4th Amendment

[Hugh B]

With the intensive searches taking place at airports the question of the 4th amendment becomes a serious question.

At what point does the 4th amendment kick in? Or, should I say when does it no longer apply? Is there actually some point where a person not convicted of a crime, a person who has done nothing giving probable cause to a law enforcement officer where the 4th amandment against unreasonable search no longer applies?

Do we actually lose our right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches when we have done nothing wrong? This is a broad question which is currently putting our rights at risk at airports but if allowed can easily be expanded to many other aspects of the lives of citizens.

[Gib's Son]

When you purchase a ticket and enter that line you have given consent to be searched. You basically gave up your 4th amendment right. Next thing you know they will be searching you when you enter a football stadium.

The thing is is that airports are privately owned. They are not government property (although some may?).

The airports have the right to kick TSA out on their ear if they want as long as they hire a private security firm. I would hope airports would begin to explore this option.

[wolfstrike]

a private company has the right to ask you to submit to a search.

the illegal part is when the federal government comes in and says ALL airlines have to tell their customers to submit to a search.


airlines that could be doing away with searches would be making lots of money right now.

[air2spare]

why don't we just deport all muslims and call it fixed?

[pdrake65]

The 4TH Amendment has been ingnored for decades now.Time for our Supreme Court to start doing it's TRUE job!

[bwalley]

When you purchase a ticket and enter that line you have given consent to be searched. You basically gave up your 4th amendment right. Next thing you know they will be searching you when you enter a football stadium.

The thing is is that airports are privately owned. They are not government property (although some may?).

The airports have the right to kick TSA out on their ear if they want as long as they hire a private security firm. I would hope airports would begin to explore this option.

Airports are not privately owned, they are owned by the government and the TSA are government workers, I think there is a strong case to be made these searches are unreasonable and a violation of the 4th amendment, but the constitution is routinely ignored,.

In Tampa there are searches when going to a football game, there was a lawsuit to stop it, not sure what happened.

[pdrake65]

Airports are not privately owned, they are owned by the government and the TSA are government workers, I think there is a strong case to be made these searches are unreasonable and a violation of the 4th amendment, but the constitution is routinely ignored,.

In Tampa there are searches when going to a football game, there was a lawsuit to stop it, not sure what happened.

Most airports around the world are government owned. Searches such as these are done at schools, stadiums,events..anywhere they feel like doing them.

[Gib's Son]

Airports are both privately owned and by other entities. LAX for instance is owned by the city of LA. Government owned, ok yes, but it's not Federal Government. That is why federal law allows the airports to make the final decision whether or not they want TSA doing the screening.

[bwalley]

Airports are both privately owned and by other entities. LAX for instance is owned by the city of LA. Government owned, ok yes, but it's not Federal Government. That is why federal law allows the airports to make the final decision whether or not they want TSA doing the screening.

Government is government, it doesn't matter whether it is state or federal.

[Hugh B]

The law has clearly required that a police officer have probable cause to search you. The officer must have some reason to believe that a crime has been committed, is about to be committed or that you in particular have committed a crime and are a wanted individual.

Even then, unless the officer is actually going to make an arrest he or she can perform a very brief search for his or her own safety. This is all well established law from the Supreme Court itself.

So just where does this new highly intrusive search authority come from? This is clearly in opposition to all established law and the 4th amendment.

[dan wong]

Personally. I much rather sit in an air plane where everyone has been search rather than not search. my 2 cents

[Hugh B]

It is amazing and shocking to read how many of you here are willing to easily give up your constitutional rights for some precieved level of safety.

[ga-hvac-tech]

It is amazing and shocking to read how many of you here are willing to easily give up your constitutional rights for some precieved level of safety.

I do not remember how this quote goes or who said it: It goes something like this:

"Those that would trade freedom for perceived safety or security deserve neither"

I am sure it is one of the founding fathers of the USA.