The Fourth Amendment and Airports (2016)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

45 warrant would only minimally advance Fourth Amendment interest. This warrantless ‘seizure’ was reasonable.”562 CONCLUSION The Fourth Amendment involves many issues in addition to those presented in this digest. This digest, however, provides an overview of airport- specific concerns to assist with a general under- standing of those issues and provide a starting point for additional research. As these airport cases illus- trate, an airport’s context is an important factor affecting how Fourth Amendment issues at an air- port are evaluated by the courts, whether the gov- ernment is taking administrative action to inspect for safety hazards or taking law enforcement action to enforce criminal laws at an airport. 562 Id. The courts have also considered stops involving cars and ground transportation. In general, the Supreme Court recognizes an “automobile exception” to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement: see Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465 (1999) (officers may search a car without a warrant if it is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband); United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) (officers may search a car without a warrant if the search is confined to places where there is probable cause to find contraband); Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (officers may search a vehicle pursuant to arrest if the arrestee can reach areas at the time of the search or officers reasonably believe the car contains evi- dence of the offense of arrest); Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (a dog sniff was not a search and lawful when it did not extend a lawful traffic stop). For some discussion of ground transportation, see United States v. Pina-Lopez, 2013 WL 867430, at 6 (D. Oregon, 2013) (citing First and Fifth Circuit opinions upholding searches of ground trans- portation passengers based on third-party consent, but noting a lack of Ninth Circuit precedent and noting that such consent should not apply in the context of the seizure of a passenger).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was performed under the overall guidance of the ACRP Project Committee 11-01, Topic 05-03. The Committee was chaired by DAVID BANNARD, Foley & Lardner LLP, Boston, Massachusetts. Members are THOMAS W. ANDERSON, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Minneapolis, Minnesota; JAY HINKEL, City of Wichita, Kansas; MARCO B. KUNZ, Salt Lake City Department of Airports, Salt Lake City, Utah; ELAINE ROBERTS, Columbus Regional Airport Authority, Columbus, Ohio; and E. LEE THOMSON, Clark County, Las Vegas, Nevada. DAPHNE A. FULLER provides liaison with the Federal Aviation Administration, FRANK SANMARTIN provides liaison with the Federal Aviation Administration, TOM DEVINE provides liaison with industry, and MARCI A. GREENBERGER represents the ACRP staff.

These digests are issued in order to increase awareness of research results emanating from projects in the Cooperative Research Programs (CRP). Persons wanting to pursue the project subject matter in greater depth should contact the CRP Staff, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001. Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Subscriber Categories: Aviation • Law NON-PROFIT ORG. U.S. POSTAGE PAID COLUMBIA, MD PERMIT NO. 88