FAA - The security safety acts

The FAA is given authority by airport security safety laws to advance and apply modern technology (Blackwell, 2010). The following are the administrative search exceptions concerns with regard to flight security:

The fourth amendment’s description of a person’s rights is being violated by this. This type of search-related problem frequently refers to an illegal search. (Woody, 2006). The fourth provision of the US Constitution sets the legal parameters for airport security searches. The public is protected by this change from unlawful searches by security personnel. In conjunction with the unreasonable searches, the court usually takes into consideration three factors to verify the reasonability of the issue. The three topics considered by the tribunal are the intrusiveness degree of the procedure, sufficient alternatives to the procedure and the frequency and magnitude of the search process. While still maintaining the search effectiveness, the court has to consider the reduction of threat in limiting the search coverage.

According to Woody (2006), the two challenges associated with the results relate to whether there is a seizure or search or whether the government conducted the seizure or the search. Private entity security searches do not take into consideration the reasonability of the fourth amendment. As Woody (2006) observes, in such private entity explores the change requirements do not apply. In government-conducted searches, the fourth amendment requires the need of a warrant. The search need in airport security should justify the regulatory scheme i.e. the balance between the court ordered and the interest of the government (Blackwell, 2010). The government interest is to ensure maximum protection in times of terror threat alert.

The injury caused to the passenger during the screening process

This can also refer to as less intrusive alternatives to searching of the passenger. Safety interest might exceed the invasion strategy against privacy. This issue of injury must reduce to a less intrusive one as per the government interest, which is to achieve safety in air traveling. The law requires that the airport security conduct the search pursuant and in a substantial manner to the state interest. The court upheld the search security to be limited and inconsistent with the needs of the administrative body. These requirements practically require no sacrifice (United States, 2015). This idea of minimizing injury forms the basis of airport search since it guarantees an alternative means to vast technologies available for explosives and weapon detection to the tactical body and visual searches. Passenger must undergo screening and their body images produced to verify the security check.

An instance of reduced injury search to a passenger is the screening technique. This selection method will not act as an invasion of privacy when passenger cards screened for explosives and weapons. The injury to the passenger can be either perceived or real to the passenger or the federal interest from the screening process. Reasons may be available as to why someone is in a position to possess explosives or hazardous materials on their clothes or hands. The explosive may be due to employment in a manufacturing firm producing the dangerous or in particular ski places. The search, therefore, will not show the illegal activity. This is to say that no injury should occur to the passenger after screening.

2. Describe one way that the exception differs from usual requirements for probable cause.

Exception differs from probable cause since reasonable suspicion is required with probable cause as opposed to the reasonableness of the exception one (Hill & Hill, 2005). Probable cause search requires the officer conducting the search must have a reasonable suspicion to search an individual for any criminal activity (Hill & Hill, 2005). With probable cause, the officer must have sufficiently reliable facts and ideas as to why he/she believes in crime committed. In certain search cases, it may be crucial to have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in order to conduct a little search. Reasonable suspicion refers to enough knowledge, which accepts the existence of criminal activity at hand with regard to its usage in this case. These reasonable suspicions used for justification of a crime in a traffic stop or public places. In possession of probable cause is an officer with the ability to articulate facts of specific sites to warrant the individual.

Warrantless exception searches do not require the officer to have a warrant to screen the passengers (Hill & Hill, 2005). All persons have required examination with no regard to any suspicious activity. As per the fourth amendment, exception search needs reasonableness, and the requirement of a warrant is limited to cases considering the privacy interest of the defendant and the reasonability of the law in different scenarios. The difference between an exception and probable cause is the requirement of a reason to suspect an individual of criminal activity.

Do you agree with the court’s decision that airport searches can legally conduct under less stringent standards than the common probable cause?

Accordingly, carrying out Airport searches tends to be legal under less stringent standards than a frequent probable cause (Hill & Hill, 2005). In support of this argument, the fourth amendment of the US constitution entails protection of people and not places. The fourth amendment in contrary to the unreasonable seizures and searches applies to the state by the 14th amendment was meant to protect citizens and not places. This, therefore, implies that to all citizens either on the streets, at home or found anywhere are supposed to be searched in less stringent standards as opposed to unreasonable security search conducted at the airport and in airlines. The fourth amendment requires the people to have access to the right to the safety against searches and seizures done at the airport. The law as provided by the court orders governs all rights.

Secondly, in support of this argument, searches at the airport should be less stringent as that of probable cause. A security officer conducting the search should encircle by the law of search and arrest contained in the philosophy of the fourth amendment. Description in the fourth amendment modifies the search to be depending partly on the cooperation of the citizens and security officer with little injuries and harassments occurring to the citizen (Legal Information Institute, 1967). Therefore, carrying out Airplane searches can be legal through the court decision to less stringent standards than the ordinary probable cause. Although the officers at the airport search have a warranty, the search should not cause any harm to the passengers and should not violate privacy rights of the travelers. Law enforcement should be in practice to ensure passengers rights not violated by the security officials at the airport. The airport is just like any public traveling site as rail side, and bus stops and less stringent standards can legally conduct. Seizure and search necessarily practice the pursuit of a criminal (Legal Information Institute, 1967). hey used mostly in the production of evidence used in prosecution in a court of law. With law enforcement, security officers gave the power to carry out an investigation on criminal cases, arrest culprits and perform seizures and searches of personal belongings in the event of terror alert. The fourth amendment offers protection to citizens and seeks privacy and minimized injury during the search.

References

Blackwell, A. H. (2010). Law. New York: InfoBase Pub.

Hill, G. N., & Hill, K. T. (2005, February 10). Exceptions to Warrant Requirement legal definition of Exceptions to Warrant Requirement. Retrieved from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Exceptions+to+Warrant+Requirement

Legal Information Institute. (1967, June 10). Terry v. Ohio | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1

United States. (2015). Gerardo Hernandez Airport Security Act of 2015. London: Routledge.

Woody, R. H. (2006). Search and seizure: The Fourth Amendment for law enforcement officers. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.