[IP] more on Right to Travel Case - for IP?
Begin forwarded message:
From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: February 27, 2006 7:40:39 AM EST
To: Dave Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Steven Hertzberg <stevenstevensteven@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [IP] Right to Travel Case - for IP?
From: Steven Hertzberg <stevenstevensteven@xxxxxxxxx>
I do not understand this decision and hope that some from IP may
shed some
additional light on the matter. Given that a US citizen's rights are
unalienable, 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 the
Constitution?
...
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 roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/