482 F.2d 1272 | 5th Cir. | 1973
Lead Opinion
As a result of an airport security search which discovered not weapons but drugs, Lee Skipwith III was charged with and convicted of the possession of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). He contends here that the evidence should have been suppressed, arguing that the search was unconstitutional. We hold that the search was lawful and that the contraband uncovered by it was properly admitted in the court below; thus we affirm.
On May 19, 1971, the defendant presented himself for boarding at the Eastern Airlines boarding gate at the Tampa International Airport, a place at which he knew or should have known he was subject to being searched. Because he met the F.A.A. anti-skyjack profile and stated he had no identification, the Eastern boarding agent detained him and called in a deputy United States marshal. The marshal, Rodriguez, asked the prospective passenger his name. The response was “S. Jackson.” This
I.
This court has recently discussed the permissible scope of airport searches in United States v. Moreno, 475 F.2d 44 (5th Cir. 1973). In that case the court held that suspicious activity by the defendant, a ticketed passenger, in the airport lounge area and en route toward a boarding gate made the security officers’ search of the defendant’s person a reasonable one. Relying on the rationale of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), the court weighed the competing interests of law enforcement in the context of the present air piracy problem against the rights of individuals using the airport; it concluded that airport searches designed to protect the heavy volume of interstate and foreign travel by air could be conducted under a less stringent standard than ordinary probable cause because of the unique circumstances of time and place.
In Moreno constitutional reasonableness was found in suspicious activity by a ticketed passenger headed toward a boarding gate but still in the general airport area. Today we are called upon to apply the same standard of reasonableness to a situation factually unlike Moreno. Here the defendant, Skipwith, had actually presented himself at the boarding gate as a potential passenger. He could not have been where he was to look around, to greet friends or relatives or to say farewell. His only reason for being there had to be to board the aircraft. Because of the widespread publicity given to the government’s efforts to cope with the piracy of aircraft, it was general knowledge that citizens boarding planes were subject to special scrutiny and to weapon searches. Unlike Moreno or Legato the officer did not go to Skipwith and stop and search him at a point where such a procedure was extraordinary or unexpected. Rather, Skipwith came to the specific part of the airport where he knew or should have known all citizens were subject to being searched.
Since Skipwith exhibited characteristics which corresponded to the F.A.A.’s
The government contends that, in light of the magnitude of the perils created by air piracy, searches of boarding passengers are controlled by the same standard applied to customs searches at the national border — mere or unsupported suspicion.
lit undertaking our calculation of the weight to be accorded to these three factors in the case at bar — public necessity, efficacy of the search, and degree of intrusion — we need not reiterate what was said in Moreno about the dangers posed by air piracy; suffice it to say that there is a judicially-recognized necessity to insure that the potential harms of air piracy are foiled. The search procedures have every indicia of being the most efficacious that could be used. The group being screened is limited to persons with the immediate intention of boarding aircraft. Metal detectors, visual inspection, and rare but potential physical searches appear to this court to provide as much efficiency to the process as it could have.
On the other side of the judicial scales, the intrusion which the airport search imposes on the public is not insubstantial. It is inconvenient and annoying, in some cases it may be embarrassing, and at times it can be incriminating. There are several factors, however, which make this search less offensive to the searched person than similar searches in other contexts. One such factor is the almost complete absence of any stigma attached to being subjected to search at a known, designated airport search point. As one commentator has put it in the border search context, “individuals searched because of their membership in a morally neutral class have less cause to feel insulted. . . . ”
Our conclusion, after this tripartite weighing of the relevant factors, is that the standards for initiating a search of a person at the boarding gate should be no more stringent than those applied in border crossing situations. In the critical pre-boarding area where this search started, reasonableness does not require that officers search only those passengers who meet a profile or who manifest signs of nervousness or who otherwise appear suspicious. Such a requirement would have to assume that hijackers are readily identifiable or that they invariably possess certain traits. The number of lives placed at hazard by this criminal paranoia forbid taking such deadly chances. As Judge Friendly has stated:
Determination of what is reasonable requires a weighing of the harm against the need. When the object of the search is simply the detection of past crime, probable cause to arrest is generally the appropriate test. When the risk is the jeopardy to hundreds of human lives and millions of dollars of property inherent in the pirating or blowing up of a large airplane, the danger alone meets the test of reasonableness, so long as the search is conducted in good faith for the purpose of preventing hijacking or like damage and with reasonable scope and the passenger has been given advance notice of his liability to such a search so that he can avoid it by choosing not to travel by air.
United States v. Bell, 464 F.2d 667, 675 (2d Cir. 1972) (concurring) (footnote omitted). Thus, while Moreno established that searches of certain persons in the general airport area are to be tested under a case-by-case application of the reasonableness standard, we hold that those who actually present themselves for boarding on an air carrier, like those seeking entrance into the country, are subject to a search based on mere or unsupported suspicion.
The distinction we draw between a person entering any specific area- — here the boarding gate — where searches are regularly conducted and one like Moreno who was in an airport restroom is analogous to that drawn in United States v. Thompson, 475 F.2d 1359 (5th Cir. 1973). There the court pointed out the distinction between searches made at the nation’s borders and those which are made within the interior of the country. “Searches in this undefined zone [remote from but near the border] must be reasonable upon all of the facts, one consideration being the proximity of the search to an international border. . When acting in this expanded border search area, the customs agents must have a ‘reasonable suspicion’ that the customs laws are being violated.” 475 F.2d at 1362. Searches at the border proper, on the other hand, may be conducted “where there is a ‘mere suspicion’ of possible illegal- activity.” 475 F.2d at 1361. The logic which supports the application of this border search distinction to the standards governing airport searches is readily apparent. The public is assured that the net can sweep no wider than necessary since the broad right to search is limited to the last possible point in time and space which could protect the aircraft, the boarding
Skipwith further contends that even if some search were justified, the search actually undertaken exceeded the scope of the justification. He argues that the officer was constitutionally limited to conducting a frisk or pat-down for weapons rather than demanding that he empty his pockets. As Moreno pointed out, however, a hijacker’s arsenal “is not confined to the cumbersome gun or knife; for modern technology has made it possible to miniaturize to such a degree that enough plastic explosives to blow up an airplane can be concealed in a toothpaste tube. A detonator planted in a fountain pen is all that is required to set it off. . . . It is in this context that we must assess the constitutionality of the search. . . .” 475 F.2d at 49. The range and variety of devices real and simulated which can be used to intimidate the crew of an aircraft when it is aloft are almost limitless. The airport security officer has to be alert for all of them. Marshal Rodriguez was justified in undertaking a search with sufficient scope to reveal any object or instrumentality that Skipwith could reasonably have used to effect an act of air piracy. Here the search object — which created a three-inch-long, two-inch-thick bulge— was clearly within that limit.
Moreover, Judge Simpson and I fully concur in that part of Judge Aldrich’s opinion which holds that Skip-with’s right-to-leave argument is devoid of merit. Thus, this court expressly declines to follow the rule announced in United States v. Meulener, 351 F.Supp. 1284 (C.D.Cal.1972). Cf. United States v. Legato, supra, 480 F.2d at 413 and n. 8.
II.
Skipwith contends that, even if a weapon discovered during his search could have been introduced into evidence, the cocaine should have been excluded since the search was not and could not have been conducted for the purpose of discovering illicit drugs. In light of Judge Aldrich’s dissent, it is appropriate to discuss more fully than would otherwise be indicated our holding that the product of this valid search was properly admitted into evidence.
Under the pressure of a search for truth and in light of a growing skepticism as to both its necessity and efficacy, the exclusionary rule is waning, not waxing, in the law today. See, e. g., Wright, Must the Criminal Go Free if the Constable Blunders? 50 Tex.L.R. 736 (1972). “Proper adjudication of cases in which the exclusionary rule is invoked demands a constant awareness of [its] limitations.” Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S. at 14, 88 S.Ct. at 1876; United States v. Ragsdale, 470 F.2d 24, 30 (5th Cir. 1972). The strictures of the Fourth Amendment protect the citizen from unwarranted and unreasonable intrusion by the government on his person or into his effects. The rule excluding the admission of illegally obtained evidence was designed to effectuate this purpose by removing the principal incentive to conduct illegal searches. The rule does not exist because the evidence is not probative, or to chastise errant law officers, or to benefit the accused.
While the force of Judge Aldrich’s admonition that “due process demands that the imposition on the citizen be no greater than the occasion requires” cannot be disputed, it is important to note that the imposition which must be con
We are asked to exclude the evidence of crime obtained in a concededly valid seach in order to enhance the overall reasonableness of the search procedure. The basis on which we are urged to adopt this would-be exception to the general exclusionary rule is that the relaxed standards of airport searches require a different calculus in evaluating their purpose. It is said that in airport search situations, where relatively inflexible probable cause is displaced by its more mutable concomitant — reasonableness'— as the standard validating the search, the real utility of the exclusionary rule lies not in discouraging illegal searches, for there are relatively few of those, but rather in discouraging the pretextual search — that is, the search outwardly appearing to be conducted to discover weapons in the skyjacker’s arsenal which really seeks contraband or evidence for which only a warranted or probable cause search would be lawful. The basis for excluding any evidence other than skyjack weapons detected during desirable and necessary anti-piracy searches is that this exceptional exclusion will destroy the incentive for officers to conduct pretextual searches.
This argument has never been accepted by any court
The exclusionary rule necessarily deters only those searches which have as their object the production of evidence for the purpose of conducting a successful criminal prosecution. The fact is, however, that searches may be and are conducted for other purposes. In the performance of their duty to apprehend, not prosecute, the searching officer may neither know nor care whether the offender is actually convicted. In addition, if we are to postulate that some significant number of pretextual airport searches are conducted, then we should also assume that officers may from time to time make searches and seizures for reasons other than those relating to criminal prosecution, perhaps to seize suspected contraband or with no purpose
Professor Wright’s observation on the efficacy of the exclusionary rule in general is particularly pertinent to its proposed application here.
[I]t can be fairly said of the Exclusionary Rule that it cannot be proved to have a significant deterrent effect and this effect is not so inherently likely that we can assume it to exist in the absence of proof.
50 Tex.L.R. at 741. Were there no societal costs in adopting the rule contended for, the speculative possibility that some undesirable searches would be discouraged might justify its imposition. The fact is, however, that the rule would allow a significant number of crimes to go unpunished though the authorities may have lawfully obtained all of the evidence necessary to establish the guilt of the offenders. The unproven potential of this variant on the exclusionary rule simply does not justify the public detriment in allowing this class of criminals to go unconvicted.
No one can gainsay that airport searches are annoying. Certainly all citizens look forward to the day when skyjackings and their sequels, airport search and security measures, cease. When the threat of air piracy disappears the standards of reasonableness which we here recognize will go with it. Until that time arrives, however, the portent for evil supplies the requisite Fourth Amendment reasonableness to justify the search of any person who presents himself at a boarding gate to enter an aircraft.
In light of our holdings that the search was valid and that there was no error in the admission into evidence of the contraband discovered, the conviction of Lee Skipwith III is
Affirmed.
. Even more recently this court followed Moreno in United States v. Legato, 480 F.2d 408 (5th Cir. 1973). In Legato the court held that suspicious conduct and an informer’s tip justified the airport parking lot search of one who had been to the boarding area but at the time of the search was apparently preparing to get into a car and leave the airport.
. See United States v. Lopez, 328 F.Supp. 1077 (E.D.N.Y.1971).
. The fact that one is in the process of crossing an international boundary provides sufficient reason in itself to permit a search for aliens or contraband, without the presence of any other circumstances that would normally have to attend the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.
United States v. McDaniel, 463 F.2d 129, 132 (5th Cir. 1972).
. For example, no court has ever approved a dragnet search of all citizens in a high-crime area of any urban center, based upon the ’justification that the danger of criminal conduct would be reduced.
. The record in this case contains no direct proof of results of such procedures, but it is a matter of general knowledge that the incidence of air piracy has dramatically decreased since the institution of stricter airport security measures at the beginning of 1973.
. Note, Border Searches and the Fourth Amendment, 77 Yale L.J. 1007, 1014 (1968).
. As Judge Aldrich points out in his dissent, the majority opinion in Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968), the companion case to Terry, did not reach the issue of the admissibility of contraband seized during a Terry self-protective search. However, the three separate opinions of Justices White, 392 U.S. at 69-70, 88 S.Ct. at 1905, Harlan, 392 U.S. at 79, 88 S.Ct. at 1910, and Black, 392 U.S. at 79-80, 88 S.Ct. at 1910-1911, assumed it would have been admissible as a matter of course.
Concurrence Opinion
(concurring specially):
I concur in the disposition of this ease reached by Judge Clark’s opinion,, that the conviction stand affirmed.
If free to do so, I would adopt Judge Aldrich’s proposal that we refuse to permit the contraband seized to become the basis for prosecution. The protection of the travelling public from attempts at skyjacking demands that courts allow airport guards wide discretion in searching prospective passengers. Because this is so and to forestall abuse of that discretion by pretextual searches we should adopt a rule that forbids the evi-dentiary use of contraband other than weapons turned up as a by-product of such searches. In a word, I believe that Judge Aldrich’s position is both sound and salutary.
But I consider that while not directly, certainly by implication, our recent Moreno
Thus, while I would follow Judge Ald-rich’s solution if free to do so, I am constrained by Moreno to concur in the result reached by Judge Clark.
. United States v. Moreno, 475 F.2d 44, 5 Cir. 1973.
. United States v. Legato, 408 F.2d 480, 5th Cir. 1973.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting) :
I recognize and approve the Fifth Circuit practice of regarding as binding precedent prior decisions of other panels. It does not, however, seem to me to forbid that I, as a visiting judge, vocalize dissent on a matter of general importance. Present day airport search affects such a large number of persons, country-wide, that I wish to record my reasons for differing with the Fifth Circuit rule announced, without discussion, in United States v. Moreno, 1973, 475 F.2d 44, and United States v. Legato, 1973, 480 F.2d 408, and followed here, that Terry v. Ohio, 1968, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, authorizes the use of extraneous materials not within the purpose of the search, but fortuitously discovered in the passenger’s possession, to support a criminal prosecution. I fully agree with the court’s weighing of values to conclude that the search itself was authorized, but I feel that a more exact assessment should dictate an additional conclusion, namely, that viable use (I am not speaking of mere confiscation) should not be made of proceeds towards which the search was not, and could not have been independently, directed.
There can be no question, of course, as to the object of the search, or of the limited justification. The passenger was not under arrest, opening him to a total examination. Chimel v. California, 1969, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685. He had done nothing as an individual to afford probable cause for interfering with his right of privacy,
In this circumstance I believe that while the peculiar nature of the social hazard justifies the search, due process demands that the imposition on the citizen be no greater than the occasion requires. We should take literally the caveat in Terry, “seizure and search [must be] reasonably related in scope to the justification for their initiation.” 392 U.S. at 29, 88 S.Ct. at 1884 (emphasis suppl.) See New York v. Sibron, 18 N.Y.2d 603, 605-608, 272 N.Y.S.2d 374, 219 N.E.2d 196 (Van Voorhis, dissenting), rev’d, 392 U.S. 40, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917.
Returning to United States v. Moreno, and United States v. Legato, supra, I cannot agree that my suggestion runs counter to Terry. In Terry the prosecution was for the sought-after weapon itself. In the companion case of New York v. Peters, 1966, 18 N.Y.2d 238, 273 N.Y.S.2d 217, 219 N.E.2d 595, aff’d sub nom. Sibron v. New York, 1968, 392 U.S. 40, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917, where burglars’ tools, rather than a weapon, were found, the Court was careful not to decide the present question, pointing out that prior to the search there had been probable cause for arrest for attempted burglary, adequately justifying the seizure of the tools. It is true that I am advocating an unusual and narrow rule, but we are faced with an unusual and narrow justification for governmental interference.
Finally, if the foregoing is not to be supported, I do not accept defendant’s contention that, once he had reached the point of embarkation where inquiry and possible search procedures were openly in operation, he could choose to withdraw if he found the inquiry addressed to him not to his liking. United States v. Meulener, C.D.Cal., 1972, 351 F.Supp. 1284. The reasoning in Meulener, that if he then changed his mind, and elected to leave, “he would pose no danger to the passengers and crew on the aircraft,” 351 F.Supp. at 1289, greatly damages the prophylactic purpose of the search procedure. Such an option would constitute a one-way street for the benefit of a party planning airplane mischief, since there is no guarantee that if he were allowed to leave he might not return and be more successful. Of greater importance, the very fact that a safe exit is available if apprehension is threatened, would, by diminishing the risk, encourage attempts. Established search procedures are perhaps more valuable by what they discourage than by what they discover. I see no constitutional requirement, where a defendant knew by objective signs that he was incurring the possibility of a search, that he should thereafter be allowed to play- heads-I-win, tails-you-lose.
. While the Profile is said to be remarkably inclusive as an identifier, in camera inspection thereof suggests that many innocent persons might fit it exactly. And if the defendant revealed minor grounds for suspicion after the agent demanded his wallet, unless the demand was a priori justified it is axiomatic that the reaction to it could not supply justification ex post facto. Sibron v. New York, 1968, 392 U.S. 40, 63, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917; Henry v. United States, 1959, 361 U.S. 98, 103, 80 S.Ct. 168, 4 L.Ed.2d 134; Johnson v. United States, 1948, 333 U.S. 10, 16-17, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436.
. See, also, The Fourth Amendment and Housing Inspections, 77 Vale L.J. 521, 535 (1968), where the same suggestion was made with respect to blanket housing inspections justified only by “group probable cause.” Camera v. Municipal Court, 1967, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930.
. As one commentator has stated, “Where the policeman claims to have felt a hard object in the defendant’s pocket which may have been a knife but, upon delving into the pocket, he discovers some other type of contraband, [it may be] difficult to prove that the initial inference was an unreasonable or dishonest one, or that, in searching for the ‘knife’, the policeman conducted too extensive a search of the pocket.” The Supreme Court, 1967 Term, 82 Harv.L.Rev. 63, 185-86.