Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation Security United States

TSA Orders Searches of Valet Parked Car At Airport 453

Posted by Soulskill
from the one-step-forward,-one-step-back dept.
schwit1 writes "Laurie Iacuzza walked to her waiting car at the Greater Rochester International Airport after returning from a trip and that's when she found it — a notice saying her car was inspected after she left for her flight. She said, 'I was furious. They never mentioned it to me when I booked the valet or when I picked up the car or when I dropped it off.' Iacuzza's car was inspected by valet attendants on orders from the TSA."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TSA Orders Searches of Valet Parked Car At Airport

Comments Filter:
  • And the story is...? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 19, 2013 @10:20AM (#44327189)

    Valet parked cars may remain in front of the busy area of the airport for a while before being parked.

    Already-parked cars aren't near the airport.

    If you're going to park a car full of explosives, you can either create a small crater in a car park, or you will go for the airport - so cars that are left outside are checked.

    Yes, people who are parking the cars should be informed beforehand. That way they can choose to park themselves and make their own way to the terminal building if they don't want their car searched.

  • by Builder (103701) on Friday July 19, 2013 @10:20AM (#44327199)

    This is the problem with more and more property being private and subject to conditions. On true public ground things like the 4th amendment matter. On private property, you're subject to the whims of the owners.

  • by noh8rz9 (2716595) on Friday July 19, 2013 @10:24AM (#44327259)
    the AC's analogy fials because you could just as easily do such an act with just stopping yoru car at the airport. this whole thing is very violating because wehn you use a valet you trust that they won't mess with your stuff. if they can't do that the whole valet thing goes away. i disagree with harrier and that the problem isn't when they damage it, the damage is the breach of trust.
  • by Scareduck (177470) on Friday July 19, 2013 @10:24AM (#44327261) Homepage Journal

    Nonsense. The problem here is using a third, private party to elide the Fourth Amendment.

  • by scotts13 (1371443) on Friday July 19, 2013 @10:24AM (#44327265)

    According to the article, the valets themselves. Mot TSA agents, minimum wage, no-background-check valets. They're the last people to be in the car, and they decide where to park them. Anyone else see the two glaring problems here?

  • liability (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 19, 2013 @10:24AM (#44327267)

    oh, so the poor valet schmuck who finds a bomb, and it gets detonated, is the one who will suffer loss of limbs and/or life? I'd hate to be paid minimum wage doing two jobs - one of them being a bomb detector.

  • by cervesaebraciator (2352888) on Friday July 19, 2013 @10:26AM (#44327287)
    FTA:

    We found out it happened to her because she valet parked her car. Those are the only cars that get inspected. So if security feels it is necessary to search some cars in the name of safety, why not search all of them?

    They'd probably like to be able to search any car that comes to the airport. Even so, I imagine they restrict searches to valet parked cars for two reasons: 1) they've the keys in hand and so it's easy; 2) more importantly, some lawyer probably told them that they could make the case in court that valet parked cars have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

  • by Matt.Battey (1741550) on Friday July 19, 2013 @11:50AM (#44328405)

    Anybody thought to wonder why the car was searched by the valet service instead of the the TSA itself?

    The very reason is because the contents of your car has long been held protected under the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution {Jay-Z even wrote a song about it, 99 Problems :) }. Where as, common law has set, the yet non-SCOTUS challenged precedent, that private security firms may check your baggage with x-rays and magnetometers (otherwise referred to as non-unreasonable means) when you enter the secured portion of an air-port, to protect the persons and private assets operated there. In no situation, has it ever been shown that the Government of the United States may search the person or materials or vehicle of every individual, unless entering or exiting the country (which falls under export law, under which you would be considered a "smuggler"). Because doing so assumes that there is a reasonable belief that every single person is some how operating in a criminal manner. (BTW: This is also why the NSA search warrants, if challenged would be shown to be invalid.)

  • by Khyber (864651) <techkitsune@gmail.com> on Friday July 19, 2013 @11:52AM (#44328423) Homepage Journal

    "Successful attacks against structures have, without exception, used unmarked vans and dark-tinted SUVs for a reason."

    Want to know how I know you know jack shit about explosives?

    They used vans and SUVs because of the shit crudeness of their fertilizer+diesel bombs.

    I could take a Smart car packed with C-4 just inside of the frame/body and do way more damage.

Their idea of an offer you can't refuse is an offer... and you'd better not refuse.

Working...