I. INTRODUCTION
- Protection against unreasonable search and seizure is a cornerstone of the American Constitution. Violations of the Fourth Amendment are very controversial and may take years to resolve. In this case the Gotham City Transit Authority is attempting to initiate a policy which would allow random searches and x-ray scans of passengers and baggage entering a subway. The Olympus Civil Liberties Union is challenging the random searches, citing it would a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Despite their objections, random searches at airports are legal would also be legal at subways. This policy would be legal and in line with the laws of the United States.
II. Transportation Security
A. History
- In this section I will talk about the history of airport security and the initial surge of airplane hijackings in the 1960s and 70s. I will also briefly discuss what security measures were in place prior to 9/11. B. Transportation Security Administration - The beginning of the TSA is what sets the precedent for this case. Here I will talk about when and why the TSA was created as well as the laws which give it authority. This will be important because what is TSA is doing at airports is essentially what the Gotham City Transit Authority wants to enact. My main argument is the TSA searches at airports are proved to be legal so searches at subways will also be legal III. Fourth Amendment challenges to Transportation Security legality A. The TSA has immunity from the Fourth amendment 1. Backing from the courts - In this section I will talk about two cases that show the TSA has the authority to randomly select and search people at airports. …show more content…
In US v. Marquez the court held that the random search did not violate the Fourth Amendment and are needed to ensure safe transportation. In addition, evidence taken in these searches can be used in court, despite the Exclusionary rule. In Corbett v. TSA it is shown that if a person does not consent so a search, they can denied access to transportation. It was also held that the TSA can detain people for a limited amount of time while they are being searched. These cases are important because they show the precedent for random searches being legal. If random searches are legal at airports, they should be legal at subways. 2. Stop and Frisk - Stop and Frisk is a policy that began with the passage of Terry v. Ohio in 1967. With this case, police are able to briefly stop and search someone they have reasonable suspicion of committing a crime. While this law only applies to a brief pat-down, it is important in that gives law enforcement immunity from the Fourth Amendment when searching for weapons on less than probable cause. This is very similar …show more content…
government’s policy of discounting the Fourth Amendment for issues of intelligence and national security. During the Cold War, laws such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act gave government agencies the ability to conduct electronic surveillance on suspected threats to national security without a warrant. In 1994 the act was expanded to allow for physical searches. This act and others like it, give the government to effectively ignore the Fourth Amendment when it comes to issues of national security. My argument for this case is that the searches at airports and subways fall under the National Security
- Protection against unreasonable search and seizure is a cornerstone of the American Constitution. Violations of the Fourth Amendment are very controversial and may take years to resolve. In this case the Gotham City Transit Authority is attempting to initiate a policy which would allow random searches and x-ray scans of passengers and baggage entering a subway. The Olympus Civil Liberties Union is challenging the random searches, citing it would a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Despite their objections, random searches at airports are legal would also be legal at subways. This policy would be legal and in line with the laws of the United States.
II. Transportation Security
A. History
- In this section I will talk about the history of airport security and the initial surge of airplane hijackings in the 1960s and 70s. I will also briefly discuss what security measures were in place prior to 9/11. B. Transportation Security Administration - The beginning of the TSA is what sets the precedent for this case. Here I will talk about when and why the TSA was created as well as the laws which give it authority. This will be important because what is TSA is doing at airports is essentially what the Gotham City Transit Authority wants to enact. My main argument is the TSA searches at airports are proved to be legal so searches at subways will also be legal III. Fourth Amendment challenges to Transportation Security legality A. The TSA has immunity from the Fourth amendment 1. Backing from the courts - In this section I will talk about two cases that show the TSA has the authority to randomly select and search people at airports. …show more content…
In US v. Marquez the court held that the random search did not violate the Fourth Amendment and are needed to ensure safe transportation. In addition, evidence taken in these searches can be used in court, despite the Exclusionary rule. In Corbett v. TSA it is shown that if a person does not consent so a search, they can denied access to transportation. It was also held that the TSA can detain people for a limited amount of time while they are being searched. These cases are important because they show the precedent for random searches being legal. If random searches are legal at airports, they should be legal at subways. 2. Stop and Frisk - Stop and Frisk is a policy that began with the passage of Terry v. Ohio in 1967. With this case, police are able to briefly stop and search someone they have reasonable suspicion of committing a crime. While this law only applies to a brief pat-down, it is important in that gives law enforcement immunity from the Fourth Amendment when searching for weapons on less than probable cause. This is very similar …show more content…
government’s policy of discounting the Fourth Amendment for issues of intelligence and national security. During the Cold War, laws such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act gave government agencies the ability to conduct electronic surveillance on suspected threats to national security without a warrant. In 1994 the act was expanded to allow for physical searches. This act and others like it, give the government to effectively ignore the Fourth Amendment when it comes to issues of national security. My argument for this case is that the searches at airports and subways fall under the National Security