thereisnospoon
Gold Member
Where did I say that, first of all? Secondly, they do consent by flying but the court ruled the constitutionality of the search is not even dependent upon it.
If you consent by flying you can revoke that consent by deciding not to fly. That is how implied consent works in the real world, which is why police cannot force you to take an DUI test without a warrant. You have the option of revoking your consent by surrendering your license.
If you were not one of the ones that made that particular argument I apologize, it seems to be that everyone thinks that clinches the defense of the searches, and I cannot remember exactly who has said it when so many people do.
Actually the court ruled, if you bothered to read my link, that the search at that point no longer required consent even though a passenger at the last minute tried to elect not to fly...
Defendant went into the security line at the Honolulu airport, but it was noted on his boarding pass that he presented "No ID" to get through security. He was accordingly selected for secondary screening, although he was protesting that his flight was about to leave, which it was. A handheld wand went off on a front pants pocket three times, and he protested that he had nothing in his pocket. The TSA officer used the back of his hand to feel what might be setting off the alarm on the wand, and something was in there but he could not tell what it was. Defendant at that point asked to leave the airport because he changed his mind about flying. The TSA officer told him to empty his pockets, and a meth pipe was found in the front pocket. A further search of his person revealed meth. The Ninth Circuit held that airport searches no longer are dependent upon implied consent; they are now administrative searches because flying on an airplane in a post-9/11 world is now the same as a "highly regulated industry." Any "implied consent," thus, cannot be revoked once the passenger elects to enter the secure area. Such searches, however, are not limitless; they are limited by their justification: screening for terrorists. This search was reasonable under the circumstances. United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc):
The 9th "Circus" has been overturned more times than all other circuits combined.