Airport racial profiling in the United States

Last updated

Airport racial profiling in the United States is U.S. government activity directed at a suspect or group of suspects because of their race or ethnicity. Under Fourth Amendment analysis, objective factors measure whether law enforcement action is constitutional, and under the Fourteenth Amendment challenges to the practice are assessed under the customary strict scrutiny test for racial classifications. [1]

Contents

Since September 11, 2001, there have been reports on increases in racial profiling at airports, particularly targeting people who appear to be Muslim or of Middle Eastern descent. It has been a routine practice by law enforcement officials to stop individuals who are profiled because of their race and religious and ethnic appearance or who may appear to be "suspicious". [2]

Background

In the weeks following September 11, 2001, federal, state and local law enforcement officials investigated those responsible for the September 11 attacks during which nearly 3,000 people died. They assessed the United States's vulnerability to future acts of terrorism. Investigations showed the suspects of the crime to be of Middle Eastern origin.

In the wake of the September 11 attacks, US officials responded to the fears of air travelers by reinforcing security. Despite more thorough investigation of baggage and increased security staffing, there were so many vast open spaces, exits and entrances at airport hubs that prevention of incidents was problematic.

Los Angeles International Airport was recently found to be the most vulnerable to infiltration in the US when it comes to smuggling weapons. Knives, guns, and explosives carried by federal undercover inspectors were missed by LA International airport screeners at checkpoints 41% of the time in an airport security test. The test, which checked security at America's 32 biggest airports, was carried out in June 2002 by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which assumed responsibility for airport security. [3]

Criticism

A 2009 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences asserted that, due to terrorists being vastly outnumbered by innocents, racial profiling is no more effective than random profiling. [4] It has also been claimed that any form of profiling is less secure than random profiling, because a terrorist cell can simply have a number of members go through airport security, until one is reliably not profiled, then use that individual to perform an attack. [5] None of the 19 successful hijackers in the September 11 attacks were reported or even remembered by checkpoint supervisors. [6]

Michael Kinsley asked in a 2001 article for Slate magazine if a rational reason exists to single out Arabic-looking men at airport. [7]

King Downing, the national coordinator of the American Civil Liberties Union's Campaign Against Airport Racial Profiling, says he was the victim of profiling by police at Logan International Airport in Boston, MA. He was going to the federal court to challenge a screening technique used around the country that looks at suspicious behavior patterns to identify potential terrorists. [8] Downing alleges he was stopped and questioned by state police after arriving on a flight to attend a meeting on racial profiling. He has sued the Massachusetts Port Authority, which operates the airport, and the Massachusetts State Police, citing they violated his constitutional rights. Downing, who is black and wears a short beard, believes he was targeted because of his race. In his lawsuit, Downing alleges the behavioral screening system used at Logan Airport encourages racial profiling. His lawsuit also seeks a ruling to declare airport racial profiling as unconstitutional.

In 2002, after the September 11 attack on the US, Logan Airport began a program called "Behavior Assessment Screening System" which allows police to question passengers whose behavior appears to be "suspicious". Logan was the first airport in the country to use the system. [9] The plausibility of any benefit from "Behavior Assessment" has been questioned in a 2012 study by G. Stuart Mendenhall and Mark Schmidhofer of the Cato Institute. [10]

Legality

The Fourth Amendment provides that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". In its 1968 Fourth Amendment ruling, Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court found that reasonable, articulable suspicion was sufficient grounds for a police officer to briefly stop and question a citizen. They ruled that such suspicion must not be based on the officer's "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch,' but on the specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience." Terry v. Ohio employed a "totality of circumstances" test to determine the reasonableness of police investigatory stops. [11]

US support

The Obama administration's decision to heighten airport security for passengers while traveling to the US from 14 nations triggered a backlash of complaints from Muslim and privacy groups[ which? ] who say President Barack Obama's response to terror threats amounted to little more than racial profiling. [12]

Frank Cilluffo, former special assistant for Homeland Security under then-President George W. Bush, said "airports need to be 'profiling' based on behavior even though it's a 'dirty word.'" [13]

A 2010 poll by USA Today showed Americans were in favor of more intensive security check for people who fit a profile of a terrorist based on age, ethnicity and gender. [14]

See also

Related Research Articles

Racial profiling or ethnic profiling is the act of suspecting, targeting or discriminating against a person on the basis of their ethnicity, religion, or nationality, rather than on individual suspicion or available evidence. Racial profiling involves discrimination against minority populations and often builds on negative stereotypes of the targeted demographic. Racial profiling can involve disproportionate stop searches, traffic stops, and the use of surveillance technology for facial identification.

After the September 11 attacks, there was an immediate call to action regarding the state of aviation security measures as the hijackers involved in 9/11 were able to successfully pass through security and take command of the plane. The existing security measures flagged more than half of the 19 hijackers in 9/11; however, they were cleared to board the plane because their bags were not found to contain any explosives. In the months and years following September 11, 2001, security at many airports worldwide were reformed to deter similar terrorist plots.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Transportation Security Administration</span> United States federal government agency

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is an agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that has authority over the security of transportation systems within, and connecting to the United States. It was created as a response to the September 11 attacks to improve airport security procedures and consolidate air travel security under a combined federal law enforcement and regulatory agency.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Richard Reid</span> British terrorist jailed in a US federal prison

Richard Colvin Reid, also known as the Shoe Bomber, is the perpetrator of the failed shoe bombing attempt on a transatlantic flight in 2001. Born to a father who was a career criminal, Reid converted to Islam as a young man in prison after years as a petty criminal. Later he became radicalized and went to Pakistan and Afghanistan, where he trained and became a member of al-Qaeda.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Airport security</span> Measures to prevent crime at an airport

Airport security includes the techniques and methods used in an attempt to protect passengers, staff, aircraft, and airport property from malicious harm, crime, terrorism, and other threats.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">American Airlines Flight 63 (2001)</span> Failed act of terrorism

On December 22, 2001, a failed shoe bombing attempt occurred aboard American Airlines Flight 63. The aircraft, a Boeing 767-300ER with 197 passengers and crew aboard, was flying from Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris, France, to Miami International Airport in the U.S. state of Florida.

The Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS) is a counter-terrorism system in place in the United States air travel industry that matches passenger information with other data sources. The United States Transportation Security Administration (TSA) maintains a watchlist, pursuant to 49 USC § 114 (h)(2), of "individuals known to pose, or suspected of posing, a risk of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to airline or passenger safety." The list is used to pre-emptively identify terrorists attempting to buy airline tickets or board aircraft traveling in the United States, and to mitigate perceived threats.

The No Fly List, maintained by the United States federal government's Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), is one of several lists included in algorithmic rulesets used by government agencies and airlines to decide who to allow to board airline flights. The TSC's No Fly List is a list of people who are prohibited from boarding commercial aircraft for travel within, into, or out of the United States. This list has also been used to divert aircraft away from U.S. airspace that do not have start- or end-point destinations within the United States. The number of people on the list rises and falls according to threat and intelligence reporting. There were reportedly 16,000 names on the list in 2011, 21,000 in 2012, and 47,000 in 2013.

Security theater is the practice of implementing security measures that are considered to provide the feeling of improved security while doing little or nothing to achieve it.

A Terry stop in the United States allows the police to briefly detain a person based on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause which is needed for arrest. When police stop and search a pedestrian, this is commonly known as a stop and frisk. When police stop an automobile, this is known as a traffic stop. If the police stop a motor vehicle on minor infringements in order to investigate other suspected criminal activity, this is known as a pretextual stop. Additional rules apply to stops that occur on a bus.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Secondary Security Screening Selection</span> Airport security measure in the United States

Secondary Security Screening Selection or Secondary Security Screening Selectee, known by its initials SSSS, is an airport security measure in the United States which selects passengers for additional inspection. People from certain countries are subject to it by default. The passengers may be known as Selectee, Automatic Selectee or the Selectee list. The size and contents of the list fluctuates and is a secret, although the Transportation Security Administration has stated there are tens of thousands of names on it.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Full body scanner</span> Device which detects objects in or around a persons body

A full-body scanner is a device that detects objects on or inside a person's body for security screening purposes, without physically removing clothes or making physical contact. Unlike metal detectors, full-body scanners can detect non-metal objects, which became an increasing concern after various airliner bombing attempts in the 2000s. Some scanners can also detect swallowed items or items hidden in the body cavities of a person. Starting in 2007, full-body scanners started supplementing metal detectors at airports and train stations in many countries.

In the United States, border security includes the protection of ports, airports, and the country's 3,017-mile (4,855 km) land border with Canada and 1,933-mile (3,111 km) border with Mexico. The U.S. concept of border security is deeply entwined with the persistent actual or perceived threat of terrorism, as well as more universal concerns such as immigration control, smuggling, and human trafficking. As such, the U.S. federal government is constantly reevaluating and adjusting its border security policies to reflect the perceived threats posed to the United States.

Erroll G. Southers is an American expert in transportation security and counterterrorism. He is the author of Homegrown Violent Extremism (2013). Southers is a Professor of the Practice in National & Homeland Security, the Director of Homegrown Violent Extremism Studies and the Director of the Safe Communities Institute at the University of Southern California (USC) Sol Price School of Public Policy. He is also the research area leader for Countering Violent Extremism at the DHS National Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (CREATE) and managing director, counter-terrorism & infrastructure protection at TAL Global Corporation. He was assistant chief of the Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) police department's office of homeland security and intelligence. He is a former special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and was deputy director of homeland security under California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. In 2009 he was nominated by President Barack Obama to become head of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), but Southers withdrew.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Don't touch my junk</span> Phrase

"Don't touch my junk" is a phrase that became popular in the United States in 2010 as a criticism of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) patdowns. The word "junk" is American English slang for a man's genitals. The phrase refers to the offense many people took to the November 2010 decision by TSA to begin full body patdowns of airline passengers in the U.S. who refused to go through a full body scanner.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response team</span>

A Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response team, sometimes Visible Intermodal Protection and Response (VIPR) is a Transportation Security Administration program. Various government sources have differing descriptions of VIPR's exact mission. It is specifically authorized by 6 U.S.C. § 1112 which says that the program is to "augment the security of any mode of transportation at any location within the United States". Authority for the program is under the Secretary of Homeland Security. The program falls under TSA's Office of Law Enforcement/Federal Air Marshal Service. TSA OLE/FAMS shares responsibility for the program with the Office of Security Operations and Transportation Sector Network Management.

Racial profiling by law enforcement at the local, state, and federal levels, leads to discrimination against people in the African American, Native American, Asian, Pacific Islander, Latino, Arab, and Muslim communities of the United States. Examples of racial profiling are the use of race to determine which drivers to stop for minor traffic violations, or the use of race to determine which pedestrians to search for illegal contraband. Besides such disproportionate searching of African Americans and members of other minority groups, other examples of racial profiling by law enforcement in the U.S. include the Trump-era China Initiative following racial profiling against Chinese American scientists; the targeting of Hispanic and Latino Americans in the investigation of illegal immigration; and the focus on Middle Eastern and South Asians present in the country in screenings for ties to Islamic terrorism. These suspicions may be held on the basis of belief that members of a target racial group commit crimes at a higher rate than that of other racial groups.

BDA, until 2016 called SPOT, is a program launched in the United States by the Transportation Security Administration to identify potential terrorists among people at an airport by a set of 94 objective criteria, all of which are signs for either stress, fear, or deception. Passengers meeting enough of the criteria are, under the program, referred for a patdown and additional screening. The criteria were initially secret, but in March 2015, The Intercept published them after obtaining the information from an anonymous source.

An extensive system of racial profiling is used in or by Israel, primarily by Israeli security forces. Racial profiling is the act of suspecting or targeting a person of a certain race on the basis of observed characteristics or behavior, rather than on individual suspicion. Bio-social profiling has been seen as "integral to the Israeli security apparatus."

Airport privacy involves the right of personal privacy for passengers when it comes to screening procedures, surveillance, and personal data being stored at airports. This practice intertwines airport security measures and privacy specifically the advancement of security measures following the 9/11 attacks in the United States and other global terrorist attacks. Several terrorist attacks, such as 9/11, have led airports all over the world to look to the advancement of new technology such as body and baggage screening, detection dogs, facial recognition, and the use of biometrics in electronic passports. Amidst the introduction of new technology and security measures in airports and the growing rates of travelers there has been a rise of risk and concern in privacy.

References

  1. Peter Siggins. "Racial Profiling in an Age of Terrorism". Santa Clara University. Archived from the original on 2019-01-08. Retrieved 2016-06-24.
  2. Testimony from Amnesty International USA's hearing on racial profiling through airports
  3. "Attack shows limits to airport security". BBC News. July 5, 2002. Archived from the original on June 20, 2016. Retrieved June 24, 2016.
  4. Press, William (23 December 2008). "Strong profiling is not mathematically optimal for discovering rare malfeasors". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences . 106 (6): 1716–1719. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0813202106 . PMC   2634801 . PMID   19188610. Archived from the original on 11 April 2011. Retrieved 12 May 2011.
  5. Chakrabarti, Samidh; Aaron Strauss (16 May 2002). "Carnival Booth: An Algorithm for Defeating the Computer-Assisted Passenger Screening System". Archived from the original on 14 May 2011. Retrieved 12 May 2011.
  6. Ahlers, Mike M.; Jeanne Meserve (15 April 2011). "TSA security looks at people who complain about ... TSA security". CNN . Archived from the original on 11 May 2011. Retrieved 13 May 2011.
  7. Michael Kinsley (29 September 2001). "Discrimination we're afraid to be against". Slate Magazine. Archived from the original on 24 February 2020. Retrieved 24 February 2020.
  8. Michael Dwer/AP. "ACLU official alleges racial profiling at airport". MSNBC Travel News. Archived from the original on 2016-09-15. Retrieved 2016-06-24.
  9. "Boston airport expands behavior detection program". www.cnn.com. Archived from the original on 2023-03-03. Retrieved 2023-03-03.
  10. Mendenhall, G. Stuart; Mark Schmidhofer (December 2012). "Screening Tests for Terrorism" (PDF). Regulation . Archived (PDF) from the original on 2013-05-13. Retrieved 2014-03-04.
  11. Feder, Jody. "Racial Profiling: Legal and Constitutional Issues" (PDF). fas.org. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2015-03-19. Retrieved 2015-04-04.
  12. Murray, Nancy (2011). "Obama and the global war on terror". Race & Class. 53 (2): 84–93. doi:10.1177/0306396811413046. S2CID   144783509.
  13. "Airport Security Measures Draw Accusations of 'Profiling'". www.foxnews.com. Fox News. January 6, 2010. Archived from the original on February 24, 2020. Retrieved February 24, 2020.
  14. Susan Page (January 12, 2010). "Poll: Most support ethnic profiling in air security". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2020-11-12. Retrieved 2020-02-24.