« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Does the Fourth Amendment mean anything anymore?

Yesterday, I was at the airport where I was subjected to the same invasive procedures that all Americans are now forced to undergo.  I was asked to stand on a mat on top of a pair of footprints, take off my shoes, belt, jacket, take out my computer and empty my pockets — even paper.  I then held up my hands in the air like a criminal under arrest.  Finally, the body scan failed to go through so I received a government pat down.  Most Americans are willing to make this sacrifice in the interest of safety.

I am not.  Does the Fourth Amendment mean anything anymore?  Stick with me-

If being patted down isn’t infringing on the security of my person and taking papers out of my pockets doesn’t violate the first statement in the Fourth Amendment, what does?

The Fourth Amendment 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.

Yet, the horror of 9-11 has seen Americans do as Benjamin Franklin warned against — trade freedom for security.

What does the Fourth Amendment mean?  Do we waive our rights just because we want to fly in an airplane?  Is the Fourth Amendment contingent upon you never flying in the Twenty-first century?  What if America begins having bus or subway bombs as Europe, India and Russia has experienced, will we give up our Constitutional rights to travel at all?

If the Constitution guarantees the right to travel (and the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that it does), shouldn’t that guarantee also carry with it the right to the other Constitutional rights?  Can one Constitutional right come at the expense of another? 

The answer is no.  The bill of rights present a consistent list of rights that do not come at the expense of one another.

To be clear, I am not in favor of rogue airplane flights where we all carry weapons.  However, the governments ability to violate the Fourth Amendment without a warrant simply because you want to visit your family is a frightening interpretation of the Constitution.  The Constitution says, our rights to be secure in our persons shall not be violated.  They can’t be violated.

Americans demand to be safe on their airline flights.  But it should be the airline flights who are responsible for airline safety.  The Fourth Amendment does not protect us from being patted down from a private company.  In the private instance, there is no Constitutional issue at stake and private companies would race to have the safest and most efficient form of airport security as no one wants to be the plane company that allowed a repeat of 9-11.  This is an instance where the free market would deliver the consumer the least invasive and safest manner of airport security that would still protect against unreasonable search and seizure.

At the same time, the federal and state governments have a vested interest in security and ensuring that no one tries to run a plane into a building or the ground.  But the government has already taken measures to ensure that pilot’s cabins are locked with no way for intruders to enter while in flight.  While passengers could be in danger of other nefarious passengers, planes themselves are no longer in danger of being taken over by “terrorists.”

As the years wear on, Americans cannot become resigned to the fact that our government will pat us down without a warrant or probable cause.  We must teach our children that this is something that goes against our Constitution.

When nominating and electing judges at the state and federal level, we should know their view on the Fourth Amendment.  Does it still stand or do they believe it should be bent for security reasons?  Mainstream, center-right conservatives should defend the Fourth Amendment with the same vigor as they do the Second.  For it is of paramount importance in protecting our children from the slippery slope of government overreach.

COMMENTS

  • Viet71

    The Fourth Amendment is alive and well. Just wait.

    On January 23 of this year, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down down warrantless police use of a GPS tracking device on Fourth Amendment grounds.

    The various concurring opinions show the Justices have a great deal of respect for the Fourth Amendment. The liberal Justices see it as a bastion of privacy, certainly something the TSA disregards.

  • garfieldjl

    Unfortunately it has to do with the fact that you will be getting on an aircraft with a bunch of other people.

    Yeah, I agree that things have gone overboard, it is about everyone else on the flight and their safety which is what makes this sticky.

  • Dave_A

    A warrant is just one way of providing reasonability (and the normal one for CRIMINAL PROCEDURE-related searches – which the TSA is not conducting).

    The notion that it is reasonable to conduct entry-gateway security screenings at sensitive areas (military bases, courthouses, the border, airports) isn’t something you will find much if any support for declaring unreasonable – outside of your most radical libertarian circles…

    The Israeli method just doesn’t work when your bad guys come in different colors, nationalities, and genders (as opposed to ‘Male Arab’ – which is Israel’s threat, but hasn’t been ours since 9/11 (Islamic terrorists have been far more diversity-friendly since ‘the big one’ – sending Arabs would make it too easy for us))… The nature of our threat demands the nature of our response.

    The 4th is still alive, well, and incredibly EXPANDED over what the original intent was…. The fact that it’s not seen as unreasonable to X-ray you & your stuff on your way to a plane you are voluntarily riding doesn’t change this…

    • aesthete

      Because so far, I’ve seen none — whereas the typical crowd of pants-wetters comes out to inform us of just how gosh-darned reasonable the TSA finger-banging grandma before she gets on an airplane is (you know, for Great National Security and all that).

      As for the plane I am voluntarily riding, I’ll say only that my dealings with a third party should not require acceptance of conditions imposed by an interloper.

    • moonmad

      You’ll have less trouble getting on a military base than an airplane. Here’s where TSA is gaming us not the terrorists. If the conduct invasive searches on unlikely people ( invalids, handicapped the very young) The get to search someone that will not likely give them an argument and not find any thing. So they tell everyone were doing all these searches and everyone is safe because they haven’t found anything. When in truth they haven’t really looked. Funny in counterinsurgency you have to treat the target population with kid gloves. The American people you can mistreat. The First rule of Bureaucracy: Enforce the rules on those least able or least willing to complain about the rules.

  • checkmate2012

    People can choose the most “trusted” airline of their choice. Just another example of gov’t overstepping their bounds in the name of “for the people”- nonsense.

    TSA is now such a huge bloated bureaucracy that has lost its useful value since 9/11. We’ve all seen horror stories and profiling senior citizens is shameful. They must be stopped.

    Only two things are needed; metal detectors (the previous walk-thru) and bomb-sniffing dogs. End of story and tax dollars saved.

  • davenj1

    Maybe we should ask Mr. Florence of New Jersey who lost his case before the Supreme Court this year. This TSA debacle is just another example of the government failing to use simple commonsense. How about before “probable cause,” they just use commonsense.