Random vehicle searches -- legal and OK or illegal and creepy?

[BluePatriot]

My husband just called, he is a document courier. He said "yeah they are putting up all these signs around the airport and there are cops with roadblocks everywhere and they are saying they have the right to randomly search any vehicle in the area." The signs are permanent, not temporary.

So, uh, do the authorities have the right to do this indefinitely? What's the law on this? Is this part of our slow creep towards "your papers please!!!" or, can they actually do that? Houston, TX btw.

I have mixed feelings. Maybe they could "prevent" something but it's also a giant erosion of privacy rights. Such things used to be contained to the airport (perhaps) but now they are extending it to miles around...

Comments appreciated.

[karlrschneider]

1. Legal and creepy.

The USSC said so a few years ago.
:grr:

[BluePatriot]

3. eek.

sigh. The stuff that's "legal" lately pisses me off.

[BluePatriot]

7. actually,

I am finding a lot of "incident to arrest" stuff that would make this "legal"

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20040602.html

but that doesn't seem to apply unless now they can search you if they THINK they intend to arrest you. Which is a giant loophole if I ever saw one.

[dogday]

22. How does Probable Cause fit in with this scenario

I understand an officer can search your vehicle if they have Probable Cause... that is the line crosser, is it not? What is probable cause and how did they arrive to the conclusion of searching a vehicle....

I think the law sucks myself....

You want to search me or my vehicle and I have done nothing unlawful, I think you would have to arrest me first....

[karlrschneider]

39. Well, the unfortunate fact is that few of us can drive on a public road for any length of time

without committing some minor/technical infraction.

[karlrschneider]

38. I was thinking more along the lines of "sobriety checkpoints"

where the cops just stop everyone who drives by "just in case" they might be intoxicated. * I think the SC okayed that a few years before the "incident to arrest" argument was made.

* which is the purported rationale but is generally just an excuse to mount a fishing expedition.

[azurnoir]

2. How about Legal but creepy? n/t

[bullimiami]

4. creepy and goddamned unamerican.

im pretty sure the idea of freedom doesnt include that people just minding their own and going about their own business should be inconvenienced at the whim of some public 'servants' in the name of 'security'.

[The2ndWheel]

5. Creepily legal?

Legalistically creepy? Creegal? Legpy?

The authorities can do whatever they want. How else did they become the authorities? They'll do it, people might complain, then it'll stop, but happen again in a smaller way, and that will be acceptable since it's a compromise, and then a little more will be added, and then some complaints, but the system will grow, and it'll eventually become normal.

[Jed Dilligan]

34. Spot on.

[greenissexy]

6. Annoying, but OK

It makes us safer, and we should always side with safety. I know several Republicans that hate children that think we should always side with "freedom," but how free are you if people are allowed to have guns and explosives in their trunks? I know I feel safer, especially with my kids in the car, after going through the checkpoint at my local airport when picking-up my wife.

[High Plains]

8. Ben Franklin would disagree with you.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

[BluePatriot]

11. Heh, dupe

I guess Franklin is getting popular lately...

[SteelPenguin]

24. essential liberty?

So not having the police able to look in your backpack in an airport is now an essential liberty?

[High Plains]

26. I consider the Fourth Amendment pretty essential.

What's left of it, anyway:

"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."

[SteelPenguin]

37. What's unreasonable?

where is it reasonable to search someone? Anywhere? Nowhere? Just at the security gate or after? just at the checkpoint and not past it? On the plane? Outside baggage claim?

Being searched while going shopping at the grocery store, for no reason, is an unreasonable search. The police officer taking your new leather wallet because he likes it is an unreasonable seizure.

Having your backpack looked through for 10 seconds by a security officer 30 feet from a security checkpoint at an airport is fairly reasonable, imho.

[snappyturtle]

48. Maybe I'm operating under an illusion but I thought cases where

"reasonable search" comes up, authorities have to have reason to search....not this catch all type searching out of the blue style. I also think this is exactly what the constitution was guarding us against. Of course, I am not happy with airport security period. When are they going to start searching all bags checked for the belly of the plane? And, if they're going through luggage on the drive in, on airport grounds, how many times is "reasonable" to be searched?

[BluePatriot]

27. IN the airport, go for it.

6 miles outside on roads on land they bought up and haven't developed yet? Question it, they are "pushing" it.

[SteelPenguin]

35. I don't know the specifics

First time I heard mention of 6 miles from the airport, however if it's airport property I don't see a problem. I don't know where it is, or what it's like that you're talking about. if it's on a public street near an airport as in next to a blockbuster video a few blocks from the airport...yeah I'd have a problem with that.

If it's on airport property whether it's on a private road or in the terminal I don't. Even if it's woodlands they haven't developed yet or whatever the situation, if it's on their property and within their security area i have no problem. They don't want people sneaking in the back way to get stuff past security either.

As I said though for this specifics I don't know where he was or anything. I just odn't have a problem with the concept.

[BluePatriot]

40. *nods*

Sure, it's their property, but it's still wierd having a creeping airport security perimeter based on what property they own that's not part of the "main complex," as it were. Some of your points do make sense, though. Maybe a good local zoning law would clarify this issue and prevent it from being exploited.

[greenissexy]

30. Ben Franklin didn't have to deal with the NRA or high explosives!

I'm sure in today's world he would be pro-safety instead of anti-safety. Now when a single gun can kill 30+ people in a matter of seconds and a few ounces of explosives can down a plane to kill 300+ people, you can't be anti-safety.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. Ben Franklin had to deal with redcoats and black powder.

"I'm sure in today's world he would be pro-safety instead of anti-safety. Now when a single gun can kill 30+ people in a matter of seconds and a few ounces of explosives can down a plane to kill 300+ people, you can't be anti-safety."

Franklin said that people who give up liberty for safety don't deserve either. Think about that for a second. They don't deserve safety.

In other words, people who give up on liberty deserve to get themselves blown up.

[Richard Steele]

45. Thank you for your opinion of what Ben Franklin would be doing today.

Please consider your concerns "duly noted". :eyes:

[BluePatriot]

46. ...

What is anti-safety about not wanting to be RANDOMLY searched REALLY, REALLY FAR AWAY from the airport on property they "happen" to own? Come on. An intelligent perimeter around main buildings is something most of us can get behind, despite it being a hassle. Miles and miles out starts to lack common sense and annoy the locals.

[Swamp Rat]

9. PAPERS PLEASE!!

[BluePatriot]

10. *nods*

Around the parking lot is one thing everyone is used to. But, roads 5-6 miles away from the main complex on undeveloped property the airport owns? Creepy. It's worth questioning.

Remember,

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin

BTW, welcome to DU.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. LOL

[kestrel91316]

That's a false sense of security you are feeling, there. No one can

protect you all the time from everything possible.

Wouldn't you feel safer still if we didn't expend quite so much national energy being CRUEL to people in other countries that pose no threat to us??

Maybe you would feel even safer if we weaned ourselves off the oil teat and did what any responsible nation would have done decades ago: develop alternatives, make conservation a national priority, and tell the ME to go pound sand??

I don't feel safer in this Orwellian police state that my country has become. I oppose the government, and half expect to be "disappeared" some day.

[WindRavenX]

19. oh wow

NT

[devilgrrl]

44. You're right, if people aren't doing anything wrong, why should they care?

:sarcasm:

[Richard Steele]

47. "We should always side with whatever any authority figure claims will make us safer".

Yeah, how could that ever possibly go wrong?

[underseasurveyor]

49. Trusting government to keep you safer?

:wtf: Isn't that like an oxy-moron or sumpin' like that:evilgrin:
Got Fear?

[High Plains]

12. I'm not sure this is legal.

The Supreme Court has ruled that police can set up checkpoints for "public safety" reasons, i.e. drivers license and insurance checks. It has also ruled that police CANNOT set up checkpoints to look for criminal activity without any particularized suspicion. (Not so oddly, both cases were drug prohibition-related.)

Of course, the Fourth Amendment prohibition on warrantless searches has been eroding for a long time--thanks largely to the war on drugs--and we already line up like good sheep to be searched without any particularized suspicion in order to get on a plane. This sounds like the cops are expanding the perimeters of the "Fourth Amendment-free zone."

Someone needs to challenge this is court.

[BluePatriot]

13. Hm.

I wonder if they are using the public safety clause. I suppose "reason" could be the incident at JFK. Mostly hubby is just annoyed as he speeds around the airport complex all day in an unmarked white fleet truck, which would totally get profiled as "suspicious."

He is up on noticing this kind of search-stuff now since he got a ticket a few weeks back and the officer took his gun out of the car despite him having a CHL / all papers (we checked and it's legal if officer thinks you are a threat)

/yes, he needs to slow down

[benEzra]

14. Illegal and creepy...

unless you view the 4th Amendment as some sort of silly anachronism that has no applicability to today's world.

I tend to think the Bill of Rights is still relevant, personally.

[NeedleCast]

16. Fishing Expeditions

Considering that flying is no more secure today than it was seven years ago, this is just another window dressing to make people (like one of the posters above) feel secure.

I fly once or twice a month. Since Jan 01, 2007, here's a list of contraband I've seen get on a plane in carry-ons.

1. Live ferret (which got loose on the plane and bit a member of the flight crew when he tried to pick it up to return it to the owner, which caused a 4-hour flight delay as a band-aid from the first aid kit was used on the flight crew member and a plane can't fly without a SEALED first aid kit. Really...you can't make this shit up).

2. Dogs (on multiple occasions have passed through the security station stuffed in a carry-on without proper clearance).

3. Pair of steak knives.

4. Multiple lighers and matches.

5. Liquids over the size limit and not properly in a plastic bag (although this a fucking farce anyway...I can't imagine someone determined to blow up a plane going "yanno, I was going to blow this fucker up, but I don't want to have to get in my carry-on, take those liquids out of the plastic bags...)

6. Weed

7. Spray paint.

Airport security is a JOKE. It's a window dressing. It's there to make the sheeple feel safe because hey, if there's a security checkpoint you MUST be secure, right?

Then again, I'd much rather be flying than driving. Your chance of dying in a terrorist related plane crash/accident is less than your chance of being eaten by a shark and struck by lightning at the same time. I'll roll those dice...

[baldguy]

17. Somehow, I don't think these searches are as "random" as they claim.

[Xithras]

18. Not legal on public roadways.

The police can randomly search cars in airports and other "destination" facilities, so long as it's posted, because you don't have to go there and have the option of skipping the facility and the search. Permission to use the facility hinges on your acceptance of those terms, so you can legally leave and avoid the search if you don't want to deal with it. The police MIGHT be able to extend this to public roadways that only exist to serve these facilities as well, by essentially treating them as an extension of the facility.

But random searches of cars on a public roadway, simply because they're near one of these facilities? The USSC has consistently ruled that those searches would be illegal without solid probable cause.

[BluePatriot]

20. They are probably on airport property then

Riiight on the edge or something. They own a lot of the land around there.

edit: although I think that's worth checking and not assuming. The whole "option to avoid the property" argument could be misapplied as hubby makes runs to the cargo offices around the airport area and not to the airport itself. If hubby is visiting those offices, do they own the land or do they lease from the airport? If they own the land, do you have to take a road on airport owned property to get to a non-airport owned facility, and, in that case, would the search be legal, as you have cause to visit another area not owned by the airport with no alternate route?

It really does depend who owns the property and roads, I guess. Loads of variables.

[Xithras]

25. Yep, lots of variables.

Generally speaking though, if the road serves the airport AND other businesses not owned by the airport, random searches would be illegal. If the road only served the airport and buildings owned by the airport, searches would probably be legally acceptable.

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. The USSC has previously consistantly so ruled -

but THIS courst could do anything - it doesn't give a damn about the constitution.

[BluePatriot]

23. *nods*

see my edit above. I guess I will grill hubby about it later.

Hell, the airport owns land on one side on my way home, planes flying overhead and all, can they search me there?

[RaleighNCDUer]

31. Sure they can.

Might have a missile in your trunk, after all.

[BluePatriot]

42. Esh.

I'm starting to wonder how this can be moderated to a "sane" level without messing with property rights. There's got to be some oversight, though, I mean, it's not like a business or an individual can mess with you on their property (or, can they? Hm.)

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

28. Legal and creepy as long as it isn't profiling. They have to be equal opportunity creeps. eom

[leftofthedial]

29. creepy, unamerican

should be illegal

[mitchum]

33. Cayenne pepper sprinkled in your floorboards will nullify the "detective skills"...

of any four-legged "law officers"

[Jed Dilligan]

36. Subtract racism and the war on drugs,

and I would actually be okay with it. Under current conditions, fuck no.

[TX-RAT]

41. Is this all on Airport property?

[BluePatriot]

43. Yeah, all on their property,

within their rights, it seems, though I still go with "creepy"

[On the Road]

50. It's an Invasion of Privacy Rights

Now sometimes those rights might be trumped by, say, a threat to a specific building. But that has to be done very carefully.

[RC Quake]

51. It's been legal for a very long time.

1985 at least...that's when I first remember having my car searched at random. I think it happened about 20 times a year through 2000. Then I moved. Didn't bother me, though. I had nothing to hide...just embarrassed of the condition of my car.