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.

It's something to have to agree to in order to enter in the airport. No body is forcing the search on you. You certainly can travel another way. Same thing as having my toolbox searched when I went into the courthouse to fix typewriters back in the 90s.

This said I still advocate some kind of "cleared fliers list" for airplane crews and other frequent travelers.

It's something to have to agree to in order to enter in the airport. No body is forcing the search on you. You certainly can travel another way. Same thing as having my toolbox searched when I went into the courthouse to fix typewriters back in the 90s.

This said I still advocate some kind of "cleared fliers list" for airplane crews and other frequent travelers.

What if there were security checkpoints outside your town that randomly stop vehicles? Would that be ok too? "Nobody is forcing you to leave town".

so your claim is that you have a right to fly on without being subject to inspection?

If this were the airlines refusing service to anyone who refuses to submit to inspection, you wouldn't be objecting.

It has nothing to with being forced. The government has no right to search or seizure without probable cause... period. The TSA is a part of the government. Just because they do it when you enter a courthouse doesn't make it less unconstitutional.

In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that a search occurs only when 1) a person expects privacy in the thing searched and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable.

Under Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968), law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct a limited warrantless search on a level of suspicion less than probable cause under certain circumstances. In Terry, the Supreme Court ruled that when a police officer witnesses "unusual conduct" that leads that officer to reasonably believe "that criminal activity may be afoot", that the suspicious person has a weapon and that the person is presently dangerous to the officer or others, the officer may conduct a "pat-down search" (or "frisk") to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon. To conduct a frisk, officers must be able to point to specific and articulatory facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant their actions. A vague hunch will not do. Such a search must be temporary and questioning must be limited to the purpose of the stop (i.e., officers who stop a person because they have reasonable suspicion to believe that the person was driving a stolen car, cannot, after confirming that it is not stolen, compel the person to answer questions about anything else, such as the possession of contraband).

Nope. You have a right to fly without governmental intrusion though according to the Fourth Amendment. An airline can refuse you for any reason if it so chose to.

Nope. You have a right to fly without governmental intrusion though according to the Fourth Amendment. An airline can refuse you for any reason if it so chose to.

In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that a search occurs only when 1) a person expects privacy in the thing searched and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable.

What if they choose to refuse service to anyone who doesn't allow the government to inspect them?

That would still be unconstitutional Diamondeye as the government is still performing the search. A private company can make that a requirement, the government just can't follow through on it. And just because the Supreme Court ruled poorly, by lowering the standard below what the Fourth Amendment advocates, doesn't make it correct. The Fourth Amendment might be one of the clearest amendments in the US Constitution.

That would still be unconstitutional Diamondeye as the government is still performing the search.

Bold is mine since I feel it is the lynchpin of the argument.

SOCIETY. A society is a number of persons united together by mutual consent, in order to deliberate, determine, and act jointly for some common purpose.
2. Societies are either incorporated and known to the law, or unincorporated, of which the law does not generally take notice.
3. By civil society is usually understood a state, (q.v.) a nation, (q.v.) or a body politic. (q.v.) Rutherf. Inst. c. 1 and 2.
4. In the civil law, by society is meant a partnership.

So when does the number of opposed americans become a society? If we decide that a state is the lowest number, then does NJ bringing suit now trigger that second part of Katz vs United States since now that civil society has decided it's not reasonable? Will the decision now just work in NJ or will it need to be extended nationally?

In a market ruled situation that airline would lose money to the airline that puts their customers experience first. Risk vs reward scenario. It still doesn't make the government doing it correct.

I thought the screeners were contracted?

Also, why do you think the government can't search folks? They tell you when you buy a ticket that you'll be subject to being searched, can't hardly call the search unreasonable when they tell you it's a condition you have to agree to in order to purchase a ticket.