Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution

[nadinbrzezinski]

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure



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.

[pinboy3niner]

1. But airports are a Fourth Amendment-free zone...

...apparently. :wtf:

[Drale]

6. Remember the constitution only applies to you and me

not corporations, unless it can be used to get what the corporations want. FUCK THAT MAKES ME MAD!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. I am so hoping the ACLU follows thought and takes this to court

The machines and the gropes could potentially ride on the magnetometer decision, unless THEY ROUND UP all the specialists that agree this is sheer theater and does nothing for real security.

[laughingliberal]

41. Rutherford Institute has filed suit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9581317

http://www2.dailyprogress.com/news/2010/nov/16/rutherford-institute-sues-over-airport-screenings-ar-657490/

[Motown_Johnny]

2. nobody is being forced to fly, if they don't want to be searched they can take a train

this does not apply

this keeps the police from raiding your home on a whim

it has nothing to do with your deciding to take a plane





I am against the insane "security" measures being taken at airports also but I am against them for reasons that make sense, yours doesn't

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. I could suggest a few history books

on how close this is to what inspired this Amendment during the reign of the madman, but I fear that be too close for comfort. Suffice it to say, we've come full circle

(for those that don't know, King George III was ahem politely called the Madman)

[LisaL]

9. So if you are on the street and you are stopped and searched,

nobody was forcing you to be on the street either. You could just stay home all day, you don't have to be on the street. What's the freaking difference?

[Warren Stupidity]

17. scary terry undy bombies!

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. I know I should not laugh

but that was funny.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. I aim for the depths of stupid

and after 10 years of trying, I haven't hit bottom.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. What is sad is

now we are having the same arguments in a supposedly liberal board, that I had on AOL back in the day...

I can safely say... Muricans know shit about their rights! It don't matter who they follow politically.

[pinboy3niner]

21. Not your fault that they keep lowering the goal post

As Michael Corleone said, just when you think you've reached it, they lower it on you again. Or something like that. :)

[Warren Stupidity]

16. The 4th only applies to 'things you are forced to do'?

Really? Where does the 4th say that? Oh wait, it doesn't say that. It says nothing of the sort. It is in fact rather plainly worded and easy to understand. NO SEARCH WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE.

[jancantor]

36. Actually no

It says no warrants may issue without probable cause. It says searches must be reasonable... GENERALLY courts have held that the standard for a search IS probable cause, with some obvious exceptions... for example, is a terry "frisk" a search? How about a plain view search? An open view search? A search of abandoned property? The latter is definitely a search but does not require probable cause. I'll give you two guesses as to why....

[Warren Stupidity]

52. oh sure let's get into it

A search's reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment generally depends on whether the search was made pursuant to a warrant issued upon probable cause. U.S. v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 701 ('83).

is that clear enough for you?

The exceptions to that must be 'minimal'. Strip searches, virtual or otherwise, are not within the bounds of 'minimal'. At least not to ordinary citizens who can read plain English and derive the obvious meaning from those words. However the courts have generally gone along with our slide into police state idiocy. Thus roadblocks, extracting blood and breath samples, remote searches etc. have all been allowed as we give up the clear basic rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, all in the name of 'safety' in a manufactured crisis that has no end.

I indeed have no faith that the courts will agree with me on this.

[ProgressiveLiberal]

40. Here's something to think about: Do you really think that Steve Jobs has to go through a scanner??

or Timothy Geitner?
or Bill Gates?

Do you think the CEO of Goldman Sachs ever gets X-rayed?
Do you think that Ben Bernacke ever get's his genitals groped when he has to fly? (apologies for that mentral image)

The answer to all of the above is NO - NEVER.

The wealthy elite NEVER have to go through scanners or pat-downs because they have "private planes" and if they ever DO get on an airline they are "connected".

Don't believe me? Read about the experience of Penn Jillette (From Penn and Teller) some years back:
http://www.pennandteller.com/03/coolstuff/penniphile/roadpennfederalvip.html

The airport manager calls him back and assures him (at the end of the story) that he will never be molested again.

The wealthy elite OWN this country and pat-downs and radiation exposure are only for the low life working class like you and me.

[NuclearDem]

49. You can't take a train to Europe

But I guess no one's forcing you to go out and see the world so it doesn't matter

[Nuclear Unicorn]

51. Nobody is forcing you to live at your current address

just sayin'

[seabeyond]

53. how about when we have to go into that court house that does this and SAVES the images?

we have to go to court. we have no choice. and are forced to go thru a naked scanner.

how much more do we erode the fourth admendment with justifications of misuse.

[benEzra]

54. Nope. TSA wants airline-style screening for trains as well...

and are already taking steps in that direction.

http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases/2004/press_release_0443.shtm
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2008/02/18/afx4667193.html

It's not about security; it's about power and profits.

[fascisthunter]

55. ridiculous point... it doesn't fucking matter if one is being forced or not

[grahamhgreen]

60. WTF - nobody forced you to buy a house, if you don't want to be searched, live outside!

Totalitarian horse hooey.

The right to security in your person.

What happens when these scanners are the size of a cell phone?

[rexcat]

61. Sure, I don't have to take a plane when I travel...

but I would also be unemployed. I am all for being unemployed so I would have the ability to pay more taxes to support this wonderful country. By the way your comment is really very well thought out!

We need more thoughtful citizens like you and while we are at it we should just void the Constitution. It just gets in the way for the government to do their business.

I like to be manhandled by the TSA, my health compromised by over exposure to x-rays and sexually assaulted. All children going through security at airports should be patted down and their genitals touched by adult strangers. Child molestation is such a positive family value. Something that the social conservatives can get behind.

My apologies for the :sarcasm: but I think your comment is as absurd as the ones above. I am sure you would not agree with any of the above comments. It is not as simple as not flying. That is not an option for everyone. The only time I fly is for business and when I fly I am > 5 hours driving distance to my sites. My clients are not going to pay for my travel time except when it is reasonable and driving > 5 hours is not considered reasonable for them. I don't fly for pleasure anymore because I don't want my children put in a bad situation at the airport. The TSA agents really don't care about the travelers. They are there to make examples of people who buck the system and they are very good at it.

[Mnemosyne]

63. Suggestion: Read the Patriot Act - Section 213.

http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

[redirish28]

3. Remember that was thrown out with the Military Act 2006

The TSA is part of the government and when we now buy an airline ticket we give up our constitutional rights.


I am seriously wondering when they are going to stop threatening people who object with a $10,000 fine and start detaining people.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. It is coming

why this matters.

[JDPriestly]

43. Way back in the 1950s, we were assured that America was better

than the USSR because, among other things, we enjoyed the freedom to travel.

The security regulations actually deprive us of freedom to travel. The regulations are a constant reminder that we travel only with the permission of our government. We have to show our IDs. We must buy our tickets under the name on our IDs. That means that the government can determine when and where we travel if we travel quickly by air. Of course, we can drive. But driving is a slow alternative for many people.

Is the additional safety worth sacrificing our rights. Depends on how real and how great the threat of terrorism is. I don't know.

But I do think we should be more honest about the fact that we have, basically, given up our freedom to travel as it pertains to air travel. That's a big step.

[iamjoy]

8. Just Don't Be a Hypocrite

IF you believe these scanners and pat downs are an infringement on our liberties, than acknowledge the risk (however small) that without them, a person intending harm to our country could carry explosives in his/her underwear. Unless you have a better way to do security, if an underwear bomber is successful, you then have no position to criticize the government for failing to protect you.

I think most Liberals and some Libertarians believe the risk of terrorism is relatively small and does not justify the assault on our liberties.

I think most Conservatives who claim to have no problem with the scanners would react quite differently if they were subject to it themselves because they think the enhanced techniques should only be used on brown people.

But, flying is more or less a privilege, so I don't know if the Fourth Amendment applies. After all, of one wants to make the search & seizure argument, what right do they have to make me go through any kind of metal detector or to scan/search my bags? But that's been going on for years. Hmmm, is it just me or is this water getting warmer?

[LisaL]

10. Somebody could carry explosives in their underwear into

a supermarket or a mall if they so please. What is so special about airports?

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. I do, that said there are three things you are missing

this guy was on the NO FLY LIST.

His dad reported him to the guv'ment

A DOG could have caught him.

That said, my risks of dying in a terror attack are actually lower than dying in a plane due to mechanical failure... I could start with the latest funny spat with Quantas, but why?

And it does apply, I suggest people read a history of WHY it came to be. It had to do with the random searches used by the British Troops on the years leading to the revolution, Back then they used those searches to keep people scared. They would have gladly used this equipment if they had it. In fact, there is no coincidence in my mind that the only TWO countries that have embraced them this openly are the US and the UK... nations that fly to the US have different degrees of acceptance.

Oh and I will add one more thing... you think the Israelis rejected them because they were ineffective or just to be contrarians? And you do know they have a far higher daily risk profile, right?

[iamjoy]

13. Israelis Rejected Them?

Hmmm...probably because unlike our legislative branch, no one in the Kinnesset had any friends poised to make a profit on the scanning devices.

Yeah, the would-be underwear bomber never should have been allowed to fly. And yeah, the risks of dying in a terrorist attack are comparatively small.

But, if you think the Fourth Amendment is relevant, do you object to the metal detectors and searches not only in airports but in courthouses, federal buildings, etc.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Does the magnetometer show a naked body?

And they rejected them because THESE machines are sheer theater, not effective.

What's next? Cavity Searches?

Look, as an EMT I could NOT touch anybody in the way the pat downs are done.

Police NEED PROBABLE cause to do this.

Does flying mean they have it?

Read the Fourth Amendment. If you are willing to give your rights to being secure in your person to feel safer, that is your prerogative.

And I know some people are that scared... if you are... well then. Life has risks.

And I cannot wait for the ACLU to take this to court...

and no, this equipment does NOT make you safer.

[iamjoy]

23. I Don't Know

Constitutionally, I don't see the distinction between metal detectors/bag searches and these machines.

They already scan and sometimes search our bags. Refusal to submit would be probable cause (!) So if you've submitted to that, if you've ever let your purse be searched before entering a federal building, a sporting event, etc. you've already surrendered your Fourth Amendment rights. Aren't these scanners just another degree or tool? Why is the current system okay, but these scanners not? Flying is not probable cause, but I guess the argument is that if you don't like it, stay home. :shrug:

It's like this, an unattractive man is sitting next to a really hot woman in a bar. He asks her, "Would you have sex with me for a million dollars." She says, "Sure." He then replies, "Would you have sex with me for $20?" And she gets indignant and asks, "What do you think I am?" He says, "I know what you are, now I'm just negotiating price."

Would you give up a little of your Fourth Amendment rights to be more secure? If you've gotten on a plane in the past 35 years or gone into a federal building in the past 15 you already have. So now the government knows what we are and is just negotiating our price

I guess the frog in boiling water analogy works too...

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JDPriestly]

48. I agree.

All of these searches really are an invasion of our rights. The freedom to travel used to be one of our basic rights. Just the fact that the US government makes sure we carry our IDs and show them before boarding the plane is an invasion of our privacy, a serious invasion.

I have absolutely nothing to hide, so some would argue, why object.

But that is precisely it. I have nothing to hide, so why does the government need to know when and where I travel, why I travel, what is in my shoes, what cosmetics I am carrying with me. It's overkill. And anyone would know very well just be looking at me that I am absolutely no threat to anyone.

You are probably more likely to be killed by a spouse, lover or other family member than to be killed by a terrorist.

Every year in the United States, 1,000 to 1,600 women die at the hands of their male partners, often after a long, escalating pattern of battering.1 The estimated number of deaths due to intimate partner violence does not include those women who kill themselves to exit violent relationships, or who die homeless on the streets avoiding batterers.
(See “What Is the Actual Death Toll Due
to Domestic Violence?”)

article published in 2003

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/jr000250g.pdf

So, between 9/11/01 and the time that article was published, probably 2,000 to 3,800 women had died due to domestic violence. By 2004, as many women had died of domestic violence as in the 9/11 attack.

This is not to condone the terrorism. It is just to put thing into perspective. Domestic violence since 2001 has probably cost far more lives than terrorism. How much money do we spend on preventing terrorism? How much do we spend on preventing domestic violence?

I'm just trying to bring some perspective to the hysteria about all of this. I think that some of the security measures are very helpful, but the government is going to extremes when it puts in body scanners and authorizes random touching of the bodies of people who are clearly no threat.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. I gave you the reasons why this don't work

In the real world but the mods thought it was too graphic, suffice it to say when that inevitably happens hope they use lube at the airport for the cavity search.

Suffice to say reacting don't work in the long term, but look on the bright side, you will feel safer.

[dflprincess]

27. The last segment on Olbermann tonight was with a man who used

to be the chief security person for El Al and (I think) with the Israeli government. He pretty much said our security efforts are useless.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Yeah I heard him

he's tried to raise these issues in private and public... he's also been interviewed by foreign media as well.

His company advised Mexico, which already had pretty good security before 9.11, and to trained eyes their security has some of the theater, required by us... but also real security.

[JDPriestly]

45. You got it, iamjoy.

These scanners are about profits for some generous donor to the campaigns of politicians.

That's all it is. Yet another scam.

Travelers are far more likely to die in an air crash due to faulty maintenance of the plane or pilot error, weather or birds (highly unlikely) than from terrorism.

We don't take liquids on board, and all our luggage can be scanned. The percentage of people who would ever want to commit terrorist acts in planes is very, very, very small, almost nonexistent. The risk probably does not justify the expense.

Talk about waste in the government.

It would be much better to watch people's behavior, how nervous they are, for example, than to x-ray their bodies.

[Warren Stupidity]

50. yes I object to the permanent security state in all of its manifestations

Then again I grew up in a world where we did not have police checkpoints everywhere scanning and searching the citizen-enemies. Other, inferior nations, totalitarian police states, did that. I'm guessing you aren't old enough to remember, or like many in my generation, have just grown comfortably numb.

[redirish28]

25. HE was on the no fly list BUT WAS NOT STOPPED FROM GETTING ON THE PLANE?

What use is this no-fly list if the "terrorist" is still able to get on the plane?

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. There were many mistakes made

but yes he was...

On edit useful timeline

http://abcnews.go.com/US/timeline-terror-clues-bomber-umar-farouk-abdulmutallabs-past/story?id=9449255

[redirish28]

29. The idea of the no-fly list was to keep the terrorist off the plane so it failed

and in 10 years only one time was the terrorist on the list and HE still got on the plane. It proves that the list is nothing but a HUGE failure and inconvenience for everyone on it!

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. The concept is not bad in principle

but here is the problem, not just with the list...

The Federal Government is a monster... no, not in the sense that RW mean it. It is just a very large not nimble institution. It is the nature of the beast.

The enemy, and the risk is real, works in cells of on worst case, 20 people. That is a small group and most are five or less. So they are extremely nimble and they can adapt. The other problem is... if I catch one of these guys... he'll know, best case, the names of two more of the people he works with. They are working in a classic cell structure. We invented the tactics, oh way back in 1776... or actually before that... and they are damn effective. And we cannot fight back because we are quite frankly not nimble enough. And we also have a few firewalls that were put in place due to Contrielpro, and while they have officially been removed, they are still there.

A good analogy would be a small sail boat, and a Navy Carrier... which one do you think can turn faster?

And these machines are just a way to respond to perceived and real threats that are purely reactive, instead of proactive. As I said, we are not nimble, they are.

by the way, that also explains how three year olds end in it by the way, or US Senators... (The latter I think was on purpose actually)

[Ozymanithrax]

12. Freedom is dangerous...

We can choose to be courageous and free, our accept the tyranny of false safety.

Yes, there is a chance that we will miss someone wrapping plastique around his Johnson, or a High Explosive/incendiary tampon.

But there re some things up which a free people should not put. Highly intrusive mandatory body searches are unnecessary search and seizure by a government agency.

[pinboy3niner]

22. +100

Extra points for channeling Ben Affleck channeling K.O.! :toast:

[blue neen]

14. Excellent post.

:thumbsup:

[krispos42]

31. Got it on my car

Nice little black sticker.

:-) :fistbump:

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Now I got it on my sig

[ChoppinBroccoli]

33. I'm Actually Somewhere In The Middle On This One

Just as a little background, I'm a criminal defense attorney, and I've been defending 4th Amendment cases for almost 15 years now. So, having the knowledge of the 4th Amendment that I do, I find the body scanners issue to be interesting in that there doesn't seem to be a clear-cut answer. Here's what I CAN tell you, though:

First of all, walking through a body scanner probably doesn't rise to the level of a "search" which would require a warrant. I think it would actually be closer to a "Terry" search (or rather, a "stop-and-frisk"). In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that a police officer can stop a person and conduct a pat-down search, and all they need is a "reasonable suspicion" that the search would result in the finding of illegal objects. This is a lower level of proof necessary than the "probable cause" needed to obtain a search warrant, and for that reason, the pat-down search has to be considered reasonable (i.e. it can't be a strip search or a body cavity search; just a straight pat-down).

Also, there are certain situations in which you are considered to have voluntarily waived your right to be free from searches, and going through certain types of security checkpoints are generally considered to fall under this category. If you object to being searched, you are free to leave. In the case of warrants and other types of 4th Amendment searches, you are NOT free to stop the search. For example, every day when I go down to the Courthouse, I put my briefcase through an X-ray machine where they essentially look inside my briefcase to see if there's anything dangerous inside. If there's a suspicious shape in there, they can even ask me to open it up so they can look inside. This is all perfectly legal because I'm submitting to the search in exchange for admittance into the building. But here's the difference: if I wish to refuse the search, I am perfectly within my rights to do so. But I won't be allowed to go into the building (at least not with my briefcase). If it were a true 4th Amendment search, I would not have the right to refuse the search in exchange for leaving or anything else.

In my opinion, doing things like walking through metal detectors and removing your shoes for X-raying do not rise to the level of a "search" for 4th Amendment purposes. However, the fact that the body scanners are tantamount to a strip search conducted with no "probable cause" or "reasonable suspicion" whatsoever raises some questions as to their Constitutionality, at least in MY mind. If they didn't render an image of your body, but rather just emitted a beep or something when a suspicious object was detected, I think they would be fine.

I'd be interested to see one of these cases be taken up to the Supreme Court, because it definitely is an interesting issue. I'd be interested to hear the legal arguments made on each side, because as of right now, I fall somewhere in the middle.

[LisaL]

34. Are people really free to leave if they object to being groped?

Considering the "don't touch my junk" guy was threatened with 10,000$ fine if he left it doesn't appear to be so.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. Two points to a very well reasoned case counselor

In my opinion, doing things like walking through metal detectors and removing your shoes for X-raying do not rise to the level of a "search" for 4th Amendment purposes. However, the fact that the body scanners are tantamount to a strip search conducted with no "probable cause" or "reasonable suspicion" whatsoever raises some questions as to their Constitutionality, at least in MY mind. If they didn't render an image of your body, but rather just emitted a beep or something when a suspicious object was detected, I think they would be fine.

This is the problem, exactly... both the pat down, which is not the one in Terry, but a deeper pat down and the machines are tantamount to something that needs a warrant. Why the magnetometer does not bother me. Also the machine is supposed to be used to find explosives, but experts (had a very graphic post removed, so if you want more pm me) don't work as advertised. Dogs, or chemical sniffers work far better, as in they work.

Secondly you can leave the court house. but this guy in San Diego has been threatened with a 10K fine for telling them no, let me go home. Granted, if he checked luggage they would have to retrieve it... but there is a punitive action for wanting to stop this and leave.

And of course the other problem is that we are so damn reactive that we really have forgotten to be proactive...

[jancantor]

37. Um, not correct

"In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that a police officer can stop a person and conduct a pat-down search, and all they need is a "reasonable suspicion" that the search would result in the finding of illegal objects"

You are correct that T v O established RS as a threshold for a brief investigative stop (short of a custodial arrest). You are incorrect in your claim that pat frisks (and note that just because cops have RS for a terry that does not automatically justify a pat frisk... they need what are referred to as "frisk factors" iow particularized suspicion that the person may be armed/dangerous).

Frisks are NOT a search for evidence. That is what distinguishes them from searches. Searches are for EVIDENCE. Frisks are protective, and the goal is to detect weapons, which may... or may not... be illegal. If sufficient "frisk factors" are present, the cops conduct a frisk which is much more limited than a search, because they are only seeking out stuff that can harm them.

People (even lawyers) often use the term "frisk" and search interchangably, but they shouldn't. They are not merely different in scope (extensiveness and means used). They are also different in INTENT. They do intrude into areas where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy (contrast with an Open View Search) but the intent is entirely different.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

38. Well, Yes And No

Most of the time, pat-down "Terry" searches are conducted incident to an arrest, in order to find weapons or anything dangerous to the police officers. However, if pat-down searches reveal evidence, that evidence is perfectly admissible in court, and its seizure is not considered an unreasonable search and seizure under the 4th Amendment.

In fact, there is case law out there establishing a "reasonable feel" test for pat-down searches (meaning, the cops have to establish that it was reasonable to assume that what they felt was an illegal thing/substance), because a lot of the time, cops are frisking people suspected of having drugs or other illegal substances in their pockets. In fact, wasn't the issue in "Terry" that the cops suspected Terry had a stolen watch in his pocket or something, or am I confusing it with another case?

I had a case just a couple years ago where my client had been chased down by the cops, tackled, and then frisked specifically because they thought he had drugs (which, of course, they found). And their reasonable suspicion for thinking he had drugs was the fact that they called him and asked him to come over and sell them some drugs. When he approached the door, about 10 cops burst out, guns drawn, yelling at him, and he turned and ran.

So, cops do NOT need to have reasonable suspicion of a dangerous ordinance in order to justify a pat-down search; JUST reasonable suspicion that you have something illegal on your person. "Terry" searches are used solely to search for evidence ALL THE TIME.

Trust me. I do this for a living.

[jancantor]

46. to go further

Search incident to arrest is NOT a pat down. It is justified with a different doctrine, and is different in scope. And it's a search. A pat frisk is not a "search" in the respect that a search incident is. A search incident can be much more thorough than a frisk. A search incident could open a closed soft container, but a pat frisk could not. (note: under federal guidelines. Not necessarily in every state. Many states significantly restrict local law enforcement beyond the federal guidelines because an independent grounds reading of the state constitutions recognizes additional privacy rights, etc. WA State, a state that has a right to privacy writting into our constitution is one such state. Cops in WA state cannot, for example, use the standard search incident doctrine for motor vehicles (due to recent case law) that apply in most states.

A search incident to arrest is for weapons, but also for items relevant to the crime arrested for. Details vary state to state, but generally speaking is a very broad scope search of the person. In many states, it also includes the passenger compartment of the car if the person was arrested in same.

In your second paragraph what you are referring to is the "plain feel" doctrine. in a pat frisk, it is for WEAPONS, therefore a cop cannot pull something out that doesn't feel like to a weapon to check it out. However, if the item is "immediately apparent" as contraband, etc. then at that point it becomes seizable due to PC. That is what is commonly referred to as the "plain feel" doctrine. It's a modification of plain view doctrine. The officer is legally present (frisking) the area, he feels (senses) something that is immediately apparent as contraband. It's similar to plain view, except using the tactile instead of visual. Similar to an officer who smells marijuana. If he is legally where he is, and he smells mj, the smell was detected in the "plain view" search so to speak. Iow, he smelled it.

My initial point was that reasonable suspicion IN AND OF ITSELF does NOT justify a "pat frisk" even though it justifies a terry stop. The officer must have sufficient indicia of dangerousness, etc. Factors to include include # of officers on scene, time of day, location, crime suspected, officer's knowledge of suspect's past history, suspect's behavior (blading, etc.), evidence of "bulges" etc.

You can' FRISK somebody for drugs. You can SEARCH them for drugs.

You are wrong on your last paragraph. A frisk cannot be justified merely because there is RS you have something ILLEGAL. A frisk is SPECIFICALLY for safety, and thus the suspicion may be even of something legal. The factor that matters is dangerousness NOT evidentiary value. In fact, a "frisk" that is in fact looking for contraband is prima facie invalid because it was a de facto evidentiary search.

If cop has RS that person X is carrying drugs that does NOT justify a frisk for drugs. However, if the officer can articulate that based on his training and experience, area, drug type, etc etc. that there is reasonable suspicion that the person might also be carrying weapons or be otherwise dangerous to him then the frisk would be allowed. The drugs aspect of the investigation would help the indicia required to justify the frisk, but the FRISK was not for drugs.

Pat frisks are for officer safety NOT contraband such as drugs. Again, a person suspected of dealing/possessing contraband though might present "frisk factors" justifying a frisk.

[4lbs]

39. The key word is "unreasonable". The lawsuits and the courts will decide if such airport screenings

are 'unreasonable', or acceptable as part of airport security measures.

EDIT:

I do realize that it's been about 8 years since I last flew, and airport screenings have gotten more intrusive since then. Back in 2002, the most I ever had to do was take my shoes off and walk around in my socked feet, turn on my laptop computer, and also my WalkMan CD player to make sure they weren't IEDs. Oh, and I was X-rayed of course, after putting all my metal objects in a bowl.

I didn't think that was unreasonable. I'm not quite sure about the current procedure since I haven't had to go through it.

[LisaL]

42. Well I sincerely hope that crotch touching is going to be

considered unreasonable, but what do I know?

[4lbs]

47. Yeah, to me that's a little too much. Even 'standard' police-style frisking can go a little too far

from time to time.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. The magnetometer does not use x-rays and even with leaks

The machines to x-Ray your stuff should not affect you in any way.

These things will dose you, in the best of circumstances far less than a chest x-Ray.

Oh and the pat downs are not usually used by police in the field. That's how intrusive they are.

Yes, there are levels of pat downs, and lawsuit has been filed.

[KittyLover]

44. K&R

Hopefully James gets it now. THANK YOU, Nadin.

[Freddie Stubbs]

57. Who decises what is an "unreasonable" search?

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. At this point and in this case

The Rutherford institute files suit on these grounds...the ACLU will follow suit.

[Mnemosyne]

62. oops n/t