Lexplug logoLexplug

United States v. Aukai

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 18995, 497 F.3d 955, 2007 WL 2283585 (2007)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Airport security screenings are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches that do not depend on passenger consent; once a passenger elects to attempt entry into the secured area, they cannot revoke consent to the search to avoid detection.


Facts:

  • On February 1, 2003, Daniel Kuualoha Aukai arrived at Honolulu International Airport to fly to Kona but failed to produce photo identification.
  • The ticket agent issued Aukai a boarding pass marked with 'No ID,' which mandated secondary screening under Transportation Security Administration (TSA) procedures.
  • Aukai voluntarily entered the security checkpoint, placed items in a bin, and walked through the metal detector without triggering an alarm.
  • Because of his 'No ID' boarding pass, TSA officers directed Aukai to a secondary screening area.
  • Aukai complained he was in a hurry and attempted to leave the secured area to retrieve his belongings, but officers instructed him he had to remain for screening.
  • During the secondary screening with a handheld wand, the device alarmed near Aukai's pocket; he repeatedly denied having anything in the pocket.
  • Aukai stated he no longer wished to board the plane and wanted to leave the airport.
  • Officers felt a bulge in his pocket, commanded him to empty it, and discovered a glass pipe and methamphetamine.

Procedural Posture:

  • The government indicted Aukai in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute.
  • Aukai filed a motion to suppress the evidence found at the airport and his subsequent statements, arguing the search violated the Fourth Amendment.
  • The District Court denied the motion to suppress.
  • Aukai entered a conditional guilty plea, expressly preserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling.
  • The District Court sentenced Aukai to 70 months of imprisonment.
  • Aukai appealed the denial of his motion to suppress to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Fourth Amendment permit airport security personnel to continue searching a passenger who attempts to revoke their consent and leave the airport after the screening process has begun but before contraband is discovered?


Opinions:

Majority - Judge Bea

No, the Fourth Amendment does not permit a passenger to revoke consent and terminate an airport screening search once it has commenced. The Court reasoned that airport screenings are administrative searches grounded in statutory authority (49 U.S.C. § 44901) rather than individual consent. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding administrative searches (such as New York v. Burger and United States v. Biswell), the Court determined that the government's substantial interest in preventing terrorism and air piracy outweighs the individual privacy intrusion. The Court explicitly overruled prior Ninth Circuit dicta suggesting passengers could revoke consent and leave. The Court argued that allowing a right to leave would afford terrorists a 'low-cost method of detecting systematic vulnerabilities' by probing security checkpoints and withdrawing whenever detection seemed imminent. The Court concluded that Aukai elected to subject himself to the search when he walked through the magnetometer, and the subsequent search was reasonable in scope and duration.


Concurrence - Judge Graber

Yes, the search was constitutional, but the majority's reasoning relies too heavily on the specific context of 9/11 and terrorism. Judge Graber agreed with the legal conclusion that airport screenings are reasonable administrative searches that do not rely on consent. However, she argued that the majority's repeated references to 'a post-9/11 world' were irrelevant and distracting. She contended that the search was valid under standard administrative search doctrine—balancing the government's interest in safety against privacy rights—regardless of the specific threat level of organized terrorism at any given time.



Analysis:

This decision marks a significant shift in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence regarding airport security within the Ninth Circuit. Previously, case law suggested that the constitutionality of these searches rested on 'implied consent,' which a passenger could theoretically revoke by choosing not to fly. United States v. Aukai eliminates this 'opt-out' loophole, firmly categorizing airport screenings as administrative searches where the right to search attaches the moment a passenger enters the screening process (e.g., placing a bag on a belt or stepping through a detector). This change prevents bad actors from testing security measures without consequence. Practically, it means that once a traveler begins the security process, they are legally compelled to finish it, even if they change their mind about traveling.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Aukai (2007)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"