UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No.

04-l5736
JOHN GILMORE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
JOHN ASHCROFT, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CaseNo. CV -02-03444-S1

HonorableSusan Illstont United States Y. District Court Judge BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE ELECTRONIC FRONllER FOUNDAllON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT JOHN GILMORE

Lee Tien Kurt Opsahl ElectronicFrontier Foundation 454 Shotwell Street SanFrancisco,CA 94110 (415) 436-9333 (415) 436-9993(fax) Attorneysfor Amicus Curiae ElectronicFrontier Foundation

TABLE OF CONTENTS I
STATEMENT OF AMICUS CURIAE

II.
ill.

SUMMARY

OFARGUMENT
2

FACTUAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND

IV. ARGUMENT pursuantto federalairport A. Demandsfor identity credentials
searchprograms for domestic flights violate the Fourth Amendment.

6

6

The district court erredin analyzingthe demandfor identity credentials a mererequestfor identification. as

7

2.

The district court erred in analyzing the demand for identity credentials independently of the federal airport

10

search

pursuantto the federalairport search B. Airport searches

programare limited to searches weaponsand explosives for and do not encompass demands official identity for credentials. By its own terms,Davis only authorizes administrative
searches for weapons and

program.

12

13

c.

Demandsfor official identity credentials cannototherwisebe justified asadministrativesearches, especiallyin light of the dangerthat the airport search programwill be infectedby ordinary law enforcement goals Demandsfor identity credentials pursuantto federalair traveler screening programsarenot reasonable underBrown v. Texas The government not shownthat demandingofficial has identity credentials an effectivemeansof furthering the is

explosives.

14

D.

17

18 20

administrative

interest

in

aviation

has 2. The government not shownthe existenceof an "explicit, neutral" plan for ill demands.

safety

pursuantto the federal E. Demandsfor identity credentials

airport search programcannotbejustified underthe "special needs"doctrine

21

v.

CONCLUSION

22

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases
Brower v. County oflnyo, 489 U.S. 593 (1989)

Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 1979)

.~

passim

Chandlerv. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997) , De/awarev. Prouse,440 U.S. 648 (1986)
Doe v. Chao, 124 S.Ct. 1204 (2004)

19

Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U.S. 594 (1981

20,21 8 9

Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 1991) Florida v. Royer,460 U.S. 491 (1983)

Gilmorev. Ashcroft, 2004WL 603530 (N.D. Cal.2004)
Henry v. UnitedStates,361 U.S. 98 (1959)
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada,

6, 11,14,20
9 1,7, 10 13, 7,22 7, 8
1

124 S.Ct.2451 (2004) Indianapolis v. Edmond,531 U.S. 32 (2000) INS v. Delgado,466 U.S. 210 (1984)

Klimas v. Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. (No. 02-CV - 72054-DT) (Sixth Circuit, appeal pending)

Ko/enderv. Lawson,461 U.S. 352 1983) Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 302 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002)
Lawson v. Ko/ender, 658 F.2d 1362 (9th Cir. 1981)

10

aff'd on other grounds,461 U.S. 352 (1983)
Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)..

Minceyv. Arizona,437U.S.385(1978)

19

111

NewJerseyv. 1:£.0.,469 U.S. 325 ( 985) New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987)

21 20, 21

Skinnerv. Railway Labor Executives'Association, U.S. 602 (1989) 22 489
United States v. $124,570 U.S. Currency, 873 F .2d 1240

(9th Cir. 1989) UnitedStatesv. Berry, 670 F.2d 583 (5th Cir., Unit B, 1982) UnitedStatesv. Bulacan, 156F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 1998) UnitedStatesv. Davis, 482 F.2d 893 (9th Cir. 1973) UnitedStatesv. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109(1984) UnitedStatesv. Martinez-Fuente, 428 U.S. 543 (1976) Statutes

passim 9 12, 15, 16 passim 9 19

49 C.F.R.§ 1540.5
49 U.S.C. § 114(h)
49 U.S.C. § 114(q)

6, 15
5, 5 6 6 6

49 U.S.C. § 44901 49 V.S.C. § 44902 49 U.S.C. § 44903 Other Authorities
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Report of the National Task Force on Privacy, Technology and Criminal Justice Information, NCL 187669

(Aug. 2001)
General Accounting Office, Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System Faces Significant Implementation Challenges 5

16

(February2004)

3,4, 11, 5

Prepared testimonyof David M. Stone,Acting Administrator,TSA, before U.S. Houseof Representatives, Corom.of Transportation and Infrastructure,Subcorom. Aviation (March 17,2004) on 4, ] 1
IV

I.

ST A TEMENT OF AMICUS CURIAE

The ElectronicFrontier Foundation("EFF") is a non-profit, publicinterestorganizationdedicated protectingcivil liberties and free to expression the digital world. Foundedin 990 andbasedin San in Francisco,California, EFF hasmorethan 13,000paying membersand represents interestsof Internetusersin court cases in the broader the and policy debates surroundingthe applicationof law in the computerage. EFF publishesa comprehensive archiveof digital civil liberties information at
one of the most linked-to websites in the world, <http://www .eff.org>. EFF

hasparticipatedas amicuscuriaein manyprivacy cases, including Hiibel v.
Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 24 S.Ct.2451 (2004),Doe v. Chao, 124 S.Ct. 1204 (2004), Klimas v. Comcast Cable Communications,

Inc. (No. 02-CY-72054-DT)(Sixth Circuit, appealpending),andKonop v.
Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 302 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002).

EFF hasreceivedconsentto file this brief from all partiesin this action. II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The Fourth Amendment"generallybarsofficials from undertakinga searchor seizureabsentindividualizedsuspicion. Searches conducted without groundsfor suspicionof particularindividuals havebeenupheld,
however, in certain limited circumstances." Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S, 305,308 (1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A key question presentedby this caseis whether the Fourth

Amendment permits the government, without any suspicion of wrongdoing, to demand that every would-be air traveler present official identity credentials at airports or else be denied the right to fly, as part of a program to "screen" for terrorists.

Under this Court's decisions, however,the administrativepurposeof air traffic safetyjustifies only narrowly definedsearches passengers of for weapons explosivesat airports,while generalized enforcement and law searches all passengers a condition for boardinga commercialaircraft of as would be unconstitutional.Unit~States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 910 (9th
CiTe1973); United States V. $124,570 US. Currency, 873 F.2d 1240, 1243

(9th Cir. 1989).
In this case,the government has failed to show that it is legally authorized to demand official ill from would-be air travelers, that such demands further the air traveler screening program's purpose of deterring people from bringing weapons or explosives onto planes, or that such demands are reasonablefor any other constitutionally permissible administrative purpose. Accordingly, amicus EFF arguesthat the demands for identity credentials at issue in this casedo not "fit within the closely guarded category of constitutionally permissible suspicionless searches,"

Chandler,520 U.S. at 309, andviolate the Fourth Amendment. ill. FACTUAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND

In the late 19608 and early 19708, federalgovernment the createda programdirecting that all air travelersandtheir carry-onbaggage be 2

screened dangerous for itemsbeforeboarding. GeneralAccounting Office,
Computer-AssistedPassengerPrescreening SystemFaces Significant

ImplementationChallenges (February2004) ("GAD Report"), availableat 5 <http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-O4-385>; Davis, 482 F.2d at 897904 (explaininghistory of airport search program). In 1994,the FederalAviation Administration (FAA) provided funding to a major U.S. air carrier to developa computerized systemfor prescreening passengers. This first-generation ComputerAssistedPassenger Prescreening Program(CAPPS),now administered the Transportation by SecurityAdministration (TSA), was implemented 998 and is in use in today by most U.S. air carriers. GAD Reportat 5 CAPPSenables carriersto separate air passengers two categories: into thosewho requireadditionalsecurityscrutiny-termed "selectees"-and checksin at the airport, the air carrier's thosewho do not. When a passenger reservationsystemusescertaininformation from the passenger's itinerary for analysisin CAPPS. This analysischecksthe passenger's infonnation againstthe CAPPSrules,which arerules aboutbehavioralcharacteristics usedto selectpassengers requireadditionalsecurityscrutiny, and also who againsta government-supplied watch list that containsthe namesof known or suspected terrorists. A passenger's selectee statusis then transmittedto the check-incounterwherea codeis printed on the boardingpassof any passenger determined requireadditionalscreening, at the screening to and checkpoint,passengers areselectees subjectto additional security who are
3

measures.CAPPScurrently prescreens estimated percentof an 99 passengers domesticflights. GAD Reportat 5-6. on SinceSeptember , 200 1, TSA has been developing a secondgeneration prescreening systemknown asCAPPSII. A major difference betweenCAPPSandCAPPSII is that while CAPPSfocusedon passenger behaviorlike ticket purchases, CAPPSII seeks authenticate identity of to the eachpassenger. According to Admiral David Stone,acting TSA administrator,"one of the primary functionsof CAPPSn is to verify the identitiesof air travelers." Prepared testimonyof David M. Stone,Acting Administrator,TSA, beforeU.S. Houseof Representatives, Comm. of Transportation Infrastructure,Subcomm. Aviation, at 9 (March 7, and on 2004) ("Stonetestimony"), availableat <http://www.house.gov/transportation/aviation/O3-17-04/stone.pdf>, CAPPSn will then "[ c]omparethe passenger identity infonnation against the Terrorist Screening Center'sconsolidated terrorist screening database, and againstlists of individuals who arethe subjectof outstandingwarrants
for violent criminal behavior." Stone testimony at 2.1

While CAPPSII hasnot yet beenimplemented, eventhe attemptto implementit hasraisedconsiderable public concernaboutits privacy and civil liberties implications;asthe GAO Reportdetails,the governmenthas "not yet determinedandverified the accuracyof the databases be usedby to CAPPSII, stress testedand demonstrated accuracyand effectiveness the of all searchtools to be usedby CAPPSII, completeda securityplan to reduce opportunitiesfor abuseandprotectthe systemfrom unauthorized access, adoptedpolicies to establisheffective oversightof the useand operationof the system,identified and addressed privacy concerns, developedand all and documented process a underwhich passengers impactedby CAPPSII can
I

4

Curiously, however,the federallaws andregulationsthat governair passenger screening not, so far asamicushasbeenable to discover, do expresslyauthorizeany governmental demandfor proof of identity. The laws authorizethe sharingof information aboutindividuals who may posea risk to transportation nationalsecurity,both with governmententitiesand or airline and airport security.49 U.S.C. § 14(h)(l), (2). They authorizethe establishment policies or procedures preventthosenamedon certain of to "watch lists" from boardingairplanes.ld. at § 114(h)(3). And they
authorize TSA to "consider requiring passengerair carriers to share

passenger lists.

. . for the purposeof identifying individuals who may posea

threatto aviation safetyor nationalsecurity." Id. at § 114(h)(4). Theselaws neitherestablishnor authorizethe establishment a government of mandate that all air travelerspresentofficial identity credentials government to officials in order to boarda plane. Indeed,Section1 4{q), which setsforth the powersof TSA law enforcement personnel, silent on the power of is suchpersonnel impedethe progress or detain,air travelersfor failing to of, to show ill. [d. at § 114(q). Similarly, the laws that authorizepassenger screening not refer to do or otherwisementionany generalrequirement presentofficial identity to appealdecisionsand correcterroneous information." GAG Report,at 4. The GAG further notedthat amongthe "additional challenges"facing CAPPSII are "managingthe expansion the program'smissionbeyondits original of purpose"and "ensuringthat identity theft. . . cannotbe usedto negatethe securitybenefitsof the system." GAG Report,at 5 (terming these challenges "major risks" to CAPPSII's success).
~

credentialsin orderto fly. See,e.g.,49 U.S.C. §§ 44901,44903, In
accordancewith the administrative purpose found in Davis, 482 F .2d at 908

deterrence weapons explosives the law only mandates of and "consentto

other destructivesubstance[s]."49 U.S.C. § 44902(a)(I).
Furthennore, the government has by regulation defined the tenD

weapons, explosives, or incendiaries" and the term "screening location" to mean "each site at which individuals or property are inspected for the presenceof weapons, explosives, or incendiaries." 49 C.F.R. § 1540.5

"the presenceof weapons, explosives, or incendiaries" and does not, as a

matterof law, include ill checks. IV. A. ARGUMENT

~ema!!ds for _identitv cre~entials Dursuant to federal ~irpo~t ~earch_Dro!!ramsfor domestic fli!!hts violate the Fourth Amendment.~~ --

The district court found that the Fourth Amendmentwas not

requests unaccompanied detention,arrest,or any other penalty,other than by

seizurewithin the meaningof the FourthAmendment." Gilmore v. Ashcroft,

this finding ignoredthe differencebetweena requestfor ID that can be

6

refusedwith no detrimentand a demandfor the presentation official of identity credentials, well asthe role of demands identity credentialsin as for the federalair traveler screening program,andthus was erroneous a as matter of law.
The district court erred in analvzinQ: demaQ~for the identitY credentials as a mere reQuestfor identification.

The district court erredfirst in confusinga non-coercive requestfor identification with a coercivedemandfor officiallD credentials that cannot be refusedwithout loss of freedomof movement. The former doesnot implicate the Fourth Amendment;the latter does. The first differenceis betweena requestand a demand. A mere requestfor information, including identity information, which canbe refused without any negativeconsequences beyondthe encounteritself, is not coercive. Hiibel v. SixthJudicial District Court of Nevada,124S.Ct. 2451, 2458 (2004), citing INS v. Delgado,466 U.S. 210,216 (1984) (noting that a police ill request"doesnot, by itself, constitutea Fourth Amendment

2Hiibel doesnot help the government this case. First, Hiibel is in distinguishable its facts because requestfor ID at issuein Hiibel was on the groundedin reasonable suspicion. Hiibel, 124 S.Ct.at 2457 ("there is no questionthat the initial stopwas groundedin reasonable suspicion"). Hiibel is thus irrelevantto suspicionless administrativesearches.Second, ill the demandin Hiibel was basedon a statutethat was authoritativelyconstrued to require only the disclosureof one's name. Id. In this case,the government cited no statutoryor regulatoryauthority that establishes has a legislativeor quasi-legislative basisfor demanding official identity credentials.
"7

Government'sReply Memorandumin Supportof Motion to Dismissat 2,22 ("Govt's Reply Memo"). A requestthat cannotbe refusedwithout negativeconsequences is coercive,however. Delgado,466 U.S. at 216-17("if the personrefusesto answerandthe police take additionalsteps. . . to obtain an answer,then the Fourth Amendmentimposessomeminimal level of objectivejustification to validatethe detentionor seizure");Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 435 (1991) (police may ask questions without basisfor suspicion''as long asthe police do not conveya message compliancewith their requests that is required") (internal citationsomitted). The requestin this case,and in the air traveler screening program generally,is a coercivedemand that a would-beair traveleris not truly free to refuse. Absentthe governmental requirement, passenger ill the would be able to boardhis or her plane;plaintiff in this casepresumablywould have proceeded his intendeddestinationhad he not beenrequiredto show ill. to Although the recordis unclearon this point, it appears that any passenger who refusesto show ill will eitherbe requiredto undergosome unspecified,heightened search be unableto travel. To characterize or this choiceas voluntary, as a search that a would-betraveleris free to refuse,is to elevatelegal fiction over socialfact. This Court haspreviously recognizedthat "[t]he true voluntariness an airport searchis doubtful in of any event," and approvinglyquotedonecommentator saying: "A as passenger not, of course,compelledto travel by airplane,but many is 8

travelerswould reasonably concludethat they had no realistic alternative.. .. [W]e shouldcandidly acknowledge elementof coercion the and seeka rationalewhich justifies them,coercionnotwithstanding." $124,570US. Currency,873 F.2d at n. 8 (citation omitted); seeUnited Statesv. Berry, 670 F.2d 583,596-97(5th Cir., Unit B, 982) (en banc) (noting that airport stopsare inherentlyintimidating andjustify a presumptionthat a reasonable personwould not feel free to leave). The governmental requirement ID thereforerestrictsthe would-be passenger's freedomor liberty of movementand implicatesthe Fourth Amendment. Brower v. Countyof Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 596-97(1989) ("a
Fourth Amendment seizure [occurs] . . . only when thereis a governmental

terminationof freedomof movementthrough meansintentionally applied") (emphasis original); UnitedStatesv. Jacobsen, U.S. 109,n. 5 (1984) in 466 ("seizure" of persondefinedas"meaningfulinterference, howeverbrief, with an individual's freedomof movement");Florida v. Royer,460 U.S 491,498 (1983) (an individual "may not be detainedevenmomentarily without reasonable, objectivegroundsfor doing so"); Henry v. United States,361 U.S. 98, 103(1959) ("When the officers interruptedthe two men and restrictedtheir liberty of movement, arrest,for purposes this case, the of was complete"). The seconddifferenceis betweena demandfor identification and a demandfor official identity credentials.It is onething to be askedone's name;it is anotherto be requiredto produceproof via official identity

9

credentials.The Supreme Court recentlymadeexactlythis point in distinguishingthe statutorydemandfor "credible andreliable" identification at issuein Ko/enderv. Lawson,461 U.S. 352 (1983), from the Nevada statuteat issuein Hiibel, which "doesnot requirea suspect give the to officer a driver's licenseor any otherdocument." Hiibel, 124 S.Ct.at 2457. In short,this casedoesnot involve a requestfor ill "by itself." Accordingly, the district court erredas a matterof law in finding that the Fourth Amendmentwas not implicatedby the demandfor plaintiff's identity credentials.

2.

The district court erredin analyzing. demandfor the identitYcredentials indeQendently the federalaimort of search Qrogram.

The district court alsoerredin treatingthe demandfor plaintiff's official identity credentials thoughit werecompletelyindependent the as of federalair traveler screening program. In Davis, this Court held that an
airport search is a "functional, not merely a physical process ... [that] begins

with the planningof the invasionand continues until effective appropriation of the fruits of the searchfor subsequent proof of an offense." Davis, 482
F .2d at 896 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); id. at 904 ("since

late 1968,the government's participationin the development and implementationof the airport search programhasbeenof suchsignificance
so as to bring any searchconduct pursuant to that program within the reach

of the Fourth Amendment"). Accordingly, the district court erredas a matterof law in not analyzingthe demandfor plaintiff's official identity 10

credentials as an airport search.

Today,that "functional process"includesstatutoryrequirements that pertainto the identity of air travelers. Gilmore, 2004 WL 603530,*4-5 (citing, inter alia, 49 U.S.C. §§ 114(h)(2), 14(h)(3)(A),and 14(h)(3)(B».
The government told the district court that ill demands are "one part of the passengerscreening process used at airports." Government Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss at 14 ("Gov't Memo"). Indeed, this Court expressedconcern in Davis that the airport

screening process"will be subverted into a generalsearchfor evidenceof crime," noting that "[t]he recordis not entirely comforting in this respect" and citing the following testimonyfrom then-FAA Administrator Schaffer: "We havelaw enforcement informationnow available.. . . [W]e are going to scrubdown the manifest. Peoplebuy tickets on airlines and makereservations; oncetheir nameappears, we then startthe process.Is this man evadingthe law? Is he a known internationaloperator?Has he any record at all?" Davis, 482 F.2d at 909 and n. 43. This Court's 1973concernthat identity information would be usedfor ordinary law enforcement purposes now has materialized;the currentCAPPSprogramcheckspassenger information ill "againsta government-supplied watch list that containsthe namesof known or suspected terrorists." GAO Reportat 5. The contemplated future CAPPS II programintendsto make evengreateruseof information aboutan air passenger's identity; one of its goalswill be to discover"individuals who are the subjectof outstanding warrantsfor violent criminal behavior." Stone testimonyat 2. Accordingly, for purposes this appeal,the demandfor ill of 11

at issuehereis asmuch a part of the "functional process"of air traveler screeningasthe searches weapons explosivesat issuein Davis. The for and district court erredasa matter of law in finding that no Fourth Amendment
search or seizure occurred.

B.

Airoort searchesoursuant to the federal airoort _sear~h oro!!ram are limited to searchesfor weaoo!!sand exolosives and do not encomoass demandsfor official identity credentials.

In Davis, this Court upheldthe constitutionalityof the airport search programunderthe administrativesearch doctrine,finding that the permissible"administrativepurpose"of the scheme was "to preventthe carrying of weaponsor explosivesaboardaircraft" or "to deterpersons carrying suchmaterialfrom seekingto boardat all." Davis, 482 F.2d at 908; id. at n. 41 ("The only purposefor which the generalsearchor inspectionof
persons and their property shall be undertaken is to insure that dangerous

weapons will not be unlawfully carriedin air transportation in interstate or commerce")(internal quotationmarksandcitation omitted), Because administrativesearchschemes "require no warrantor " they "invest[] the Government with the power to particularizedsuspicion, intrude into the privacy of ordinary citizens," a power that "carries with it a vast potential for abuse." UnitedStatesv. Bulacan, 156F.3d 963,967 (9th Cu. 1998). Accordingly, administrativesearches would-bepassengers of at airports are constitutionalonly if tightly limited. $124,570US. Currency, 873 F.2d at 1244(Supreme Court has"repeatedlyemphasized the

12

importanceof keepingcriminal investigatorymotives from coloring administrativesearches"; needto keepadministrativesearches from becoming"infected by generallaw enforcement objectives,andthe concomitantneedfor the courtsto maintainvigilance"). This vigilance is articulatedby the administrativesearchdoctrine's requirements that "the searchservesa narrowbut compellingadministrative objective" andthat the intrusion is as "limited. . . as is consistent with the administrativeneedthatjustifies [it]" $124,570US. Currency,873 F.2d at 244-45(internal quotationmarksand citationsomitted). Theselimits are necessary because administrativesearches allowed to serve"the if are generalinterestin crime control, the FourthAmendmentwould do little to preventsuchintrusionsfrom becominga routinepart of American life." Indianapolis v. Edmond,531 U.S. 32,42 (2000). 1.. By its own temls. Davis only authorizes administrative searches weaDons exDlosives. for and

The demandfor identity credentials not encompassed Davis. is by Under Davis, the "essentialpurpose"of the air traveler screening process"is
not to detect weapons or explosives or to apprehendthose who carry them, but to deter persons carrying such material from seeking to board at a11.'~

Davis, 482 F.2d at 908 (footnoteomitted). The government told the district court that "the governingstatuteandregulationsplainly reflect that the
purpose of the screening procedure is to detect weapons and explosives.~

Gov't Memo at 23

3

But the government not justified demands identity credentials has for on this basis.The physicalprocesses magnetometer x-ray screening, of and perhapsaugmented more intensecheckingof baggageandthe use of by chemical"sniffers," are clearly connected the detectionof weaponsand to explosives. Requiringpassengers presentidentity credentials not. to is Nowherehasthe government explainedhow the ill requirementdeters peoplefrom carrying weapons explosivesaboardairplanes. Moreover, or given that the government alreadyscreens everypassenger weaponsand for explosives,the additionalintrusionof demanding proof of identity logically is not as limited as is consistent with the administrativeneedthatjustifies it.

c.

Demands for official identify credentials can!;!~~o$h~~i~e be justified as administrative searches. esoeci~!!1;in_Ii~h! of the dan2er that the airoort search orO2ram will be infected by ordinarv law enforcement 2oals.

The governmentarguedbelow that demanding credentialsis ill necessary ensurethat known or suspected to terrorists,namedon secret government"watch lists," do not boardairplanes. Gilmore, 2004 WL 603530,*5. The first problemwith this reasoning that it contradictsthe is government'srepresentation "the purposeof the screening that procedureis
to detect weapons and explosives"

the "essentialpurpose"of the airport

search programupheldin Davis - and thus expands search the program's purposeto include searching known or suspected for terroristswho are not carrying weaponsor explosives. As notedabove,the term "screening"is definedby regulationto meanonly the detectionof weapons, explosives,

14

has and incendiaries.49 CFR § 1540.5. The government cited no authority that showsthat the "screening"of passengers law includesofficial by identity verification. Second, just as identifying passengers doesnot obviously further the "essentialpurpose"of deterringpeoplefrom carrying weapons explosives or on board a plane,it also doesnot obviously further the detectionof any other kind of threat. The government not introducedevidencethat ill has requirements help identify terroristsor any otherkind of threatto air safety in addition to screeningfor weapons explosives;the government and has offered no evidenceto showthat the list of known or suspected terrorists usedin screening would-beair travelersis at all reliable. The objective may be compelling,but therehasbeenno showingthat the ill requirementserves it. Even if the Court were to acceptfor the sakeof argumentthat the ill requirementfurthersthe public interestin aviation safety,thereis a significant risk that it will be corruptedby generallaw enforcement goals.
Bulacan, 156 F .3d at 969 ("an unlawful secondarypurpose invalidates an

otherwisepermissibleadministrativesearchscheme"). The currentCAPPS programcheckspassenger information "againsta government-supplied ill watch list that containsthe namesof known or suspected terrorists." GAO
Report at 5.

More generally,given the rise of computertechnology,one's nameis more than a mereidentifier: it is a key to many databases containingvast 15

amountsof personalinformation, suchasthe National Crime Information Center("NCIC") andthe Multi-State Anti-Terrorism Infonnation Exchange ("MATRIX"). The NCIC, for example,makescriminal history information availableto law enforcement officials throughoutthe United States. See
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Report of the National Task Force on Privacy,

Technology and Criminal JusticeInjormation, NCL 187669,at 47 (Aug. 2001) (BJS Report),availableat
<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/mtfptcj.pdf>

The temptationto use

information from ID checkpoints matchagainstNCIC or other systems to of recordswill be great,yet thereis no obviousway to hold the government accountable suchdata-mining,or evento know whetherthe government for usesairport m searches ordinary law enforcement for purposes. Finally, the district court also erredin looking at plaintiff's facts in particular, ratherthan the ID requirement general. SeeBulacan, 156F.3d in at 967 (in administrativesearchcase,court must "considerthe entire classof searches permissibleunderthe scheme, ratherthan focusingon the facts of
the casebefore it"; $124,570 U.S. CU"ency, 873 F.2d at 1244 (same),

This distinction is significantbecause ordinary warrantless the search

3Thereare also concerns aboutthe accuracy suchrecords. The of Bureauof JusticeStatisticsreport notedthat "inadequacies the accuracy in and completeness criminal history recordsis the single most serious of deficiency in the Nation's criminal history recordinformation systems." BJS Reportat 38. Theseinadequacies create"a substantial risk that the [database] userwill makean incorrector misguideddecision,"suchas an unjustified arrestor a lost job opportunity. Id.

6

involves a case-specific factualdetennination,and if the searchis upheld, "the approvalcoversthat caseonly." [d. "An administrative search is different. By approvinga warrantless search underthis rationale,a court placesits stampof approvalon an entire classof similar searches," with "general,long-termimplications." Id. The obviouslong-termimplication is the untrammeled expansionof governmental checkingthroughoutsociety. Under the district court's ID analysis,which ignoresthe coerciveelementof requiring ill in order to fly. which accepts without evidentiaryjustification the government'sassertions of the needto checkill, and which doesnot evenrequirethat the government produceduly promulgatedlaws or regulationsestablishing the metesand boundsof the authority to demandID, a regimeofID checking could be established virtually any public placegroundedsolely in the for needto verify whethera personis on a list of known or suspected terrorists. This is preciselywhy the Supreme Court in warnedthat administrative searches must not be allowed to serveordinary law enforcement purposes: "to preventsuchintrusionsfrom becominga routinepart of Americanlife."
Edmond, 531 U.S. at 42.

D.

Demandsfor identity credentials pursuant to federal air traveler screenin!!oro!!rams are not reasonableunder Brown v. Texas. '" Airport searches' not outsidethe [Fourth] Amendmentsimply are

" because they arebeing conducted all airports. Davis, 482 F .2d at 905 at

Tacitly concedingthis point, the government arguedbelow that demanding
7

illis a reasonable meansof effectuatingthe purposeof airline safety. The government'sargument,simply stated,is that it is reasonable seekto to

piracy or terrorismor a threatto airline passenger safety" beforethey are allowed to board. The ill requirement "intendedto enableair carriersto is identify individuals who posea threatto airline passenger safety,and to take

Memo at 12.

Given that this Court haspreviously found that the mandatory productionof official identity credentials other contextsis a "serious in intrusion on personalsecurity,"Lawsonv. Kolender, 658 F.2d 1362, 136667 (9th Cir. 1981)afl"d on other grounds,461 U.S. 352 (1983),amicus respectfullysubmitsthat the government failed to show that the ill has demandin this caseis reasonable.

1.

The government not show!!, deman~!!!g has that _of~cial identitYcredentials an effective m~ansof furthering the is administrativeinterestin aviation safetY.

Under the reasonableness of Brown v. Texas,443 U.S. 47 (1979)~ test

any kind of "checkpoint" searchor seizuremustbe evaluated termsof in "the degreeto which the seizureadvances public interest." fd. at 51. the Although a suspicionless search programneednot be the best or only means by which to further the public interest,it cannotbe upheldmerely because it

undertake"searchingexaminationof [the] 'effectiveness'"of the program.

18

Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393 (1978) ("[T]he merefact that law enforcement may be mademore efficient can neverby itself justify disregard of the Fourth Amendment."). Courtsroutinely assess statisticalevidenceregardingeffectiveness. .6% of stoppeddrivers were arrested driving underthe influence); United States for v. Martinez-Fuente, 428 U.S. 543, 554 (1976) (noting 146,000carsstopped over eight daysand 171found to containillegal aliens). In this case,

district court madeno factual findings asto, the actualeffectiveness the of

in the record shouldprecludejudgment for the government. Alternatively, this Court may speculate to the expected as rate of
success. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 659-60 (1986) (absent

empirical data,assuming that therearevery few unlicenseddrivers on the roads,so that on average police would needto stopmany carsin order to catcha single unlicenseddriver). In this case,the Court shouldassume that therearevery few known or suspected terroristsin comparison the to

alonethat ill requirements unlikely to be effective. For instance, are the

one in a thousandcarscontainedillegal aliens. One neednot be a terrorism

19

expertto know that far fewer than one in a thousand travelersis a known air
or suspectedterrorist.

2.

The government not shownthe existence an has of "exglicit. neutral" glan for ID demands.

Moreover,unlessa suspicionless demandfor ill is "carried out pursuantto a plan embodyingexplicit, neutrallimitations on the conductof individual officers," the demandviolatesthe Fourth Amendmentbecause "the risk of arbitrary and abusivepolice practicesexceeds tolerablelimits. Brownt 443 U.S. at 52. The government will likely protestthat demandingID from every passenger neutral,but this argumentis flawed. First, the recorddoesnot is supportthe assertion that everypassenger in fact requiredto show ill is The record showsinsteadthat plaintiff was offered an opportunityto submit to a searchas an alternativeto presentingidentity credentials. Gilmore, 2004 WL 603530,.1 Second, government not explainedhow the option of the has alternativescreening objectively implemented a neutralfashion. The is in problem is that the government refusedto describethe applicablerules. has Under the closely relatedadministrativesearchdoctrine,a "statute's inspectionprogram,in termsof the certaintyandregularity of its application, must provide a constitutionallyadequate substitutefor a warrant." New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691, 703 (1987),quotingDonovanv. Dewey,452 U.S 594,603 (1981). The statutes regulationsat issuein this casedo not and

20

meetthis criterion. Even a cursoryreview of cases Burger and like Donovan showsthat the Supreme Court carefully examinedthe statutes in thosecases determinetheir objectivity andneutrality. Burger, 482 U..S.at to
711; Donovan, 452 U.S. at 603-05. When the regulationsthat governthe

constitutea plan embodyingexplicit, neutrallimitations. In short,the government cannotjustify its demandfor ill in this case

conductof individual officers." No plan that is kept secretfrom the public and is not disclosedin the courseof a constitutionalchallengecanbe

that governmental demands official identity credentials reasonable for are underBrown.

E.

Demandsfor identity credentials oursu!,nt-to the f~deral airoort search oro!!ram cannot be justified under the "soecial needs" doctrine.

Under the specialneedsdoctrine,a closecousinof the administrative searchdoctrine,warrantless, suspicionless searches permissiblewhen the are existenceof "specialneeds, beyondthe nonnal needfor law enforcement, makethe warrantandprobable-cause requirement impracticable." New Jerseyv. T.L.O.,469 U.S. 325,351 (1985) (Blackmun,J., concurring). Such

a search or seizure that such intrusions are not the random or arbitrary acts

21

489 U.S. 602,621-22 (1989). Amicus hasalreadyexplainedin detail how

question of whether "special needs" exist. The Supreme Court has made clear that the danger of terrorism, in

itself, is not a "specialneed." Edmond,531 U.S. at 44 ("there are circumstances mayjustify a law enforcement that checkpointwherethe

For example. . . the Fourth Amendmentwould almostcertainlypermit an appropriatelytailored roadblocksetup to thwart an imminent terrorist
attack"). In other words, an imminent terrorist threat has an "emergency

terrorism is simply "ordinary crime control." It is true that Edmond disclaims any intent to alter the law regarding

airport searches.But the law of airport searches beenbasedon an has administrativeinterestin deterringpassengers from carrying weaponsor explosiveson boardplanes,not the interestin apprehending terrorists The Supreme Court's disclaimershouldbe readin that context,not as a blank checkto institute any counter-terrorism program.
v.

CONCLUSION

Aviation securityis a seriousproblem,andthe eventsof September 1 haveheightened people'sconcerns aboutair travel. But the fact that aviation securityis a seriousproblemdoesnot relieve the governmentof the

22

burdenof justifying its proposedsolutions. Both the record andthe governmentarguments this caseshowthat thereis no statutoryor in regulatoryauthority andno evidentiaryjustification for suspicionless governmentill demands all would-beair travelers. of For the foregoingreasons, Court shouldreversethe district this court's decisionto dismissthis caseandremandthis casefor further proceedings determinewhetherthe government to actedlawfully in demanding official identity credentials from plaintiff-appellant Gilmore.

DATED: August 19,2004 By Lee Tien (SBN 148216) Kurt Opsahl(SBN 191303) ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDAllON 454 Shotwell Street SanFrancisco,CA 94110 Telephone: (415) 436-9333 Facsimile: (415) 436-9993

Attorneysfor Amicus Curiae ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDAllON

23

CERTIFICATE

-

OF

COMPLIANCE

This brief complieswith the type-volumelimitation of Fed.R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)because brief contains5,564words, excludingthe this partsof the brief exempted Fed.R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii). by

2.

This brief complieswith the typefacerequirements Fed.R. of

App. P. 32(a)(5)andthe type style requirements Fed.R. App. P. 32(a)(6) of because brief hasbeenprepared a proportionally spaced this in typeface using Microsoft Word 2000 version9 in TimesNew Roman, 14-pointfont.

DATED: August 19,2004 By
Lee Tien (SBN 148216) Kurt Opsahl (SBN 191303) ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION

454 Shotwell Street SanFrancisco,CA 94110 Telephone: (415) 436-9333 Facsimile: (415) 436-9993 Attorneysfor Amicus Curiae ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDA nON

CERDFICA TE OF SERVICE certify that on August 19,2004, an original and fifteen (15) copiesof BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION IN SUPPORTOF PLAINTll"F-APPELLANT JOHN GILMORE were sent,via handdelivery, to the Clerk of the United States Court of Appealsfor the Ninth Circuit, 95 SeventhStreet,SanFrancisco, California 94 10-3939,and two (2) copieswere sent,via United Statesmail,
postageprepaid to:

William M. Simpich,Esq. Tenth Floor 1736Franklin Street Oakland,CA 94612 Joshua Waldman,Esq. USDOJCivil Division, Appellate Branch 950 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. Room 7232 Washington,D.C. 20530 Also servedby email to: joshua. waldman@usdoj.gov
Kathryn M. Carroll, Esq. Coddington, Hicks & Danforth 555 Twin Dolphin Drive

James Harrison,Esq. P. Law Office 980 Ninth Street Sacramento, 95814 CA DouglasN. Letter, Esq. Room 7300 U.S. Department Justice of Civil Division FederalProgramsBranch 20 Massachusetts Avenue,N.W Washington,DC 10530 Angela Dotson,Esq. Piper Rudnick 1999Avenueof the Stars Fourth Floor Los Angeles,CA 90067-6022

Suite 300 RedwoodCity, CA 94065

Counsel Amicus Cunae for
Electronic Frontier Foundation