> Iacuzza said she doesn't mind the security measure.
> She just wants to be told if her car is getting searched.
vs.
> 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.
IANAL, but it seems like there is so much precedent against vehicle searches that it's staggering that TSA thinks this is acceptable. Every case I've read related to vehicles indicates that probable cause is required for a car search. Due to mobility, car searches are often exempt from requiring warrants, but even in cases where a person is arrested for a crime unrelated to their vehicle a car search can be considered unreasonable
If the TSA was really concerned with cars being parked for extended periods, it seems the more reasonable thing to do would be to move the valet parking drop off. My feeling, however, is they were just excited to get easy access to a lot of cars.
I'm guessing that their legal reasoning, if there's any at all, revolves around that thought that since you're handing your vehicle over to someone else's control, that there's then no "expectation of privacy". It's a flawed argument, but I bet that's their rationale.
IANAL either, but there's a obvious difference between a vehicle search without your knowledge and you knowingly handing your vehicle to someone who acts as an agent of the government in performing a search:
> We also noticed a large sign that alerts customers that their vehicle will be inspected.
I think the reasonableness of these actions basically boils down to:
> Iacuzza says it [the sign] was not there when she dropped off her car.
> "knowingly handing your vehicle to someone who acts as an agent of the government in performing a search"
That's the part I really don't understand about this: [1]
Is the TSA hiring and managing valet attendants now? Or do they have some authority to direct arbitrary airport staff to perform 'security' tasks?
What are the odds these valet attendants receive any training in identifying potential explosive devices, let alone methodical search?
And what's next? Are the janitors going to start poking through the trash bins looking for bombs as part of their regular duties? Are the curb-side check-in attendants going to start rifling through luggage? (those bags can linger at least as long as a car) And if not those things, why valet attendants?
[1] That the TSA would seek to ratchet up their presence and staff in response to essentially arbitrary hypothetical threats is, sadly, unsurprising.
Within the original part of the post are two cases which seem to indicate cars receive less protection because they are less private than homes.
Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153 (1925) and California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985)
Still in this case, who is inspecting the cars, the valet? What qualifications does he have? If it is the valet, do they become an agent of the state while doing the search? I am still concerned about liability, whether from theft of items in the car to the valet being injured by something in the car.
IANAL, but it seems like there is so much precedent against vehicle searches that it's staggering that TSA thinks this is acceptable. Every case I've read related to vehicles indicates that probable cause is required for a car search
Maybe you have given up those rights by entering a special zone near the airport? Not justifying it, but maybe explaining it.
This is expected of the TSA, every bureaucracy will seek to justify and expand itself.
> Iacuzza's car was inspected by valet attendants on orders from the TSA.
They are turning ordinary citizens into spies and informers. Soon we won't be able to trust the person next to us in a line. Or look our neighbors in the face without suspecting them of something.
The logical step following spying is influencing politics:
> By the 1970s, the Stasi had decided that methods of overt persecution which had been employed up to that time, such as arrest and torture, were too crude and obvious. It was realised that psychological harassment was far less likely to be recognised for what it was, so its victims, and their supporters, were less likely to be provoked into active resistance, given that they would often not be aware of the source of their problems, or even its exact nature. Zersetzung was designed to side-track and "switch off" perceived enemies so that they would lose the will to continue any "inappropriate" activities.
I thought that was more about making people aware of the bystander effect and urging them to err on the side of being the fifth person to report a strange bag, rather than assume someone else will get it?
Notably "if you see something, say something" isn't encouraging anyone to pro-actively rifle through any and all unsecured items within reach, as is being done here by the TSA and valet attendants.
It's bizarre that they're using valets to search cars.
i) People aren't allowed to take some items onto a plane. One option is to leave those items in their car. What happens when valets find inert hand-grenades or training knives or whatnot? (Legal items that can't go on a plane)
ii) What happens if the valets find illegal items? Do they then call police? Isn't this the kind of thing that US defense lawyers love?
It stands to reason that they follow the same policies that apply to law-enforcement agents -- they are compelled to break in and you are on the hook for any damages resulting from this 'lawful' search.
Not to mention, it's just odd to have valets on the front lines fighting terrorism. It would be even more absurd if they did find a bomb. Do they have training to deal with those kinds of situations?
> What happens if the valets find illegal items? Do they then call police? Isn't this the kind of thing that US defense lawyers love?
Unfortunately, haven't you implicitly agreed to the search by choosing valet therefore it is a legal search? I thought anything the TSA (legally) finds is useful in criminal prosecutions.
"So if security feels it is necessary to search some cars in the name of safety, why not search all of them?"
This is exactly the question they want people to ask, then TSA will come back, that they will. Maybe they will cry and moan about how they don't have keys to other cars and force the auto industry to provide them with a way to unlock any car. We should stop asking why not search all of them, but why are they even searching valet cars?
The entire premise of this is ridiculous to its core. The reason for suspension of the 4th amendment before boarding a plane is that the plane itself could be used as a weapon to cause disproportionate damage, like on 9/11.
The reason for 4th amendment suspension on airport premises is... what? The parking area in front of an airport is no more or less vulnerable than any other parking lot in front of any other building. I suspect that the real reason is "because we can".
Well, no, that's not the reason for suspending the 4th amendment. It may be a claimed reason, but searches are neither necessary nor sufficient to prevent planes from being used as weapons. Effective countermeasures are easy and don't require any constitutional violations: reinforce and lock cockpit doors, and convince passengers not to surrender to hijackers. This problem has been solved, and TSA checkpoints have absolutely nothing to do with it.
> "The parking area in front of an airport is no more or less vulnerable than any other parking lot in front of any other building."
Careful, you might give them ideas. The way things are going I wouldn't be surprised if some variant of this argument was used to expand powers/reach further. Maybe starting with schools ("think of the children!").
What should worry us more is the number of people who seem to be okay with things like this. That's terrifying.
This is pretty incredible. Why are they doing this? Even if there's a bomb in a parked car, does it really pose a safety threat? Who is going to bomb an empty valet parking lot?
Obviously the answer is "because they can". There is no grounds for suspicion, just their assumption that they might find some kind of contraband, etc.. This is 100% pure inexcusable overreach.
The only goal of the TSA is to prevent attacks and find busy work related to this. With such a goal, they try to find as many ways to search as possible.
Perhaps a better solution(which doesn't violate the constitution) would be to just not leave them near the terminal for a short duration...
Their solution doesn't even seem to address the security issue (such as it is). Presumably when the car is left near the terminal for a short duration it's because the valet doesn't have time to attend to it. Doesn't this mean that the search wouldn't happen until after it's been parked up? If they do search it first couldn't they just use the time to move it somewhere where it doesn't pose a risk(presumably they do the kind of thorough search that could detect a bomb right??). The whole thing wreaks of vapid measures designed to further some other agenda (I won't speculate on what exactly this might be).
It's true... I do carry subversive materials in the trunk of my car: books on Bayesian reasoning and risk management. If they found a chapter on prior and posterior probabilities they might well question their purpose in life.
Exactly what I came here to say. They make valet keys to prevent valets from searching and stealing from cars. Anyone with a bomb in the trunk will obviously use one of those keys.
and who is responsible to ensure nothing of value leaves the car during inspection? I do not believe the car should be subject to inspection without the owner being on hand.
Are there details on how they conduct a search? Are we crossing the 4th again?
What is next, having to show up for your flight another half hour earlier so your car can be frisked?
"Iacuzza's car was inspected by valet attendants on orders from the TSA."
United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984): "This Court has ... consistently construed this protection as proscribing only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official.".
Wouldn't the 4th still apply since the valet attendants are acting on the direction of government agents?
The flip side of the argument is that the vehicle's owner has already consented to provide access to the valet driver - and it's the valet driver that has abused that consent.
What really surprises me about all this, is given the sign, what person would possibly use valet parking, over the less expensive and no searching lots farther from the airport, if they had anything to hide.
Coming from the UK, where we had a long history of car bombs (and even bicycle bombs) I can understand this.
However, I'd expect the TSA guys to be able to report a cause for why they searched a vehicle (EG low on axles suggesting carrying a large weight, alerted a sniffer dog, etc) and not just search all cars.
I remember seeing a Dateline episode where they went around showing all the huge holes in airport security. One of them was were you could go to the top of a parking ramp which overlooked the tarmac. The "consultant" said it would be easy for any terrorist to lob grenades or launch an RPG at one or several planes parked on the tarmac.
My point here is most of these holes existed pre-9/11, but now trying to close these loopholes isn't so easy. I mean, how do you move an entire parking ramp? While I think the searching of vehicles is sketchy, I believe a lot of these places are doing their best to mitigate threats and close some of these huge security holes.
Exactly. If a manic depressive is holding drag races with your car, or shagging his underage girlfriend in the back seat, the TSA is not an issue. In fact, the involvement of a valet would create serious problems with a prosecution, owing to their unreliability, total disrespect for documentation, and confused chain of custody.
And those people are not bound by a little thing we call 'the bill of rights'. Moreover, if you find out that happens, you can quit using that valet service. You can tell others that that valet service is crap, and they too, will quit using it. There is a generally easy 'opt-out' of the valet service. Not so much with your country.
You cannot opt out of crazy valets at airports. One company captures the parking concession, hires the cheapest (i.e., crappiest) valets they can find, and said valets do appalling things with/to your car.
So now after they finish joyriding, if they are not too hungover to remember, they leave a TSA card to keep their boss from bitching at them. Theoretically that card is an incremental infringement of your liberty, but in practice you have already been reamed out so hard by the valets that you won't notice.
If the TSA was really concerned with cars being parked for extended periods, it seems the more reasonable thing to do would be to move the valet parking drop off. My feeling, however, is they were just excited to get easy access to a lot of cars.