Says Requiring Consent Would Allow Terrorists To Test System

It's a big judicial decision for -- or against -- passenger rights. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week airline passengers lose their rights to object to a search after they pass through initial screenings.

The San Francisco, CA-based court cited terrorism concerns when it ruled in a case involving a Hawaiian man, who tried to back out of such a search in February 2003.

The San Jose Mercury News reports Daniel Kuualoha Aukai tried to dodge a more thorough search after passing through a metal detector, telling screeners he no longer wanted to board a flight. Screeners searched him anyway -- and found crystal methamphetamine. Aukai was later sentenced to just under six years in prison.

The appeals court had issued a decision once before on the case, but felt a second was necessary to clarify consent issues raised during the first trial.

To require such consent from passengers during searches "makes little sense in a post 9/11 world," Judge Carlos Bea wrote in the 15-page decision. "Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by 'electing not to fly' on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found.

"This rule would also allow terrorists a low-cost method of detecting systematic vulnerabilities in airport security, knowledge that could be extremely valuable in planning future attacks," Bea added.

FMI: www.ca9.uscourts.gov/