Final Case Study: Aviation/Aerospace Security Issues
It is the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States that is at issue with regards to individual privacy rights from federal government authorities and airport searchers. This amendment, in particular, states that the people have the right of being secure in their houses, persons, effects, against unwarranted seizures and searches, not to be violated. And that no warrants will be issued, but only upon probable cause, having the support of affirmation or oath, and in particular, describing the specific place to undergo search including things or persons for seizure (Harawa, 2013).
Therefore, on face value, the new enhanced pat downs by TSA may be seen as violating Fourth Amendment. But what may not be known to most people is that, back in 1973, for instance, America’s 9th Circuit Court had made a ruling on passenger search in airports, which in itself actually suspended limited aspects envisioned in the Fourth Amendment, particularly upon undergoing security screening at the airport. It was this Court ruling that created the avenue for the construction of the Public Law 107-71, the TSA of the Aviation, which no house legislator opposed when it signed fully into law back in 2001. This law happened to be the significant milestone in laying TSA’s groundwork and the evolution of the current security measures that it has today. And as such, these laws provide both TSA and DHS significant constitutional latitude while conducting their searches using the existing procedures and standards without fear of breaching the Fourth Amendment (Harawa, 2013). Hence, attempts aimed at opposing TSA searches while citing the Fourth Amendment stand to be rebuffed, not unless they are properly channeled through legal avenues.
Constitutional Exceptions
Administrative search exceptions naturally consume Airport security searches which then become an exception to the famous Fourth Amendment. The justification of Administrative searches is based on the fact that they serve purpose of the society and not the standard enforcement of the criminal law ("Airline Passenger Security Screening”). After all, it does not look real if the Fourth Amendment was also constructed to prevent the government from accomplishing other important duties like maintaining order or discipline in the society or school, which relate to ensuring safety from air trafficking.
Stop-and-Frisk exemption is also a Fourth Amendment’s exception, which requires a search warrant in an event a law enforcer or an officer has a reasonable suspicion regarding another individual as posing a potential threat ("Airline Passenger Security Screening”). In an airport screening of passengers, the context of reasonable suspicion can be when the subject perfectly fits typical hijacker’s profile, or when the screening personnel observes harmful or prohibited objects under the clothing of the subject, raising suspicion that such suspects could be in possession of concealed weapon. Generally, the focus of suspicion is always on individuals, making it fall under general stop-and-frisk principles, and as such can be referred to as personal stop-and-frisk search.
Consent exception makes violation of the Fourth Amendment invalid. Although this amendment aims at protecting people’s privacy interests when passengers voluntarily and freely offer their consent regarding security search, and in surrendering their interest, thus no question would be raised regarding any breach of the Fourth Amendment ("Airline Passenger Security Screening”). By consenting to these security searches, people drop their legitimate privacy expectations thus making airport searches reasonable.
Improving Airport Security Detection Percentages
Improving airport passenger detection rates need collective responsibility from all government security authorities such as DHS and TSA. One way of doing this involves rethinking these bodies and restructuring their missions from offering airport security measures to creating aviation safety regulations and policies aimed at devolving screening functions to airport levels under the supervision of the director of federal security (Wyden, Guthrie, Dickas, & Perkins, 2009).
Again, through the significant expansion of enrollments in programs involving pre-checks offering air passengers five years of full passage expedition through the checkpoints for the exchange of sharing certain personal data, while being fingerprinted, detections at the airport are likely to increase in percentages. Therefore, in the interest of gearing towards fully vetted populations at the pre-check programs, ordering a phase out of risk-based agencies which provide some travelers with access to fully expedited security lane despite them not having gone through entire pre-check and the background checks.
Also, the use of biometrics can aid tight security checks. Individual characteristics like facial features and fingerprints for personal identification would imply that one’s self would be his/her boarding pass. The idea of biometrics would not only identify culprits of this nature but would also prompt the authorities to ban such individuals from accessing airports (Wyden et al. 2009). As such, the risk of caring illegal materials would degrade thus improving the efficiency and rate of security screening at the airport.
In overall terms, there is need to systematically and carefully study issues that lead to failures in security accuracy so as to devote keen attention to addressing them to ensure they do not re-occur again. As such, continual improvement of screening checks will be achieved. Perhaps some seasons provide an overwhelming task for the security enforcers that may prompt them to relax on their thorough checks compelling lowering of these percentages. Therefore, to eliminate such cases, security enforcers need to be in their best shape for the job. Management, therefore, needs to devise ways to ensure that their search personnel are not only up to the task but are also in proper shape while discharging their duties.
References
Harawa, D. S. (2013). Post-TSA Airport: A Constitution Free Zone, The. Pepp. L. Rev., 41, 1.
Wyden, R., Guthrie, C., Dickas, J., & Perkins, A. (2009). Law and Policy Efforts to Balance Security, Privacy and Civil Liberties in Post-9/11 America. Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev., 17, 331.
