Great "lawyer advertisement"!

[nitrogen]

This comes from a friend of mine trapped behind enemy lines in California:

[pedalman]

Except for the advertisement part, I kinda like the statement of not giving consent to search.

I would tend to think that in the real world (Texas), refusal to consent would have to be verbal. But, IANAL.

[The Annoyed Man]

In Los Angeles, such a sticker would be viewed as "probable cause," and you'd be searched anyway.

[nitrogen]

In Los Angeles, such a sticker would be viewed as "probable cause," and you'd be searched anyway.

No it wouldn't.

Or were you kidding? MY sarcasm detector is out for repair.

[DoubleJ]

well, he did add a smilie...

[The Annoyed Man]

In Los Angeles, such a sticker would be viewed as "probable cause," and you'd be searched anyway.

No it wouldn't.

Or were you kidding? MY sarcasm detector is out for repair.

Yes, I was kidding (barely). I should have put the comment between [sarcasm][/sarcasm] tags. Sorry about that.

[jimlongley]

A few years ago someone put a couple of "seals" with similar wording to that across the (what do you call the opening of a suitcase?) they had checked aboard a Southwest flight at Love Field - we screeners took great glee in cutting right through them while opening the bag.

I don't recall the exact wording, and it didn't include a lawyer's statement, or name, or advertisement, just something like "The owner of this bag does not consent to a search of this bag without a warrant."

The problem being that the act of checking the bag is implied consent.

[Kalrog]

The problem being that the act of checking the bag is implied consent.

Doesn't implied consent only mean just that - implied if nothing else is stated? Wouldn't this other statement/sticker be expressly stating no consent has been given? And doesn't expressly stating something trump an implied something?

Law school question?

[CHL/LEO]

Doesn't implied consent only mean just that - implied if nothing else is stated? Wouldn't this other statement/sticker be expressly stating no consent has been given? And doesn't expressly stating something trump an implied something?

Go out to Love Field and place your bag on the belt going into the scanner. As it enters the scanner you notice that the TSA agents are staring intently at the monitor as they try to determine the contents of your bag. Suddenly you remember that you inadvertently left your handgun in the bag. The agents have by now grabbed your bag and asked you if it belongs to you. You answer in the affirmative and they ask you to move over to another area as they are going to search it. At that time you tell the TSA personnel that you do not consent to them searching the bag - in fact, you ask them to just give it back to you as you've changed your mind about taking this flight.

The TSA agent summons the Dallas Police Officer who is monitoring that checkpoint and then the agent searches your bag finding your forgotten gun. Your defense is that you never gave permission (express consent) to having your bag searched, and in fact you explicitly told the TSA personnel and the police officer that they did not have permission to search it. However, the contract that you entered into when your purchased your ticket, and the implied consent for search that you supplied when you entered the TSA security screening line, both took precedence over your refusal to search advisement.

By the way, this did happen and I'm sure it's happened many a time all around the country.

I hope that I haven't legally misstated anything regarding consent since I'm not a lawyer. However, we have been provided a tremendous amount of legal training and education related to our profession. Plus, we get the benefit of spending time with Assistant DA's as we prepare for trials and we get to pick their brains regarding statues and case laws as they pertain to all different kinds of crimes.

One thing we have learned is that the Federal Government has given the TSA a tremendous amount of authority (and responsibilities too) and that if the decide to pursue you regarding a violation you probably won't win. And even if you did win you would probably be financially broken as they would have the full weight of the federal government to throw at you.

[Kalrog]

I'm not sure that is the same situation. After it goes through the scanner and the gun is seen through that, you have PC. Consent doesn't matter anymore. But without PC - as in what would have happened if they hadn't seen the gun in the bag and decided to search it? Do you have PC? With an express refusal? Sure the refusal means you don't fly, but that is a choice.

And for the record, I consider this an academic exercise, not something that I would want to try if I was flying anywhere.