rickair7777

Little problem there... I'm pretty sure that a lot of contraband *would* actually be found because a cop isn't going to signal his dog to "alert" on flight crew, a group of LDS missionaries, or a marine in uniform waiting at the gate. He's going to "alert" the dog on sketchy looking people, perhaps people of color, whom he suspects of having contraband.

Just because a cop's instincts are good, doesn't mean holding Rover on a leash should grant him a pass on the 4th. Slippery slope.

SonicFlyer

No but it's quite clear when it says "personal effects"


Yes and the person was already searched for security threats. Unless there is probable cause to think they are a security threat after they already passed the initial screening, then it is an illegal search and harrassement, plain and simple.



But this is not either, it's a place open to the public for normal every day travel, which people have a natural right to travel.


As I pointed out, this wasn't a security screening by TSA who thought the guy was carrying a weapon.

rickair7777

It's already been determined that sniffer dogs in your proximity in public do not constitute a search. The search, and any siezure, occurs only after "reasonable suspicion" is acquired (via the dog). That's well settled.

I have no issue with the legal precedent, I have issue with the reliability of the dogs. I would have no issue with technical sensors which could be shown to accurately and objectively detect odors of contraband. Dogs are pretty accurate, but not objective.

Ultimately, if you take great care, you can package your contraband so as to not emit any odors. So that's on you if you carelesly broadcast your possession by visual or olfactory means.

Again, it's not a search. If you carelessly emit odors of contraband, that's on you.


The constitution didn't address motor vehicles, nor did they have security issues with pedestrians or horses.

As I said, you can reasonably argue that in the modern era air travel is some kind of necessary right, perhaps based on economic reasons. But nobody has won that argument yet.

SonicFlyer

Except that your property is your property be it real property or personal property. And as you and the courts have pointed out that the dogs are not reliable.



You must not have watched the video. They were randomly searching this guy primarily for money, not drugs. And they didn't walk the dog by him and he alerted. They pulled him aside at random and forced him to stand still while the dog walked around his bag and then purposfully instructed the dog to alert.


The right to travel has long been held as a natural and fundamental right.

METO Guido

Had a drug hound pi$$ on my bag in Honduras. Didn’t complain. Know your circumstances.

Excargodog

https://youtu.be/6pCd21g2thw?si=eNnGFoZPw1MaYJbQ

JohnBurke

The constitutional protection against search is irrelevant when one volunteers to be searched. Having given consnent, one cannot cry constitutional violation.

Consent to search is a term of entry into any area beyond security, at the airport. if one is searched after that point, one has already given consent by entering. All persons beyond that point are subject to search at any time. If you don't consent, don't go beyond that point.

One can be searched at the security screening checkpoint, and at any time thereafter, including on the aircraft; one's personal effects are subject to search. Ones baggage is subject to search. One is subject to search. What the US constitution has to say about that is irrelevant, given that every person who passes (or bypasses) security to enter the secure area, has consented by entering, because it's a condition of entry.

One can't even appeal to a big, cartoonish, orange upside-down thumb, if searched, having given one's consent to be searched, by voluntarily entering an area in which all persons are subject to search as a condition of entry. No need to cry constitutional violation of wave the mindless orange thumb, if one simply elects not to enter. No consent? Very simple. Stay out. Problem solved. Now you can sit outside the airport and enjoy your constitutional protection against unreasonable search or seizure, and post upside down orange thumbs.

rickair7777

Bottom line, it's legal. The constitution has no provision to protect air travel rights.

You could make an argument that in the modern era air and motor vehicle travel is equivalent to foot and horse travel which the founders were familiar with and should therefor be un-infringed. But that's a slipperly slope, re-interpreting the constitution in the modern context. Better IMO to just amend the constitution to afford freedoms for all manner of domestic travel... foot, horse, wagon, car, train, airplane, suborbital rocket, and Star Trek transporter.

I think we're at a point where a constitutional amendment to limit the age of the president would be palatable. Might be practical to make a few other low-controversy updates while we're at.

I think the government has a legit security interest in supervising international travel.

SonicFlyer

Yes, but the people here did not consent to a search once they were past the initial screening, and they didn't consent for being searched for drugs or money. If the TSA was searching for weapons at the gate, then you might have an argument, but that's not what was happening. Drugs and cash have nothing to do with security.




Only in regards to security.


Actually the Constitution prohibits the TSA and FAA from even existing, and also prevents the feds from regulating airports, but that's a different matter altogether.

SonicFlyer

The 9th and 10th Amendments disagree with you.

Only in regards to the border.