Just say NO to random LAX searches

[Liberty1]

We may want to take a lead from Flex Your Rights (http://www.flexyourrights.org/index.php)and their Just Say No to DC's random Subway searches campaign:

http://www.flexyourrights.org/metro

http://www.flexyourrights.org/files/Metro%20Rights%20Flyer%20(double-sided).pdf

[FreedomIsNotFree]

Not a bad idea. Do we know if these "random" searches are happening at other airports in CA? I'm flying out of San Jose tomorrow, so I can report back.

[CCWFacts]

What's the legal situation at LAX? When they want to search my car as I'm entering, can I decline? If so, I will, 100% of the time.

[Theseus]

They have been doing the random searches since 9/11 I believe.

I have never been stopped by it, but I have seen them. They are normally closed or inoperable when I go by. I am guessing they use the "threat level" as an excuse, but I don't know.

I say that we have an OC protest outside LAX...but I am a little more brazen than most.

[FreedomIsNotFree]

Only when you enter a controlled portion of the airport does the additional security become legal...such as passing through the gates. The road traveling through the Arrival/Departure area is not a controlled area.

[the_quark]

I have seen these stops at San Jose and in Savannah, GA. However, both were in the initial say six months after 9/11, and before I got really informed on the laws. In both cases, I thought, "Huh, how is this legal?" but then didn't say, "No, I'm sorry officer, you may not search my car." Now, I would.

I was talking with a gun lawyer, today, and he told me that he though the ACLU was challenging this, but I'm having trouble finding anything online - anyone hear of such a case?

(And, yes, the ACLU has problems, but I'm sure we can all get behind them when they challenge BS like this)

-TQ

Edit: PS: I flew out of San Jose about a month ago and San Francisco less than a week ago and in neither case did I see such a checkpoint. That's not completely definitive - maybe we went the wrong way to hit it - but I think it's a local decision, not something system-wide. I could also see it being temporarily set up due to some "credible threat"

[FreedomIsNotFree]

Here is a link to the LAX website...
http://www.lawa.org/welcomeLAX.cfm

The only mention of random searches can be found here...
http://www.lawa.org/welcomelax.cfm?id=58&terms=random

All vehicles entering the Central Terminal Area are subject to random inspection.

The supporting legality is not mentioned, nor do they mention how they determine what is "random". Do they use an algorithm or does security use its Spidey Sense...?

I'll keep diggin.

[pullnshoot25]

They have been doing the random searches since 9/11 I believe.

I have never been stopped by it, but I have seen them. They are normally closed or inoperable when I go by. I am guessing they use the "threat level" as an excuse, but I don't know.

I say that we have an OC protest outside LAX...but I am a little more brazen than most.

I'll join you on one of my free days :)

[Liberty1]

I'll join you on one of my free days :)

Not yet boys :rolleyes: wait a little longer on this one. ;) Unless you're picking up someone and are carrying for SD. Then all the "smart OC" rules still apply.

[audihenry]

Most people don't know their rights and will give consent to a search.

I'm not one of those people, but I know that if I'm traveling with family or friends, they would rather get searched than say no.

[FreedomIsNotFree]

Maybe someone else can find additional info...

SECURITY ENHANCEMENTS ANNOUNCED AT GENERAL MITCHELL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

MILWAUKEE (July 2, 2007) – As of 2:00 p.m. today, vehicles using the front drives at General Mitchell International Airport are being randomly selected for inspection, as part of increased security measures recommended by the federal Department of Homeland Security for airports nationwide.


Looks like DHS made the recommendation for random searches/inspections. What power of law they have in this regard is a question I haven't been able to answer.

[JDay]

Not a bad idea. Do we know if these "random" searches are happening at other airports in CA? I'm flying out of San Jose tomorrow, so I can report back.

I think every airport in the US has this policy since 9/11. May even be federally mandated.

[JDay]

Maybe someone else can find additional info...




Looks like DHS made the recommendation for random searches/inspections. What power of law they have in this regard is a question I haven't been able to answer.

That is a good question since most if not all airports in the US are not on federal land.

[BitterVoter]

I wonder if they can argue that by purchasing a ticket to fly out of that airport you agreed to their terms similar to a parking garage may make purchasing or paying for parking acceptance of the contract...

[FreedomIsNotFree]

I wonder if they can argue that by purchasing a ticket to fly out of that airport you agreed to their terms similar to a parking garage may make purchasing or paying for parking acceptance of the contract...

I think that would be an extreme stretch...also, it doesn't cover your aunt that is either picking you up or dropping you off.

[pullnshoot25]

Not yet boys :rolleyes: wait a little longer on this one. ;) Unless you're picking up someone and are carrying for SD. Then all the "smart OC" rules still apply.

Aaaaw.... yes sir.

[CCWFacts]

So, what's the scoop? Do they have legal authority to impose these "random" searches, or not?

[Theseus]

Not yet boys :rolleyes: wait a little longer on this one. ;) Unless you're picking up someone and are carrying for SD. Then all the "smart OC" rules still apply.

Arrrrgggggg....A ship without a port....:chris:

[GM4spd]

Whenever I go to Burbank(not too often) but they usually look in the trunk. No big deal, but I don't
go to the airport carrying guns either. Pete

[Glock22Fan]

I wonder if they can argue that by purchasing a ticket to fly out of that airport you agreed to their terms similar to a parking garage may make purchasing or paying for parking acceptance of the contract...

I suspect that these searches take place on roads that are actually part of the airport's property. Therefore, you may have the right to refuse a search, but equally they have the right to refuse admission.

Same as the security further in. You don't have to let them search you, they don't have to let you through unsearched.

[nobody_special]

I suspect that these searches take place on roads that are actually part of the airport's property
Are the airports (and their roads / parking areas) not public property?

[Ironchef]

So, what's the scoop? Do they have legal authority to impose these "random" searches, or not?

I think they'd mention their authority derives from the USA Patriot Act, which of course nobody has read, including those who passed it, pretend to use it, etc. I've read about 40 pages..i think it's several hundred pages. I've seen summaries (before it was amended) and there's alot of crap in there including some blatant violations of 4A rights. I know I've heard cops and others just claim "Patriot Act." It's as annoying as someone pretending to quote the bible insisting "it's in the Old Testament...somewhere."

[sorensen440]

Are the airports (and their roads / parking areas) not public property?

Doesn't matter either way
I can be in your house and you cant search me (you can however ask me to leave)

[Midian]

"there's alot of crap in there including some blatant violations of 4A rights"



You bet your booty it is. And don't buy the story that it was written in a hurry as a response to 9-11. That thing was written way before and sat like a trap waiting to spring. It's bad news.

[nobody_special]

Doesn't matter either way
I can be in your house and you cant search me (you can however ask me to leave)

It does matter. If the airports are public, and if you have business there, it's not clear to me that they can deny you entrance.

[sorensen440]

It does matter. If the airports are public, and if you have business there, it's not clear to me that they can deny you entrance.

I was talking purely on if they can search you

[FreedomIsNotFree]

Update from San Jose International...

No random searches that I've seen this morning. My gate was at Termincal C....not sure about Terminal A.

On a separate note, I thanked a man in uniform for his service and bought him a drink...

[nobody_special]

I was talking purely on if they can search you

Sure, but they have some power to compel a search if, after you deny permission, they can prevent you from picking up (say) your 90 year old grandmother. Obviously you can avoid the search by simply not going to the airport (or denying them permission and leaving), but that prevents you from completing your business.

Must one choose between the right to travel and the right to avoid unreasonable search and seizure?

[Annie Oakley]

Forgive me if I'm going off track, but what exactly are they trying to accomplish ? I understand that they claim that things like this are essential to the safety of everyone in the airport, but is it really ?

Here is a thought that has continued to go through my mind since 9/11. A terrorist group wants to make a statement and blow something up and kill or injure alot of people. Even though they may have a target picked out, would it be just as good to kill and injure people at a check point ? One example I think about are the baggage checks at Disneyland. If a terrorist wanted to hurt people, they could easily do it there. What would Disneyland do then ? It just seems so silly to set up what seems like a check point when it's more like an inconvenience to people who have no intention to anything wrong and really accomplishes nothing.

[bdsmchs]

One example I think about are the baggage checks at Disneyland. If a terrorist wanted to hurt people, they could easily do it there. What would Disneyland do then ? It just seems so silly to set up what seems like a check point when it's more like an inconvenience to people who have no intention to anything wrong and really accomplishes nothing.

Don't even get me started on that crap security "theater".

Every time I bring my Camelbak to Disneyland (filled with water, of course), I have to laugh my A** off at the pockets that they don't check, and the thoroughness of the pockets they DO check.

I always walk away from those checks thinking "Damn, I could have brought my 1911 and some dynamite! oh well"

[Annie Oakley]

Don't even get me started on that crap security "theater".

Every time I bring my Camelbak to Disneyland (filled with water, of course), I have to laugh my A** off at the pockets that they don't check, and the thoroughness of the pockets they DO check.

I always walk away from those checks thinking "Damn, I could have brought my 1911 and some dynamite! oh well"

LOL, OMG yes ! And that's my point. It just seems as if it would totally shake them if something like that happened. But how many people, who are so clueless about security, understand this and accept the searches that we know accomplish nothing ? Should we pass that on to those we know so that they are more aware, or do we let them believe that they are safe so that they aren't worried every time they go somewhere ? I mean I don't want to turn my friends and family into paranoid wrecks, but I do want them to be aware of their surroundings.

[the_quark]

Forgive me if I'm going off track, but what exactly are they trying to accomplish ? I understand that they claim that things like this are essential to the safety of everyone in the airport, but is it really ?

I think the theory is they'd get someone trying to bring a car bomb to set off outside the airport. Certainly the times I had it done to me, just post-9/11, they used a mirror to check under the car as though they were looking for something like that.

-TQ

[DDT]

On a separate note, I thanked a man in uniform for his service and bought him a drink...

I hope he was in a military uniform and not a pilot's uniform.

[Glock22Fan]

Doesn't matter either way
I can be in your house and you cant search me (you can however ask me to leave)

I can refuse to let you into my house unless I search you first.

And (for other posters) I believe that many airports are either privately owned, or owned by something like a municipal corporation. Doesn't matter whether we, the people, own it or not. We "own" the mayor's office. Ever tried throwing a party there?

[nobody_special]

And (for other posters) I believe that many airports are either privately owned, or owned by something like a municipal corporation. Doesn't matter whether we, the people, own it or not. We "own" the mayor's office. Ever tried throwing a party there?

We're not talking about the Mayor's office, and we're not talking about throwing parties.

If the airport is public (and it seems to me that would virtually have to be true if it has its own police force, as opposed to private security), then it seems to me that the airport pick-up/drop-off areas are much like any other city street. And the police can't require you to submit to a search in order to drive down a city street.

[DDT]

And the police can't require you to submit to a search in order to drive down a city street.

uh.... yes they can. Ever been stopped at a sobriety check point? That is a search.

[nobody_special]

uh.... yes they can. Ever been stopped at a sobriety check point? That is a search.
That is a fairly limited SCOTUS-blessed exception to the 4th amendment, almost unique (and, IMO, unconstitutional). Even so, they can't require you to submit to a search of your vehicle in order to proceed.

[DDT]

That is a fairly limited SCOTUS-blessed exception to the 4th amendment, almost unique (and, IMO, unconstitutional). Even so, they can't require you to submit to a search of your vehicle in order to proceed.

Exact same could be said for "airport" searches. (Except for specific SCOTUS-blessing to date)

[echoplex]

Every time I bring my Camelbak to Disneyland, I have to laugh my A** off at the pockets that they don't check, and the thoroughness of the pockets they DO check.
Offtopic, but the Disneyland bag check is solely to prevent guests from bringing food items into the park. They are not trained to deal with, nor is there any sign prohibiting weapons. They do have a policy against all types of weapons on their website.
# Water pistols, toy guns and replica weapons, with the exception of those sold in the Disneyland® Resort
# Weapons of any kind (including guns; knives; billy clubs; brass knuckles; and nunchucks, stars and other martial arts equipment)
# Self-defense equipment (pepper spray, mace, stun guns)
# Restraining devices (e.g., handcuffs, zip ties) or any suspicious items (e.g., box cutters, razor blades, duct tape, wire)
# Items that may be disruptive (e.g. laser pointer, slingshot, stink bomb, air horns)
The grad night and special event search by uniformed security officers however *is* a weapons check. http://disneylandyouthprograms.disney.go.com/dlyp/index?id=ChaperoneAlcoholAndDrugsPage

On topic, anytime you're driving a vehicle, an officer may stop you and request to see your license. They may also request to search anything. You just don't have to accept their offer to search you. :o

[JDay]

Forgive me if I'm going off track, but what exactly are they trying to accomplish ? I understand that they claim that things like this are essential to the safety of everyone in the airport, but is it really ?

Here is a thought that has continued to go through my mind since 9/11. A terrorist group wants to make a statement and blow something up and kill or injure alot of people. Even though they may have a target picked out, would it be just as good to kill and injure people at a check point ? One example I think about are the baggage checks at Disneyland. If a terrorist wanted to hurt people, they could easily do it there. What would Disneyland do then ? It just seems so silly to set up what seems like a check point when it's more like an inconvenience to people who have no intention to anything wrong and really accomplishes nothing.

They are just trying to accomplish the illusion of security, this is more commonly known as Security Theatre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater).

[JDay]

Don't even get me started on that crap security "theater".

Every time I bring my Camelbak to Disneyland (filled with water, of course), I have to laugh my A** off at the pockets that they don't check, and the thoroughness of the pockets they DO check.

I always walk away from those checks thinking "Damn, I could have brought my 1911 and some dynamite! oh well"

You're thinking small, RDX is where its at.

[JDay]

uh.... yes they can. Ever been stopped at a sobriety check point? That is a search.

Next time you get stopped at one remember these words.

Am I being Detained?
Am I free to go?
I don't have to submit to a field sobriety test.

[JDay]

Offtopic, but the Disneyland bag check is solely to prevent guests from bringing food items into the park. They are not trained to deal with, nor is there any sign prohibiting weapons. They do have a policy against all types of weapons on their website.

The grad night and special event search by uniformed security officers however *is* a weapons check. http://disneylandyouthprograms.disney.go.com/dlyp/index?id=ChaperoneAlcoholAndDrugsPage

On topic, anytime you're driving a vehicle, an officer may stop you and request to see your license. They may also request to search anything. You just don't have to accept their offer to search you. :o

Disneyland is also private property and they can require you to wear a bright pink tutu if they wish.

[nobody_special]

On topic, anytime you're driving a vehicle, an officer may stop you and request to see your license.
Without cause, that would be an unlawful detention.

[yellowfin]

Disneyland is also private property and they can require you to wear a bright pink tutu if they wish. Yep, some jobs they have there do in fact require one.

[Glock22Fan]

If the airport is public (and it seems to me that would virtually have to be true if it has its own police force, as opposed to private security), then it seems to me that the airport pick-up/drop-off areas are much like any other city street.

And any public street can be barricaded off and access controlled any time they like.

If you don't believe me, try getting close to Obama next time he stands in the street.

[nobody_special]

And any public street can be barricaded off and access controlled any time they like.
Again, that's not what we're discussing here... but on that note, I recall DC attempting to do exactly this a while back, and the ACLU whipped 'em good IIRC...

[nick]

Forgive me if I'm going off track, but what exactly are they trying to accomplish ? I understand that they claim that things like this are essential to the safety of everyone in the airport, but is it really ?

Here is a thought that has continued to go through my mind since 9/11. A terrorist group wants to make a statement and blow something up and kill or injure alot of people. Even though they may have a target picked out, would it be just as good to kill and injure people at a check point ? One example I think about are the baggage checks at Disneyland. If a terrorist wanted to hurt people, they could easily do it there. What would Disneyland do then ? It just seems so silly to set up what seems like a check point when it's more like an inconvenience to people who have no intention to anything wrong and really accomplishes nothing.


Well, the reasoning there is pretty much the same as the one behind gun control - show the sheep that something is being done about crime/terrorism and hope nothing happens. That, and the bonus of being being used to their rights and freedoms being restricted.

Of course, the only breakthroughs in combatting terrorism so far came from intelligence and good old police work, not from surveillance and TSA searches, but nobody likes talking about that.

[echoplex]

Quote: anytime you're driving a vehicle, an officer may stop you and request to see your license.
Without cause, that would be an unlawful detention.
The way I understand it is you have voluntarily relinquished your rights already. When you sign the contract that says your license is state property and must be surrendered to any peace officer that asks for it, you get the privilege (not the right) to drive a motor vehicle on CA roads.
The driver of a motor vehicle shall present his or her license for examination upon demand of a peace officer

The Supreme Court ruled that certain states' "stop and identify" laws do not violate the 4th in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004)

However, California's "stop and identify" law (previously CPC 647(e)) was voided in Kolender v. Lawson in 1983. It was only repealed in late 2007 by SB425 at the request of the LA County Sherriff's Dept., so many officers may still operate under the old rules.

True, stopping someone just to demand their papers is probably unlawful detention in CA, but convincing them of that may be difficult without a lawyer, and once they request your license, I believe you're required to comply even if the detention is unlawful.

[nobody_special]

The Supreme Court ruled that certain states' "stop and identify" laws do not violate the 4th in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004)
The Nevada law in question still required reasonable suspicion of a crime in order for the officer to make the stop. Police can not initiate a stop for no reason.

[Glock22Fan]

Again, that's not what we're discussing here... but on that note, I recall DC attempting to do exactly this a while back, and the ACLU whipped 'em good IIRC...

I thought it was what we were discussing as, IIRC, we were discussing whether airport roads were public streets and whether they had the right to stop you and only allow you to continue if you submitted to a search.

On your ACLU point, haven't you ever seen police holding people back at barricades, crime scene tape and the like? Do you think that when the president's motorcade is assembling, they'll just let you drive or walk past? Do you not live in the real world?

Come to think of it, as a volunteer, I've actually helped to prevent people from driving or walking down public streets or entering a usually open park without buying a ticket on more than one occasion.

[JDay]

The Nevada law in question still required reasonable suspicion of a crime in order for the officer to make the stop. Police can not initiate a stop for no reason.

I believe this is how it works everywhere, that is why drug interdiction officers with profile a vehicle and then follow them. They know that its next to impossible to not violate some traffic law.

[nobody_special]

On your ACLU point, haven't you ever seen police holding people back at barricades, crime scene tape and the like? Do you think that when the president's motorcade is assembling, they'll just let you drive or walk past? Do you not live in the real world?
Those are entirely different circumstances. Presidential protection is, in fact, a special circumstance, as are crime scenes. Police can exclude the public from a crime scene in order to conduct their investigation without contamination or interference; that does not mean they can simply string tape up wherever they like and prohibit access.

Picking someone up from the airport is not, in general, such a special circumstance. We're not talking about going through airport security here, merely picking someone up at the curb or parking a vehicle in a garage.