5.11.7

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 5.11.7 Airport Searches or Searches at Entrances to Government Buildings (Including Suspicionless Searches).

“[L]uggage consigned to common baggage areas of public carrier, airport or similar facility, involves reduced expectation of privacy as opposed to when it is carried personally.” State v. Weinstein, 190 Ariz. 306, 947 P.2d 880 (App. 1997) (Div. 2), citing State v. Millan, 185 Ariz. 398, 916 P.2d 1114 (App. 1995) (Div. 1) (permissible to detain and squeeze luggage).

Reasonable suspicion is not necessary before agents may use narcotics detection dog or other techniques to examine suitcase while it is being held by airline personnel, so long as that examination does not meaningfully interfere with defendant’s possessory interest. State v. Peters, 189 Ariz. 216, 914 P.2d 228 (1997) (officers could detain and squeeze luggage checked in at airport); State v. Houpt, 169 Ariz. 550, 821 P.2d 211 (App. 1991) (Div. 2) (The police used a dog on suitcases in baggage area, while defendant was seized on concourse above. The illegal seizure occurred independently of the dog sniff of the suitcase, so the drugs found in the suitcase should not have been suppressed).

The “luggage check and metal detection procedure” constitutes a Fourth Amendment search, but is a “recognized exception” to the individualized suspicion requirement. State ex rel. Ekstrom v. Justice Court of Kingman, 136 Ariz. 1, 6-7, 663 P.2d 992, 997-98 (1983).

Under the “exempted areas” doctrine, the Fourth Amendment requires neither a warrant nor probable cause for searches in certain areas, such as airports and entrances to government buildings. United States v. Kincade, 379 F.3d 813, 822 (9th Cir. 2004). “[W]here the risk to public safety is substantial and real, blanket...