9/11 – 19 hijackers took control of four aircraft after boarding with (possibly) the following items: Mace, tear gas or pepper spray Leatherman-type multi-function hand tools Knives Box cutters How the hijackers took control of each plane is not entirely known because: Cockpit voice recorders were destroyed or recordings started after the hijacking took place Phone calls from the airplanes include differing accounts

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Created by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, November 19, 2001 Moved from Department of Transportation to Department of Homeland Security in March, 2003 Responsible for securing all modes of transportation 100% screening of checked baggage for explosives 100% screening of passengers for Prohibited items Persons prohibited from flying

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.

Airport screening is considered an “administrative search” “We have held that airport screening searches, like the one at issue here, are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches because they are ‘conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, namely, to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft, and thereby to prevent hijackings.’ United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973)”United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2007)United States v. Aukai

Passenger screening procedures are not unlimited Passenger screening is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment ONLY IF it is “…no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.” United States v. Davis 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973)”United States v. Davis

NO “(R)equiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world. Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by 'electing not to fly' on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found.“ United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2007) United States v. Aukai

“… where an airport screening search is otherwise reasonable and conducted pursuant to statutory authority, 49 U.S.C. § 44901, all that is required is the passenger's election to attempt entry into the secured area of an airport … Under current TSA regulations and procedures, that election occurs when a prospective passenger walks through the magnetometer or places items on the conveyor belt of the x-ray machine. United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2007) United States v. Aukai

Airport screening to prevent a terrorist attack is an administrative search Screening is reasonable if it is not overly invasive in light of the available technology and potential threat Each person traveling on a commercial airline is subject to a warrentless search of body and belongings No warrant, probable cause or reasonable suspicion No person has the right to leave a screening area without being searched once they attempt entry into a secure area