Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
No.04-l5736
JOHN GILMORE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JOHN ASHCROFT, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Lee Tien
Kurt Opsahl
ElectronicFrontier Foundation
454 Shotwell Street
SanFrancisco,CA 94110
(415) 436-9333
(415) 436-9993(fax)
I
STATEMENT
OF
AMICUS
CURIAE
II. SUMMARY OFARGUMENT
ill. FACTUAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND 2
IV. ARGUMENT 6
A. Demandsfor identity credentialspursuantto federalairport
searchprograms for domestic flights violate the Fourth
Amendment. 6
v. CONCLUSION 22
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Brower
v.
County
oflnyo,
489
U.S.
593
(1989)
Brown v. Texas,443 U.S. 47 1979) .~ passim
Chandlerv. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997) ,
Minceyv. Arizona,437U.S.385(1978) 19
111
NewJerseyv. 1:£.0.,469 U.S. 325 ( 985) 21
New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987) 20, 21
Statutes
49 C.F.R.§ 1540.5 6, 15
49 U.S.C. § 114(h) 5,
5
49
U.S.C.
§
114(q)
49 U.S.C. § 44901 6
49 V.S.C. § 44902 6
49 U.S.C. § 44903 6
Other Authorities
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Report of the National Task Force on Privacy,
Technology and Criminal Justice Information, NCL 187669
(Aug. 2001) 16
IV
I. ST A TEMENT OF AMICUS CURIAE
The ElectronicFrontier Foundation("EFF") is a non-profit, public-
interestorganizationdedicatedto protectingcivil liberties and free
action.
authorized to demand official ill from would-be air travelers, that such
for identity credentials at issue in this casedo not "fit within the closely
2
screenedfor dangerousitemsbeforeboarding. GeneralAccounting Office,
Computer-AssistedPassengerPrescreening SystemFaces Significant
<http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-O4-385>;
Davis, 482 F.2d at 897-
checkpoint,passengers
who areselecteesare subjectto additional security
3
measures.CAPPScurrently prescreensan estimated99 percentof
passengers
on domesticflights. GAD Reportat 5-6.
SinceSeptember , 200 1, TSA has been developing a second-
<http://www.house.gov/transportation/aviation/O3-17-04/stone.pdf>,
CAPPSn will then "[ c]omparethe passengeridentity infonnation against
the Terrorist ScreeningCenter'sconsolidatedterrorist screeningdatabase,
and againstlists of individuals who arethe subjectof outstandingwarrants
for violent criminal behavior." Stone testimony at 2.1
4
Curiously, however,the federallaws andregulationsthat governair
~
credentialsin orderto fly. See,e.g.,49 U.S.C. §§ 44901,44903, In
accordancewith the administrative purpose found in Davis, 482 F .2d at 908
mean "each site at which individuals or property are inspected for the
IV. ARGUMENT
A. ~ema!!ds for _identitv cre~entials Dursuant to federal
~irpo~t ~earch_Dro!!ramsfor domestic fli!!hts violate the
Fourth Amendment. -- ~~
6
refusedwith no detrimentand a demandfor the presentationof official
identity credentials,aswell asthe role of demandsfor identity credentialsin
matter of law.
"7
Government'sReply Memorandumin Supportof Motion to Dismissat 2,22
8
travelerswould reasonablyconcludethat they had no realistic
alternative.. .. [W]e shouldcandidly acknowledgethe elementof coercion
Statesv. Berry, 670 F.2d 583,596-97(5th Cir., Unit B, 982) (en banc)
(noting that airport stopsare inherentlyintimidating andjustify a
("seizure" of persondefinedas"meaningfulinterference,howeverbrief,
with an individual's freedomof movement");Florida v. Royer,460 U.S
was complete").
The seconddifferenceis betweena demandfor identification and a
9
credentials.The SupremeCourt recentlymadeexactlythis point in
credentials.
airport search is a "functional, not merely a physical process ... [that] begins
10
credentials as an airport search.
Today,that "functional process"includesstatutoryrequirementsthat
pertainto the identity of air travelers. Gilmore, 2004 WL 603530,*4-5
crime," noting that "[t]he recordis not entirely comforting in this respect"
and citing the following testimonyfrom then-FAA Administrator Schaffer:
11
at issuehereis asmuch a part of the "functional process"of air traveler
screeningasthe searchesfor weaponsandexplosivesat issuein Davis. The
12
importanceof keepingcriminal investigatorymotives from coloring
administrativesearches";needto keepadministrativesearchesfrom
becoming"infected by generallaw enforcementobjectives,andthe
but to deter persons carrying such material from seeking to board at a11.'~
Gov't Memo at 23
3
But the governmenthasnot justified demandsfor identity credentials
14
and incendiaries.49 CFR § 1540.5. The governmenthascited no authority
that showsthat the "screening"of passengers
by law includesofficial
identity verification.
Second,just as identifying passengers
doesnot obviously further the
it.
Even if the Court were to acceptfor the sakeof argumentthat the ill
Report at 5.
15
amountsof personalinformation, suchasthe National Crime Information
6
involves a case-specificfactualdetennination,and if the searchis upheld,
"the approvalcoversthat caseonly." [d. "An administrative search is
"general,long-termimplications." Id.
The obviouslong-termimplication is the untrammeledexpansionof
governmentalID checkingthroughoutsociety. Under the district court's
7
illis a reasonablemeansof effectuatingthe purposeof airline safety. The
government'sargument,simply stated,is that it is reasonableto seekto
Memo at 12.
18
Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393 (1978) ("[T]he merefact that law
19
expertto know that far fewer than one in a thousandair travelersis a known
or suspectedterrorist.
20
meetthis criterion. Even a cursoryreview of caseslike Burger and
Donovan showsthat the SupremeCourt carefully examinedthe statutesin
underBrown.
a search or seizure that such intrusions are not the random or arbitrary acts
21
489 U.S. 602,621-22 (1989). Amicus hasalreadyexplainedin detail how
The Supreme Court has made clear that the danger of terrorism, in
It is true that Edmond disclaims any intent to alter the law regarding
v. CONCLUSION
Aviation securityis a seriousproblem,andthe eventsof September 1
haveheightenedpeople'sconcernsaboutair travel. But the fact that
aviation securityis a seriousproblemdoesnot relieve the governmentof the
22
burdenof justifying its proposedsolutions. Both the record andthe
governmentargumentsin this caseshowthat thereis no statutoryor
23
CERTIFICATE - OF COMPLIANCE
postageprepaid to: