NCJ Number
84494
Date Published
1981
Length
42 pages
Annotation
Court decisions bearing upon the application of fourth amendment search and seizure issues to drug enforcement airport searches are reviewed.
Abstract
In 1974, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) initiated a nationwide program of onsite airport surveillance, involving the use of highly skilled DEA agents monitoring the airports to intercept drug traffickers who meet certain drug-courier profiles -- checklists of characteristics believed to be typical of persons carrying narcotics. The presence of a number of profile characteristics alerts an agent to a particular passenger, and should observation indicate that an investigation may be warranted, a stop will generally be made. There is no one national drug courier profile, as each DEA airport unit draws on its own experience within a particular airport. Because the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Mendenhall and Reid failed to clarify the fourth amendment issues surrounding stops, seizures, and detentions of persons in airports suspected by DEA agents of carrying narcotics, the Federal courts have continued to refer to pre-Mendenhall decisions rendered in their respective circuits. Relevant decisions by the Second, Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal are examined. In the case of canine searches to determine the existence of narcotics being carried by a person, the courts have not used traditional 'Katz' analysis, while using a variety of doctrines from other contexts that are irrational and unwarranted in their application to the dog-search issue. None of the doctrines provide any justification for excusing the dog's sniff from fourth amendment warrant protection. Until the Supreme Court renders a definitive statement on the issue, the Federal courts will continue to use conflicting theories and standards. A total of 153 footnotes are provided.