Airport search decisions and selectees' speech

[Volokh, Eugene]

	I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I quite grasp the suggestion -- is
it that carrying a book will get you searched extra carefully, on the
grounds that carrying a book is sign of thinking for oneself and
therefore suspicious?  That carrying an antigovernment book will get you
searched extra carefully?  That carrying a book labeled "How to Wage
Jihad" will get you searched extra carefully?

	Eugene

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Sheridan [mailto:bobsheridan at earthlink.net] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 8:45 AM
> To: Volokh, Eugene
> Cc: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: Re: Airport search decisions and selectees' speech
> 
> Forgive me, but I don't think our gummint is clever enough by 
> half to have line-clerks screen airline travelers for 
> political dissidence at the point of contact, the 
> take-off-your-shoes line, even if it wanted to, which I doubt it does.
> 
> I do recall from the old days, however, a phenomenon known as 
> "Hippie Probable Cause."  This is where the "pigs" also known 
> as your city's finest, stopped VW buses bearing peace-signs 
> whose occupants stunk of burned green vegetable matter 
> strongly suspected of being Mj.  On tossing the vehicle you 
> would be surprised at how many of these folks were found in 
> actual possession of the dreaded Mj.  Searches based on 
> Hippie PC were disallowed by the California SC in around 1972 in P.  
> v. Kellett, I believe is the name of the case; it's been 
> awhile.  I wondered whether the good professor was wearing 
> some sign of  
> dissidence, like thinking for himself, such as by carrying a book.   
> That might have done it.
> 
> rs
> sfls
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Apr 11, 2007, at 8:16 AM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
> 
> > 	Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the evidence of possible 
> > political-speech-based decisionmaking in the Murphy case 
> consists of 
> > (1) the fact that Murphy was selected, on one leg of the 
> flight, for 
> > extra scrutiny coupled with the fact that he had publicly 
> criticized 
> > the Administration, and (2) the statement by someone at the 
> airport (I 
> > forget -- was it a TSA agent or an airline clerk) that people 
> > routinely get put on such selectee lists based on public 
> criticism of 
> > the Administration.  I take it that #1 isn't terribly persuasive on 
> > its own, since it could easily be coincidence; I take it, for 
> > instance, that many members of this list have criticized the 
> > Administration, including in
> > public contexts, and yet they generally fly mostly unobstructed.   
> > So it
> > comes down to #2.
> >
> > 	And as to #2, what is list members' sense of the 
> probability of these 
> > three scenarios?
> >
> > 	(A)  The Administration has a policy of placing Administration 
> > critics on some special select-occasionally lists, and it 
> *announces 
> > this policy to airport personnel*, even though there's no 
> reason that 
> > they need to know about it (since the names are presumably 
> added by a 
> > completely different set of people in a different place observing 
> > different things).
> >
> > 	(B)  The policy is kept secret, as likely unconstitutional and 
> > potentially highly embarrassing policies (if they exist) 
> are likely to 
> > be kept secret.  But this particular airport employee has 
> still heard 
> > about it from a reliable source, and is thus knowledgeable on the 
> > subject even though it's quite far outside his job description.
> >
> > 	(C)  The airport employee was repeating a rumor he'd 
> heard -- a rumor 
> > that is no more accurate than any other rumor anyone might start
> > -- or toying with Prof. Murphy or making stuff up.
> >
> > 	Eugene
> > _______________________________________________
> > To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, 
> > unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
> > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> >
> > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be 
> viewed as 
> > private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read 
> messages that are 
> > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can 
> > (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> 
>