>
>I'm not sure the airlines are as vulnerable to lawsuit on these issues as
>Justin makes out, especially in the new climate.
It's not slam dunk, but it's worth a try. I do hope she sues. jks
I am curious if Oden got
>to the airport late and the detaining was based on a need for a "thorough"
>search. Airlines have a lot of discretion to "profile" people for drug and
>other detaining for public safety.
Right, but if the expressresaon was that she was antiwar, they don't havea right to do that.
The right to travel is a right, but the
>right to drive a car or especially ride a plane has less protection. As I
>rememeber, a lot of 4th amendment challenges to search procedures at
>airports have been defeated by courts saying that people didn't have to
>ride
>the airplane, so they lost no rights by having a search imposed as a
>condition of travel.
Yah, well, but we are not talking about unconstitutional conditions, but a direct denial of the rt to travel, or it coule be argued.
>
>Preventing travel on a privately owned airplane for "legitimate" security
>worries - with "legitimate" expanded under the present hysteria- could
>easily be upheld by the courts.
Sorry to say so.
There has been plenty of evidence before
>this that political figures have been subjected to expanded search at
>airports, so preventing travel is just an escalation of that already
>evident
>practice.
>
Sure, and Justice O'Connor has warned us that she intends to flush the Bil of Rights down the toilet, so a lot depends on whether some of more rght wing justices get their backs up about this sort of thing. Justice Scalia's actually been halfway decent 4th A & 1st A issues.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp