A Win for the Fourth Amendment

In some good news for our civil liberties, Federal courts have ruled to suppress evidence found at an airport checkpoint by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) because it violated the defendant’s fourth amendment rights. For those of you in need of a refresher, the fourth amendment protects us from unreasonable search and seizure. Specifically:

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.

The summary of the case is that the defendant, Fode Fofana, passed through a security checkpoint at Port Columbus International Airport. His bags passed through the x-ray without any suspicion, and he passed through the walk through metal detector (WTMD) without setting it off. Fofana had been selected for a secondary search based on the secret rules of the TSA (usually this is because you have a one-way ticket, pay cash, or buy a ticket at the counter). During the secondary search, which involves opening bags, he was found to be carrying a large amount of cash and three false passports.

During testimony, the TSA admitted that they were searching for contraband and did not believe there were any weapons or explosives in the bags or on Fofana’s person. They based this on the fact that his bags had passed through the x-ray machine twice and that he had passed through the WTMD, been wanded by a handheld metal detector, and had been patted down.

The court ruled that since TSA searches are warrant-less administrative searches, they are an exception to the law that requires either a warrant or reasonable cause to perform the search. However, because these searches are warrant-less, they must be narrow in nature. Specifically, the TSA is charged with making sure that a passenger is not carrying items that are dangerous the the aircraft or airport, and they are not allowed to search for illegal items, in general.

The court stated, “the evidence in this case shows that the extent of the search went beyond the permissible purpose of detecting weapons and explosives and was instead motivated by a desire to uncover contraband evidencing ordinary criminal wrongdoing. From their testimony at the suppression hearing it appeared that both [Transportation Security Agents] Mirow and Stroud considered Fofana to be suspicious based on the fact that he was carrying a large amount of cash, but that the “suspicion” was not based on a concern that he was a security risk.”

“Quite simply the Government failed to produce evidence from which this Court could conclude that the search of Fofana’s luggage was “no more extensive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives;” or that the search was confined in good faith to that purpose. As the Government bears the burden of establishing that a search was constitutional, that failure is outcome determinative and the Court must grant Fofana’s Motion to Suppress.”

Win one for civil liberties and the campaign the get rid of the bloated, mission creep by an out-of-control agency of security guards who do very little, if anything, to contribute to actual air safety.