Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Summarized by Gabi
IMPORTANT PEOPLE
Charles Davis, aka Marcus Anderson, defendant-appellant
FACTS
1. Davis and a friend checked in a few minutes before their flight from San
Francisco to Bangkok, Thailand with an intermediate stop in Los Angeles.
2. As Davis approached the loading gate, TWA employee Malcolm Read told
him that a security check was necessary, reached for his briefcase, opened it,
and found a gun.
3. Read handed the gun to US Customs Service security agent Donald Graub,
who was standing nearby (6ft away). Graub found it to be loaded. Read,
Graub, and US Deputy Marshall Douglas Aaron, who was standing nearby
(15 ft away), escorted Davis to a nearby room where he was searched. Aaron
then took Davis and the gun into custody.
4. CHARGE: minor offense ender 49 USC sec. 1472(l) (attempting to board an
aircraft while carrying a concealed weapon).
5. PLEA: Not guilty.
6. Davis filed a MOTION TO SUPPRESS, and after the evidentiary hearing, the
motion was DENIED on a finding of implied consent.
7. MAGISTRATE: Guilty. Penalty: fine of $250.
8. DISTRICT COURT: Affirmed magistrate. Added alternate ground aside from
implied consent: no governmental involvement in the search.
9. COURT OF APPEALS: present petition.
1
ISSUE with HOLDING
W/N the state was sufficiently involved to subject the search to the limitations of
the Fourth Amendment – YES
The search of Davis’s briefcase was not an isolated event but part of a
nationwide anti-hijacking program implemented by federal officials in cooperation with
air carriers. The first time an American commercial aircraft was hijacked was in 1961,
and up to 1968 there was an average of one hijacking per year. In 1968, the number
rose to 18. In 1969, there were 33 successful hijackings out of 40 attempted. Since late
1968, it could not be said that measures of this kind were part of an independent
investigation by the carrier for its own purposes.
The security system was as follows: a profile of objective characteristics to
identify potential hijackers, a magnetometer to detect metal, and then a weapons search
of the carry-on luggage of anyone who activated the magnetometer. Initially cooperation
by air carriers was voluntary, but this was found not to be enough. The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) then required carriers to submit a screening system to them for
approval and to put it into use. This required screening of all passengers by one or more
of the following: behavioral profile, magnetometer, identification check, physical search.
Later, it was required that all were to be subjected to searches of carry-on items.
W/N Davis had a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to his carry-on
luggage – YES
Government cited the case of Katz (citing Terry v. Ohio: “a police officer is not
required to have probable cause for arrest before he can seize a person and subject
him to a limited search for weapons”)
"Airport searches" are not outside the Amendment simply because they are being
conducted at all airports. In each of the Supreme Court decisions excluding searches or
seizures from the Fourth Amendment on the authority of Katz, the individual's alleged
reasonable expectation of privacy was negated on some ground independent of the
frequency of the challenged intrusion itself. There is no such independent ground here.
Terry, which Katz cited, was based on the protection of the police officer. This
search was directed against hijacking, and was necessarily indiscriminate. Terry does
not justify the wholesale frisking of the general public in order to locate weapons and
prevent future crimes.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Reversed and remanded.