Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/07/06

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] airport security kinda long. ;-)
From: Bryan Caldwell <bcaldwell51@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 08:07:30 -0700

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

Replies: Reply from Jeffery Smith <jls@runbox.com> (Re: [Leica] airport security kinda long. ;-))
Reply from "Roland Smith" <roland@dnai.com> (Re: [Leica] airport security kinda long. ;-))