Whittling Away at Our Rights. Not Aukai with me.

The 2007 case, United States v. Aukai, by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, has been used to justify warrantless searches without consent at airport screening stations.

Meanwhile, the fourth amendment to the Constitution states:

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 court asserts that airport searches are constitutionally reasonable "administrative searches" because "...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.'"

An "administrative search" is

an inspection or search carried out under a regulatory or statutory scheme esp. in public or commercial premises and usu. to enforce compliance with regulations or laws pertaining to health, safety, or security <one of the fundamental principles of administrative searches is that the government may not use an administrative inspection scheme as a pretext to search for evidence of criminal violations ­People v. Madison, 520 N.E.2d 374 (1988)>
see also probable cause at cause
The U.S. Supreme Court held in Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967), that a reasonable administrative search may be conducted upon a showing of probable cause which is less stringent than that required for a search incident to a criminal investigation. The Court stated that the reasonableness of the search can only be determined by «balancing the need to search against the invasion which the search entails." Cases following Camara have stated that the probable cause requirement is fulfilled by showing that the search meets reasonable administrative standards established in a nonarbitrary regulatory scheme.

It was the 9th Circuit, aain, that determined that airport security screens qualify as administrative searches, back in 1973 in U.S. vs Davis (thanks again, 9th Circuit!).

The 2007 decision expands the 1973 decision by asserting that consent is no longer a factor and revocation of the "implied consent" given by entering the screening area is no longer allowed.

In my opinion, the entire concept of an administrative search completely guts the 4th amendment concept of unreasonable search. By lowering the standard of probable cause and allowing the invasiveness of the search to be "balanced" against the "need" for the search, you have written the government a blank check for incredibly intrusive searches on virtually no probable cause, which is the state of  airport security today. When bureaucratic employees can grope you with no probable cause and you are unable to revoke consent for such groping, we are pretty much at the bottom limit of how intrusive and unwilling a search can be.

For many people, flying is not a luxury and buses, trains or automobiles are not a realistic alternative. I used to fly weekly or more often for my job. I would have had to resign if I had not been able to fly. Saying the flying is a luxury is analogous to saying all motorized transportation is a luxury. Imagine if automobile checkpoints with random searches were set up on a route you traveled daily to work, and imagine that you were told "Hey, if you don't like it, you can walk, ride your bike or ride a horse." Would that seem "reasonable" to you?

It is the nature to government to expand power. Power has been so expanded in the realm of air travel that we no longer have any notable rights once we pass the security checkpoint -- our freedom of speech, of assembly, our right to bear arms, our freedom from unreasonable search and seizure (I'm out a good key chain screwdriver/wrench tool -- no blade! -- thanks to unreasonable seizure!), all are sacrificed at the checkpoint, along with, arguably our fifth amendment right against self-incrimination.

The illusory, temporary safety we receive in return is not worth this.

ASIDE: Notice how interpreting the law requires going back through decades of case law to try to understand the terms as the courts use them? After more than 200 years of U.S. case law, this process becomes so complex that a normal reasonable citizen, can, in my opinion, no longer be assumed to understand that law. When we have reached that point, the law ceases to be an object that the citizen should respect and strive to obey -- why try to obey a set of rules when understanding those rules is beyond your reach. The law has become a Mephistophelean trap for the unwary.