United States v. Aukai, 440 F.3d 1168 (2006)

Facts

  • Daniel Kuualoha Aukai went to Honolulu International Airport to take a commercial flight.
  • At the ticket counter, Aukai did not produce government identification; the airline agent wrote “No ID” on his boarding pass.
  • Aukai proceeded to the security checkpoint where signs stated that passengers and carry-on property were subject to search.
  • Aukai placed items for screening and walked through a magnetometer without triggering an alarm; his property also cleared initial screening.
  • Aukai then presented his boarding pass to a TSA officer; because it was marked “No ID,” TSA procedures required secondary screening.
  • TSA officers began secondary screening with a handheld magnetometer (wand).
  • During the secondary screening, Aukai objected and at one point stated he no longer wanted to fly and wanted to leave the airport.
  • TSA officers continued the secondary screening; the wand alerted to something in Aukai’s pocket, and officers observed a bulge.
  • After initially denying he had metal in his pocket and removing some items, Aukai produced an object wrapped in tissue; it was a glass pipe used to smoke methamphetamine.
  • Law enforcement was contacted, and additional contraband was found during the ensuing investigation.
  • The United States indicted Aukai for drug offenses; Aukai moved to suppress the evidence from the checkpoint search.
  • The district court denied suppression; Aukai entered a conditional guilty plea preserving his right to appeal and appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

Issues

  1. May a prospective airline passenger who has entered checkpoint screening stop a TSA-required secondary screening search by saying he has decided not to fly and wants to leave?
  2. Was the secondary screening of a passenger marked “No ID” a reasonable airport administrative search under the Fourth Amendment where the passenger passed the initial magnetometer without an alarm?

Decision

  • The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Aukai’s motion to suppress.
  • The court held Aukai could not avoid the mandatory secondary screening by announcing he no longer wished to fly after the screening process had begun.
  • The court concluded the secondary screening was a reasonable administrative search because TSA rules treated a “No ID” passenger’s initial screening as incomplete (“inconclusive”) under circuit precedent, permitting additional standardized screening.
  • Once the wand indicated an object and officers observed a bulge, requiring Aukai to identify and remove the item remained within the scope of the screening’s security function; discovery of contraband did not retroactively invalidate the checkpoint search.

Legal Principles

  • Airport checkpoint screening is evaluated as an administrative search; its validity turns on Fourth Amendment reasonableness in light of the governmental interest in aviation security and the standardized, limited character of the screening.
  • Under Ninth Circuit precedent, when initial screening is “inconclusive,” additional screening may be conducted as part of the administrative program without individualized suspicion.
  • A passenger who enters the screening process may not defeat required secondary screening simply by deciding not to fly once screening has begun, when the secondary screening is triggered by objective, neutral rules (such as “No ID” status).
  • The panel’s holding was limited to secondary screening that is not highly invasive and that is initiated by objective criteria rather than a subjective assessment by personnel.
  • If lawful checkpoint screening reveals an item requiring identification for security purposes, officers may take reasonable steps to resolve the security concern; contraband discovered in the process may provide a basis for further law-enforcement action.

Conclusion

United States v. Aukai, 440 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2006), held that TSA officers could complete mandatory secondary screening of a passenger whose boarding pass was marked “No ID” even after he attempted to leave, because the search was a reasonable administrative airport screening based on objective procedures and an initially “inconclusive” screening.