On a recent trip back from Minneapolis, the screener outside the metal detector said "you waive your 4th amendment right when you step into the detector." I've heard other TSA employees (and employees of the private firm handling security at SFO) say that.

While I can't vouch for the accuracy of what they say, the belief seems to be a standard part of screeners' training.

Any idea how much tape is on the roll? I'm tempted to buy, but only if there's plenty. I want to tape it in a lot of places.

Clever, but the operative phrase is "unreasonable searches." I think it's idealistically naive to complain about the TSA's random luggage searches. Many people take for granted our free and borderless society which however does come with a minimal cost such as these searches which is for the greater public good.

Interesting. I believe it's naive to think that these are "random" searches. As someone who travels by air almost every week, I can tell you that my luggage is searched every time I fly. There's nothing random about it.

It's a neat idea, although I have a feeling the person doing the bag-checks doesn't even know (or if they do know, they won't care) what Amendment IV is. Perhaps if you say Amendment IV to the Constitution of the United States of America(TM)? Without the TM of course.

.. but the 4th Amendment applies to the government, not the private airline that you are paying to take you somewhere. When you buy a ticket, you agree to a contract. Part of that contract is they can search your bag. If you don't want your bag searched, you don't have to give money to the airline. Also, I would prefer not to be blown up in the sky, so I'm kind of glad they're searching.

When I went to the US in Jan 2004 we used a sports bag for the overflow of crap that we had to buy.

Got searched every time. The backpacker's bags? Never.

While you're at it, you might want to check out the original Bill of Rights - Security Edition which the EFF contracts from me and then marks way up.

That's fine and all, but... you know... brother's gotta make a buck, people!!!

http://www.securityedition.com

So lets review. The Federal security personnel are searching your bags following an X-Ray screening, following a voluntary exchange of your bag to the airport security, following a voluntary decision to fly as a means of transportation, following 5 years after an attack in which terrorists used an airplane as a means to kill 2,986 people, with the very real possibility that a suitcase could have a bomb device on it, with you essentially able to assume that your bags will be searched, and with absolutely no damage to any of your personal possessions. I can definitely see how that qualifies as 'unreasonable.'

GG hippie, try to be less self righteous.

What if we were to allow frequent flyers, like business types, to go through a thorough background check and training course of some sort to allow them to get a badge? This badge would enable them to use an express lane when going through security checks? Speeding up the process. Don't pilots and flight attendants have such ID cards/badges? Just a thought...

Not ALL persons or their luggage are searched. We simply do not have the resources to do so not to mention the intolerable delays this would cause. These are among the reasons for the "random" searches. I do not believe these searches to actually be random but rather based on profiling. I don't like it but that's reality. However if you have some young adult Middle Eastern male, he fits the profile of possibly being a terrorist. If they open his suitcase and find a bomb it's only going to re-enforce this kind of behavior. Like it or not people learn from experience and actions that produce results will be repeated. Sadly, the vast majority of terrorism is carried out by people fitting this description and turning a blind eye to this fact would be stupid. Speaking of which, assuming that your belief that everyone gets searched were true, isn't carrying pot or anything else illegal in your luggage just a stupid idea to begin with?

"Some argue that searching for a bomb is reasonable. But clearly searching for other things is not, but it’s what we end up getting, and such a program of search is not reasonable."

They are NOT just searching for bombs. They are searching for contraband which includes not only bombs but other weapons as well as narcotics and so forth. What your friend was doing is called "smuggling". It would be extremely assinine to narrow the scope of the search to bombs only. So, what, if they open a suitcase and discover machine guns, flame throwers, rocket launchers and what not but no bombs they just let them through? Get real. That kind of lax security would surely be taken advantage of. It's common sense to attack the enemy where he is weakest.

"Secondly, the terrorists used 4 planes to kill those people by taking over the controls, nothing to do with what was in their luggage. Of course we don’t want bombs in luggage but they are not much more threatening than bombs in any crowded place."

I'm not sure how old you are so it is possible you may not remember a time when it seemed like every time you turned on the news some plane was being hijacked to Beruit or somesuch location. More often than not these accompanied threats of there being a bomb on board and in many cases it turned out to be true. The most recent such incident I can recall took place at the hands of Libyan terrorists in 1988 aboard Pan Am Flight 103 which crashed in Lockerbie, Scotland because of a bomb hidden in the forward cargo area. In other words, the luggage compartment. For further details those interested can go here: http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/lockrb2.htm

Secondly bombs onboard airplanes are often MUCH more devastating because the explosion takes place in a more tightly confined area and if placed properly can bring the plane down thus creating a much LARGER bomb and we've already seen just how effective THAT can be.

"This is not a new concept. While indeed, if police have a warrant they don’t have to ignore what else they see, that’s in part because they do have a warrant, and you are suspected of criminal activity. However, if the warrant says “Search the living room” then they can’t search the bedroom, and anything seen there if they do is not admissible."

Precisely. In this case it gives them the authority to search your suitcase and your persons. If they discover information in your suitcase such as the address of your business or residence they do NOT have the authority to drive out there and search those. This is not to say that they CANNOT obtain the authority to do so if sufficent cause exists. If they catch you with a suitcase full of cocaine it would be reasonable to assume you're a drug smuggler and they would likely obtain warrants based on that. Since the airlines are federally regulated they gain the right to search you through what is called "implied consent". As far as I know this applies to ALL federal installations such as military bases. Bascially the way it works is that by crossing that threshhold onto their turf you are implying that you give consent to be searched. At any time prior to the commencement of the search you can terminate consent and depart the premesis. Once they start the search it may be too late. I'm not sure what the law is at that point. Maybe someone else out there who knows could fill me in.

This debate about whether or not in this or that case travelling the airlines is voluntary is rather moot. Although to give my 2 cents the phrase "I had no choice" is absolute nonsense. We ALWAYS have choices it's just that sometimes they all suck and you're stuck deciding which one sucks the least. If your friend had nothing illegal in his luggage he would not have been arrested. It's really just that simple.

The morale here is, I suppose, if you have to fly across the country to attend the funeral of a family member don't take anything illegal.

I have to say I am impressed with the points made on all sides, and the pragmatic side pops up with yet a third gripe.

Cost.

The impact is huge. Our governments response has been in some ways worse than the problem. While the airlines have had their issues, the response to 9/11 has driven 6 of the 7 big airlines to bankruptcy. Air travel has added costs that are questionably effective.

I would like a $1 for every article by some TV station or newspaper doing yet another "expose" on how they sneaked a Rocket Propelled Grenade or some nail clippers past the system. Another dollar please for the each mention of stupid things people pack, and another please for the dump truck loads of newly confiscated nail clippers, small Swiss army knifes, etc that are sold on e-bay quarterly.

bottom line... are we flying safer...

Well, even though most all hijackers fit a profile, it is illegal to profile... (weird argument in light of the fact it is also illegal to search without cause or warrant, but hey, its all theory anyway, right?)

So since the "shoe bomber" somehow was able to board, then get arrested before detonation, the rest of the flying nation now gets to take it's shoes off while in line. Me, my spouse, our 4 year old, and my 76 year old mother in law, we all get to de-shoe and re-shoe thanks to him. Man, I am SO clad he did not hide a bomb in his boxers or briefs... think of what we would all be doing NOW!

The biggest damage was done with box cutters... but if they had really wanted to mess with us, what if they had been weight lifters who just grabbed the stews, and threaten to break their necks... like a bad Bond flick villain? What then? would we all be asked to press 75 pounds, and if we could do that, agree to be bound before boarding?

Worse, a little over half the freight in the hold is screened. NOT the luggage... but the flowers being air shipped and stuff like that... Northwest made more revenue from cargo than people the last few years... Air Freight...

SO bottom line, we now inconvenience Hundreds of thousands, cause huge losses of time and money, created a new federal bureaucracy (complete with pensions, uniforms and certificates) all to create a system that is just 60 percent secure on a good day.

In the mean time, paying little attention to the point that AlQuida shifts tactics each time... Truck bomb the World Trade Center, Hijack planes, Run a raft along side a ship... have you seen these extensively repeated?

They do one thing, we spend tones of time, money and resource to prevent it, selling out our civil liberties along the way, and bam... they hit a different thing in a different way.

Now we have the eternal screening and TSA positions... in the meantime, 95 percent of all containers at ports go unscreened. Infrastructure is left unguarded (No money left to pay for this stuff!) Our own 9/11 commission say that after 5 years, of the 60 suggestions, we have followed up on 2... maybe 3, enough to feel confident.

by switching tactics, they make us spend even more in more places... then all they have to do is wait and see us go bankrupt, or become a totalitarian state by our own choice.

The amount of money we spent on TSA would have paid to set up boarding schools throughout Afghanistan and Pakistan, and teach the basics of moderation... we keep making enemies faster than we can kill them, and we can never be 100 percent secure.

But we can do the pragmatic. Locking cabin doors. Detection automation and installation. Linking lists of known and wanted folks to the ticket seller computer (this alone would have prevents boarding of 4 of the 19 on 9/11... yet this has NOT YET BEEN DONE)

Learning Arabic, and how to enter names using Arabic... A major issue is the dozen or so ways to spell Mohammad, and the problems that creates for the current no fly list system...

Reality audits of the current no fly list... 23 agencies just dumped named to show they had names. the list now includes several senators, and more. Stupid.

Sadly, I believe the horse is LONG GONE from this barn... it will be a while before we see another attempt by hijacking passenger jets...

but I would be watching Freight operations... and ports... and neither is being watched as well as it should be for the lack of money... money spent so the TSA guy can remind my 75 year old Mother In law to remove her shoes.

Sad.

For those who have jobs that depend on business flights, or relatives in areas where driving is not reasonable, the searches are done with permission, but under duress; much like urinating in a cup to get or keep a job. Both are unreasonable search and seizure, especially the seizure of a body fluid.

"This is not a new concept. While indeed, if police have a warrant they don’t have to ignore what else they see, that’s in part because they do have a warrant, and you are suspected of criminal activity. However, if the warrant says “Search the living room” then they can’t search the bedroom, and anything seen there if they do is not admissible."

That has nothing to do with your argument, they essentially do have a warrant to search your bag. If in fact they went to your car and searched it and found Pot, then yes, you would be able to sue them, but they are not, they are searching your bag. It is known by everyone that carrying illegal substances is... well... ILLEGAL!!! If your friend didn't know this, then it's his fault, ignorance of a law is not an excuse. While flying on an airplane may not be 'voluntary' in your mind, carrying illegal substances is. No one forced your friend to put pot in his bag. No one forced him to check a bag. There are certain legitimate puroposes for checking bags and having metal detectors, are you going to start saying that metal detectors are wrong also? It's the same principle. If your keys set off the detector you will be "searched" by a hand held device.

I'm not a Yank, but I have read your constitution and bill of rights thoroughly. It is a beautiful living document and was written with the reasonableness and dispassion that such matters require. It is my humble opinion that your fine nation really needs to embrace the original principles upon which it was founded. Especially a mistrust of power and authority. The people of the US grant the government rights and powers, not the other way around.

I've traveled quite a lot in my years. I've been searched, and had plenty of times where I wasn't. There were times where I wasn't and thought I should have been, and also the other way around. And the screenings they do now still cannot compare to the screenings one goes through countries other than the United States. And certainly not through the East/West borders of Germany - for those who've gone there will never forget. Knowing a vast variety of people here in the U.S. all my life, I know that it is better to be safe. There is a percentage of people who just aren't the brightest lights in the attic. I mean, given the opportunity, there is going to be some idiot carrying both oxygen tanks and boxes of matches to put under his/her seat. It will happen. If you don't fly on a regular basis, you would think I am over reacting, but - well, I'm not. If it makes it easier on you, then imagine this. Imagine you've decided to become self employed driving people around town, when one day you pick up a person who seems well dressed and groomed. Quite normal outwardly. But during the drive while listening to the radio, the talk turns to divorce. Well, as it turns out, your passenger just went through a one-of-a-kind divorce. And it turns out this person is a baseball bat salesman. Well it doesn't take long for things to get out of hand. But thankfully you can stop the car anywhere, and along with your other passengers you are able to eject this wacko at the curb. As well, you can drop off the other passenger who'll need stitches thanks to a lousville slugger to the temple off at the hospital. Well, after hearing about how all of the passengers are going to sue the pants off of you, you decide never to allow this to happen again. You love your job, you know people need your service, you make money at it. So, tell me, what are you going to do?

the key word in that passage is "againts unreasonable searches"

Thomas Jefferson once said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." I would have to agree with him.

It is possible that every person who walks through an airport has a gun shoved up his or her ass. Now, would it not be safer if we all got cavity searched on every trip we took? In theory: Of course. However, no one would ever agree that this is acceptable.
Or, how about this: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/06/backscatter_x-r.html?
Do you want strangers to see you naked? The point isn't that it's inconvenient. The point isn't about not wanting people to take your coke away or any number of other details. The point is that you are being violated and you should care. Just because it isn't bodily, doesn't mean it isn't violating your right to privacy. We have rights for a reason and if you don't protect them, no one else will. If you give them an inch, they will take a mile. Don’t. Trust. Your. Government. They're searching your bags without probable cause now and they're going to be shoving their hands up your ass without probable cause later. I promise you.

In addition, yes, we do have options. We can never leave our houses; we can drive to Poland, or take a train to Hawaii. I am quite tired of hearing you dance on nuances about "options". I should not have to choose to avoid airports, just as I should not have to choose to avoid hydrogenated oils. As far as I'm concerned, the Government is doing a service for the people, just like the food industry. I'm paying you to make me happy. I'm not happy. Do not poison me and call it safe. Do not attack me and call it protection. The only option is for them to change, not me. I am not budging.

In any case, the extra protection that we hear about is just a way to make us feel safe. In actuality, we're not any safer now than we were 10 years ago. We're just more divided and nervous. For example: I was going to Las Vegas with my friend, Lindsay. This was about two years ago, we were 16. They searched her stuff five times because they thought they saw a lighter in her suitcase. They soon figured out that it was inside of her stuffed bunny. They were considering tearing it open, when one of the agents asked her, "Could it ever make noise?" Well, it turned out that it could. Their lighter was actually a battery pack. We spent an hour being prodded because of a stuffed toy. Lindsay had traveled very extensively and had taken that bunny everywhere she went since the day she was born. It was never a problem before. Why was it one now? On the return home from the same trip, her mother had bought a set of butter knives. They took them away. This was expected and not really a problem. However, when we stopped in one of the shops near the terminal, the same knife set was for sale. Interesting? It gets better. Two weeks later, my brother and I were on the way home from my Father's house. He lives in Phoenix. For Christmas, he had received a large arrow (with the head very sharp and intact). He was holding it in his hands, unpackaged and completely visible, as he walked through the security checkpoint. He went through the metal detector, walked through the terminal, and boarded the plane. Nobody noticed. Nobody said one word. It is confusing to me that somebody can easily bring a weapon onto a plane without harassment, but you'll be assaulted if you try to bring a stuffed animal.

The point of terrorism is in its name. If you fall to your knees and bow down to the fear that they are trying to make you feel, then they have already won. We are all Americans and we should not be prosecuting each other and ourselves for being born that way. We are innocent until proven guilty and it should never be the other way around. The best thing this country can do now is to grow a backbone and band together to be One Nation under Who Cares. As it stands right now, we're all running around like chickens with our heads cut off and it's making us weaker rather than safer. Trust your neighbor and hold your head up high in airplanes. Don't let them get to you.

Over here in Australia, our constitution or any of its amendments don't even protect any of the rights of citizens, just the rights of the State & Federal governments...

Alas, our government's quick obedience with the current US administration has seen similar, though not yet as stringent, security measurements being imposed on airline travel. The supposed necessity of airline travel, whether you agree with it being necessary or not, is quite apparent if you ever want to the west coast from the east: there really are little other options. Now we have to endure the 4 hour trip from Sydney to Perth with less than 100mLs of water!

It's perfectly reasonable to assume the government will attempt to provide some security in our airspace, but this responsibility has to stop at some point. In the end, people who travel by air have to realise that there is a risk that something will go wrong, leading to their deaths, when they get on a plane, just like motorists agree to the much higher risk of death of getting in their car. Personally, I would prefer a slightly higher probability of death, well below that of terrestrial transport, than to give up a perfectly good set of nail scissors and my trusty bottle of water. I guess that's just the mathematician in me talking.

That's right, I'd risk the probability of some terrorist stabbing the stewards with nail scissors, commandeering the cockpit, then either getting shot down by jet fighters or incinerated by 1 litre of liquid explosives! It really seems like such a negligible threat in my opinion, and we can't live our lives wondering "what if?".

There's probably hundreds of things that can or are being done to increase security on airliners without inconveniencing passengers who have no intention of doing anything wrong. Innocent until proven guilty - a common idea in a number of countries.

I'm sure there will be people who don't agree with what I said, to them: feel free to pick apart what I have said piece by piece! :P

Ahh where to start.
The 4th Amend only applies to the federal governmental employees. So the 4th Amendment does not apply to you and me as long as we are not governmental employees. So the airline personnel can search the bags as long as they do not do so if acting as an agent of the state; ie A person cannot be seen as participating in the search just to serve the purpose of the governmental agents.

Law has stated as far back as 1921 that private persons are seperate and distinct from searches conducted under state authority. An example of which is if a Fedex guy finds illegal contraband in a damage package he simply notifies the local PD and shows them the evidence. No laws have been broken as the evidence is gained from a private citizen who has not broken the law to obtain the evidence.

Also the 4th Amendment only applies to intracountry travel. As soon as you want to cross the US border the 4th Amend does not apply. They do not need probable cause to conduct a search of the person, vehicle, or propery. I won't even go into the exceptions to probable cause as this subject alone is an entire semester at some uni's.

As far a having stuff taken away just check the bag and be done with it.

I hate to sound melodramatic about it, but while everyone was at the beach or "The Simpsons Movie" on the first weekend in August, the U.S. government shredded the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, the one requiring court-approved "probable cause" before Americans can be searched or spied upon. This is not the feverish imagination of left-wing bloggers and the ACLU. It's the plain truth of where we've come as a country, at the behest of a president who has betrayed his oath to defend the Constitution and with the acquiescence of Democratic congressional headers and leaders who know better. Historians will likely see this episode as a classic case of fear — both physical and political — trumping principle amid the ancient tension between personal freedom and national security.

The real irony of all this is that for the $6 Billion we spent last year getting our rights violated, we really aren't any safer (nor do we need to be!). As a Vietnam veteran who got regularly mortared and rocketed in a "Secure" base camp of the First Air Cavalry, I can assure you that the element of surprise will get you every time. And the vietcong weren't even suicidal - they wanted to come back and do it again later!

Soooooo....fast forward forty years. Does anybody really think they can anticipate what a terrorist is going to do sometime in the future? Guess again. Think our geniuses in Homeland Security know? Guess again and again. The thing is, the average terrorist is smarter and more motivated than the average baggage screener. Do you think it's "unreasonable" to spend $6 Billion per annum in our tax dollars to catch a coke user or a purveyor of fraudulent checks? I do. But apparently the TSA doesn't, because that's what they advertise on their website as their big accomplishments. Obviously no one in Congress has the guts to object, because they're frightened of public opinion.

And now for the Constitutional question - is the Fourth Amendment being violated? Seems to me that those who have posted the obvious point that many trips are obligatory for job or other reasons have answered that quite well. Please consider: it's a fact that 50% of the population is just scared to death of airplanes. (And those would be the good ones, with good service, maintenance, and friendly faces even. No bombs! But every time they get on board, 50% of us sweat bullets, from takeoff to touchdown. Does that sound voluntary? Of course not. They do it because they have to. So when they go through the security line, is it any more "voluntary?" What do you think? Three guesses, and the first two don't count.

The sheep on this blog that argue for the status quo are not only wrong, they're enablers of an increasingly strident and oppressive government that wants to keep its jobs and is perfectly willing to squander the Constitution, our freedoms, our commercial progress, our taxes, and our troops in an endless war in Iraq. Security is a state of mind, not a state of being. The "guy upstairs" always knows how to use fear to manipulate all of us and keep his power. Machiavelli knew it, as did the founding fathers.

And the rest of us.......we're going to have to do something about it. Talk is cheap. But for heaven sakes write your Congress and give them hell. At least that's a start!

The Lighter Side Of Global Terrorism (Extended Space-Melt Version) :

by Jello Biafra

Can I touch you here? May I search your bags?
You have randomly been selected
Got a funny name
And you look the part
Plus, I like the way
You bulge in your clothes

Yehhhh
I love me job
Rock bottom pay never felt so hot
Big man, uniform and badge
Pedophile Santas ain't got nothin' on me

I love to feel sexy things
Other people's sexy things
I love to peek at people's things
Other people's private things

When I was young and someone's guest
I'd find a way to sneak upstairs
Peek in the closet, paw through the drawers
And feel a funny tingle up from below

Oh, how I love to find
New playthings for my mind
I file these thoughts away
Until I go on break
When I can finally touch myself

See your shiny jewels
On your neck and wrists
They could be weapons
We must play safe
So fork 'em over
Of you're under arrest
Maybe you should have checked them in your suitcase

Meanwhile, down below
What have we here? Let's open this one up
Pills! Cash! Electronics to fence
Let's see you prove they were there in the first place

Who is that behind the one way mirror blind
Just little ol' me
And my non-dairy cream
Gotta wipe it up and go select someone new
Woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution reads, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Can somebody please explain to me how anybody in their right mind thinks that forcing me to remove my shoes is a “reasonable search?” And why are Americans such dumb lemmings that they’ll pay the TSA for the privilege of being patted down at an airport? I should take a picture of my special message socks I wear when going through airport security lines. I wear shorts, cowboy boots, and white tube socks on which I’ve written, “FUCK” on the right leg and “The TSA” on the left. I’ve been subjected to 7 extra security pat-downs out of 11 times wearing them.

And before anybody comes up with the brilliant argument that there’s no 4th Amendment issue because I’ve agreed to be searched when buying my airline ticket, how would there be a 14th Amendment issue with a bus company selling fares with fine print stating, “Niggers seated in the rear?”