U.S. v. $124,570 U.S. Currency
873 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir. 1989)
Generalized Search of all Passengers unconstitutional.
(Mission Creep)
Facts:
Forfeiture Action (how the suit is against money)
· Passenger's money was detected by X-Ray Scan by Airport Security.
· Security officer then informed US Customs in return for a $250 reward.
· Customs then seized the passenger's money as it contained trace elements of drugs.
· Motion
to suppress upheld because search is only constitutional if it was to
only target risks of security not evidence of general crime.
Broad Issue: To what extent may law enforcement authorities use airport security inspections to promote objectives unrelated to air safety?
Broad Holding: While narrowly
defined searches for guns and explosives are constitutional and
justified by the need for air traffic safety, a generalized search of
all passengers as a condition for boarding a commercial aircraft would
plainly be unconstitutional.
The search here does not:
1. Serve a narrow but compelling administrative objective, (there is a
working relationship between security and customs including a monetary
reward)
2. Was a limited intrusion.
***
U.S. v. $124,570 U.S. Currency (C.A. 9,1989)
Facts
· Appellant
airline passenger went through the security checkpoint at an airport.
While the search for weapons was being conducted, the security officer
found a large quantity of currency. The officer then notified the United
States Customs Service and received a cash reward for her tip.
· Federal
law enforcement had the currency checked with a drug-sniffing dog that
indicated that the money had been in contact with some form of illegal
drug.
· Appellee
United States then filed a forfeiture motion to obtain the currency.
Appellant answered and moved the district court to suppress the evidence
due to the unlawful search by the airport security. The district court
denied appellant's motion and ordered that the currency be forfeited.
· Appellant
challenged this decision and prevailed on appeal. The court found that
the search conducted by airport security was unlawful. Though
administrative searches were found to be necessary for weapons in
airports, the agent went beyond the scope of her legitimate interest.
· Further, because she received a reward for the tip, her actions were undistinguishable from law enforcement.
Decision
· The
court vacated the district court's order of forfeiture and found that
the suppression was proper. The court held that, because the airport
security agents were working closely with law enforcement and would
receive cash rewards for tips, the agents were abusing the scope of the
search which was designed to discover weapons.
Notes
· Policy at airport is to make sure planes take off and land safely
· Security should make sure of safety, not objectives unrelated to airport safety
No comments:
Post a Comment