.
> >
> > Here is a good, if rather weighty, article about the legalities (Pre 9/11)
> > of airport security searches and the various theories under which they
>pass
> > muster. It cites all of the leading cases if you're interested in doing
>the
> > background reading. Although the cases are only cited by name and date,
>they
> > can probably be found at FindLaw or another such website.
> >
> > http://books.nap.edu/books/0309054397/html/34.html#pagetop
> >
> > As someone who deals with Fourth Amendment issues on an almost daily
>basis,
> > I can assure you that it is a VERY complicated topic - riddled with
> > exceptions that don't always make the most sense.
> >
> > Bryan
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
> >
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html


- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html