> Iacuzza said she doesn't mind the security measure.
> She just wants to be told if her car is getting searched.
vs.
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
> houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
> and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall
> issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
> affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
> searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
IANAL, but it seems like there is so much precedent against vehicle searches that it's staggering that TSA thinks this is acceptable. Every case I've read related to vehicles indicates that probable cause is required for a car search. Due to mobility, car searches are often exempt from requiring warrants, but even in cases where a person is arrested for a crime unrelated to their vehicle a car search can be considered unreasonable
If the TSA was really concerned with cars being parked for extended periods, it seems the more reasonable thing to do would be to move the valet parking drop off. My feeling, however, is they were just excited to get easy access to a lot of cars.
I'm guessing that their legal reasoning, if there's any at all, revolves around that thought that since you're handing your vehicle over to someone else's control, that there's then no "expectation of privacy". It's a flawed argument, but I bet that's their rationale.
IANAL either, but there's a obvious difference between a vehicle search without your knowledge and you knowingly handing your vehicle to someone who acts as an agent of the government in performing a search:
> We also noticed a large sign that alerts customers that their vehicle will be inspected.
I think the reasonableness of these actions basically boils down to:
> Iacuzza says it [the sign] was not there when she dropped off her car.
> "knowingly handing your vehicle to someone who acts as an agent of the government in performing a search"
That's the part I really don't understand about this: [1]
Is the TSA hiring and managing valet attendants now? Or do they have some authority to direct arbitrary airport staff to perform 'security' tasks?
What are the odds these valet attendants receive any training in identifying potential explosive devices, let alone methodical search?
And what's next? Are the janitors going to start poking through the trash bins looking for bombs as part of their regular duties? Are the curb-side check-in attendants going to start rifling through luggage? (those bags can linger at least as long as a car) And if not those things, why valet attendants?
[1] That the TSA would seek to ratchet up their presence and staff in response to essentially arbitrary hypothetical threats is, sadly, unsurprising.
Within the original part of the post are two cases which seem to indicate cars receive less protection because they are less private than homes.
Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153 (1925) and California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985)
Still in this case, who is inspecting the cars, the valet? What qualifications does he have? If it is the valet, do they become an agent of the state while doing the search? I am still concerned about liability, whether from theft of items in the car to the valet being injured by something in the car.
IANAL, but it seems like there is so much precedent against vehicle searches that it's staggering that TSA thinks this is acceptable. Every case I've read related to vehicles indicates that probable cause is required for a car search
Maybe you have given up those rights by entering a special zone near the airport? Not justifying it, but maybe explaining it.
This is expected of the TSA, every bureaucracy will seek to justify and expand itself.
If the TSA was really concerned with cars being parked for extended periods, it seems the more reasonable thing to do would be to move the valet parking drop off. My feeling, however, is they were just excited to get easy access to a lot of cars.