holding that ____ inadvertent discovery of evidence of criminal activity in course of lawful security search for weapons at airport checkpoint does not violate Fourth Amendment
How later courts described this case
- holding that ____ inadvertent discovery of evidence of criminal activity in course of lawful security search for weapons at airport checkpoint does not violate Fourth Amendment
- evidence of drug possession admissible in criminal prosecution when discovered in course of screening boarding passengers for weapons because discovery of narcotics of defendant's person was product of lawful police work and "all that matters is search be legally conducted"
- noting that modem technology permits hijacker to conceal plastic explosives in container no larger than a toothpaste tube
- balancing the public necessity of the search against the efficacy of the search and the degree and nature of private intrusion caused by the search
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SIMPSON, Circuit Judge
(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 1 and Legato 2 cases have rejected this approach. Moreno and Legato approve the use of contraband diseov- *1280 ered in an airport search of a prospective passenger for a weapon as the basis for conviction of possession of the contraband. Any holding that the contraband here although subject to seizure and condemnation should not have been made the basis for a conviction, is I think forbidden by Moreno and Legato.
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.