The DEA Claims To Be Able To Search Your Bag Without Your Consent. But Can They?
Recent footage shows a federal agent attempting to search a citizen’s bag without their consent, despite precedent saying that’s illegal.

Can federal law enforcement demand an impromptu spot-check of your bag after you pass through airport security?
Recent footage released by the Institute for Justice (I.J.) shows an officer from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) attempting to do precisely that. In the video, which was recorded earlier this year, a DEA agent repeatedly attempts to search the bag of a man identified as David C., who had already passed through a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) checkpoint and was attempting to board his flight. At one point, the agent implies that he could search David's backpack without his consent.
"I don't consent to search, sir," David tells the officer. "You don't have to consent," the officer responds, adding moments later, "I don't care [about] your consent stuff."
The video shows the officer offering David the choice between boarding the plane for his flight and staying with his bag. "Set your bag down and then you can walk on the plane," the agent says. "You can do that, but you can't take the bag."
"Am I being detained right now?" David asks. "Not you, but your bag," the officer replies.
David had good reason to be disquieted by the prospect of his bag being searched, even notwithstanding the fact that it contained no contraband. According to a 2016 USA Today report, the DEA annually seizes hundreds of millions of dollars from thousands of airport travelers through a controversial process called civil asset forfeiture. Civil forfeiture allows federal agents to take large quantities of cash from individuals—sometimes for years—without ever charging them with a crime.
David's situation is, in a way, familiar to many Americans. He was in Cincinnati for a business trip, but got sick and had to rebook his flight back to New York at the last minute. On the day of his flight, he passed through TSA and entered the airport terminal as normal, but was thereafter approached by the agent, who asked him for his ID and for permission to search his bag.
When David initially declined, the agent pulled out his badge.
The officer told David that he was suspected of illicit activity because he had booked his flight shortly before it took off. "When you buy a last-minute ticket, we get alerts," the officer explains to David. "We come out, and we talk to those people, which I've tried to do to you, but you wouldn't allow me to do it."
David was initially skeptical that the agent had the authority to search through his bag without consent, but the officer told him, "We wouldn't do this—and be doing this across the country—if it wasn't legal."
But is it legal? Outside an airport, a federal officer demanding that a citizen display the contents of their bag would be ludicrous unless, first, there was some exigent circumstance, and second, the agent had probable cause. Why would the mere fact that David's altercation with the agent took place inside an airport change that?
"Under the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Place, the government needs 'reasonable suspicion' to briefly seize your bag at an airport without a warrant or consent to subject it to a drug-detection dog's sniff," Orin Kerr, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, tells Reason. "Courts have indicated that the mere fact that a one-way ticket was purchased last-minute is not enough to create reasonable suspicion."
"If that's all the officer was relying on, detaining the bag violated the Fourth Amendment," he adds.
At one point in the video, David argues that he was effectively being detained because he could not reasonably leave the airport without his bag, which contained his work laptop. The officer replies, "Your bags are not—they're different from your person. There's a difference."
Legally, that's not true. "The seizure of David's bag is fairly clearly a seizure of David himself, per Supreme Court precedent," explains Matthew Tokson, a professor at the University of Utah's S.J. Quinney College of Law. "Such a seizure can effectively restrain the person since he is subjected to the possible disruption of his travel plans in order to remain with his luggage or to arrange for its return."
The DEA agent's attempted interdiction ultimately caused so much delay that David was forced to miss his flight entirely. When David finally gave consent to the agent to search his bag (rather than wait even longer for the agent to attempt to obtain a warrant), the agent found nothing illegal inside it.
"What happened to me was wrong," David said in an interview with I.J. "And knowing that this happens to a lot of other people, I feel that sharing my story will hopefully make a difference."
I.J. is currently pursuing a class action lawsuit against the DEA over allegedly unconstitutional searches and seizures, including civil asset forfeitures, at U.S. airports. "Currently that lawsuit is wrapping up discovery and moving to class certification," a spokesperson for I.J. tells Reason.
The DEA did not respond to Reason's request for comment.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
""The officer told David that he was suspected of illicit activity because he had booked his flight shortly before it took off. "When you buy a last-minute ticket, we get alerts," the officer explains to David.
Will beat
""Under the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Place, the government needs 'reasonable suspicion' to briefly seize your bag at an airport without a warrant or consent to subject it to a drug-detection dog's sniff,"""
This isn't about a dog sniff, it's about anti-terrorism and the P.A.T.R.I.O.T act. That act was one of the largest bi-partisan pieces of legislation.
Then why is the DEA searching bags and not DHS?
All the letter groups are probably working together in an airport.
I don't know. I think with the DEA it's still mostly about seizing drugs and money.
But you are probably right and the anti-terrorism excuse will work for them.
""I think with the DEA it’s still mostly about seizing drugs and money.""
I still agree with that. But terrorism has been an all hands on deck issue.
Sorry, no. The DEA has no jurisdiction for anti-terrorism activities.
Drugs? Terrorism? Naughty sex things? What's the difference? It's all so bad that we need goon squads to ignore all standards of justice to fight them.
I don't think it's as cut and dry as that. We are talking about a federal officer following suspicious activity guidance for airports.
Not that I agree with what happened. Seems like a DEA agent being an authoritarian jerk. But I don't think the asshole would get punished for following those guidelines.
Absurd comment. There is no "probable cause" in any reasonable sense.
The DEA has no jurisdiction for anti-terrorism activities.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember the DEA being pulled into the War on Terror under the umbrella of "terrorists get money from drug dealers."
I think that was in the 80s.
""“terrorists get money from drug dealers.”"
Iran Contra?
NARCOTERRORISM
Honestly, I wasn't aware that the "consent to search your bags" at an airport was limited to the TSA screening line.
Well, most airports do proclaim that everything is subject to search once you drive onto the property.
Which really sucks. It's ridiculous that you basically can't travel around the country without giving up basic rights.
This!
Attempting to travel by any public carrier has essentially become grounds for a general warrant.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but was the use of general warrants prior to the Revolution a prime reason that we have the Fourth Amendment?
DEA Agent: "Probable cause? What's that?"
Traveler: That means you have a legal reason to search my possessions under the US Constitution."
DEA Agent: "The 'US Constitution?' We use that old rag for toilet paper every day around here."
No worries. Trump has promised more power and more immunity for law enforcement so they can round up illegals without having to worry about consequences for breaking laws and violating rights. They can't effectively arrest 11,000,000 vermin while worrying about the Constitution. So if Trump is elected and gets his way, this will be a non-issue.
Guess you didn't get the news. Biden's been President for the last 3½ years.
Are you sure we were not gaslighted on that too?
Pour sarc.
You're the only one talking about Trump. Take a break. It's not all about the bad orange man, Sarc.
Oh no! sarc said something about Trump! Attack! Attack! Ignore what he said and attack! Distract! Deflect! Attack!
Must impress Jesse and the rest!
Attack!
You passed. 100 points.
Whut? Are girl-bullying Trumpanzistas suddenly ashamed of Fuhrer and Ghawdfather?
We can't let the Constitution get in the way of harassing dark skinned legal residents to see if they have papers bitte!
""Trump has promised more power and more immunity for law enforcement ""
So, the only thing he can do about it is sign or veto the legislation that would allow it.
Besides, they already have a level of immunity that probably can't be surpassed without it going into obvious criminal activity. Keep in mind law enforcement can already kill you with immunity for something as simple as going into an "unauthorized" area.
So, the only thing he can do about it is sign or veto the legislation that would allow it.
Really? So much power has been delegated to the executive that they can do amazing things with executive orders. Even if you are correct and the president can't accomplish this with executive orders alone, what makes you think his party won't write legislation to that effect and pass it if they get the majority? Republicans traditionally back the blue in all things. Why not pass some landmark anti-immigration enforcement bill that makes police totally untouchable in order to cleanse the blood of the nation? I can see them doing that.
Like student loan forgiveness that keeps getting shot down by the courts?
Trump isn't known for being a DoJ bootlicker
Legally, that's not true. "The seizure of David's bag is fairly clearly a seizure of David himself, per Supreme Court precedent,"
And per the 4th amendment, if my reading skills are up to snuff.
Taking your car is not a seizure of the driver.
But taking your wallet, phone and laptop effectively is, particularly if you are traveling.
I beg to differ.
If taking your car, or prohibiting you from getting on a plane, keeps you from your destination, then effectively, you have been detained.
Following the precedent of Brown vs. Board of Education, effects matter, not just intent.
People who have had their car taken from due to asset forfeiture have been begging to differ too.
"Under the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Place, the government needs 'reasonable suspicion' to briefly seize your bag at an airport without a warrant or consent to subject it to a drug-detection dog's sniff," Orin Kerr, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, tells Reason.
I'm finding this one interesting. Define "briefly seize your bag at an airport". Every time I fly, my bag is "briefly seized" and searched. Unless my act of putting my bag onto the conveyor is "consent". So I guess, once you've consented to the search the TSA performs on my bags and its back in my possession, then it can't be re-seized for search? I guess that might make sense.
It's a surprising conclusion to me. SCOTUS has found that you have no right from search and seizure without an expectation of privacy (which deprotects your online communication, transactions, trash, property outside your home unless fenced with signage and anything that can be viewed from aircraft or drone). Allowing an expectation of privacy in your bags at the airport after TSA inspection seems out of step.
Unfortunately, "in an airport" is a pretty broad concept. If I go to the airport to drop friends off, never pass through TSA, I should be free from searches in the "unsecure area". But once you get into the 'secure' area, it seems more murky to me. Unless, again, the act of placing my bag on the conveyor is my "consent" which terminates as soon as the bag is back in my possession.
I have never given "consent". Rather I have tolerated with minimal fuss (aside from one comment that a TSA goon took offense to) having my rights trampled for over 20 years now. The alternative was a different sort of domestic turmoil.
I really hoped the American public would wake up and see that the TSA was different only in quantity, not type, from the KGB / Stasi goons keeping the Soviet slaves in line. Wasn't one selling point for the cold war that WE were free to move around without government permission, while THEY required an internal passport? How is this different?
After 9/11 the NYPD was able to stop you and search any bag before allowing you in the subway system. If you decline, and you can, they will not allow you entry.
Transportation hubs became fourth amendment exceptions by overwhelming bipartisan support.
But they have one upped that.
https://www.nydailynews.com/2024/07/17/mayor-adams-metal-detectors-deploy-crime-subway-mta/
(Gasp!) BOTH halves of the SAME looter kleptocracy that fosters crime with prohibition laws and terrism by bombing distant civilians?
These are not the bags you're looking for.
Sorry, what part of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects do they not understand?
The part where your rights are only as good as the worst person protecting them.
The DEA did not respond to Reason's request for comment.
I can do that for them. *clears throat*
"Fuck you, that's why."
“Even if we are in the wrong, QI, fuck you bitches”
I'd sure hate to be that DEA agent when absolutely nothing happens to him.
"Unconstitutional search and seizure is not an issue if you have nothing to hide" -- Republican and Democrat mantra
Really it doesn't matter which side is worse. It's a choice between a turn and a dump. Trump had four years and a congress full of Republicans to drain the swamp, he clogged it further instead. Biden had four years and a promise to do things better but refused to do anything about it the few times he managed to be awake. Boaf sides. Boaf. Sides.
I voted Libertarian, or as Orange Hitler would pronounce it, "libbetarryin."
As far as “no expectation of privacy” is concerned, IIRC this originated as a principle applied to border crossings.
Travelling on an internal flight is not a border crossing.
I have to go through a full body scan and my carry on is scanned on domestic flights. Also, you may get the alternate screening method that likely comes with touching that is considered sexual assault everywhere else.
FWIW when I flew out to Sacramento last week, they seized a pair of pliers, examined my massage stick, and did an on the spot test of two tubs of electrolyte powders. On the way back, they didn't examine my massage stick, took no notice of the electrolytes, and instead inspected my tub of beta alanine. Not even any consistency...
The lack of consistency is on purpose, so you don’t know what to expect.
Yup, that's what they say.
But it looks more like either incompetence or they're just winging it every time.
Your convenience store clerk is a step up from these dolts. Imagine them with the power to ruin part of your life. At least you can talk to the district manager, government aparatchiks are immune from examination.
The DEA Agent knew he violated David C's 4th Amendment right to unreasonable search and seizure. He should be fired and prosecuted by Mr. C for civil rights violations.
I.J. is currently pursuing a class action lawsuit against the DEA over allegedly unconstitutional searches and seizures
In progress
So?
The 4th Amendment? Ya; Dobbs took care of that hurdle.
Next the DEA will be searching vagina’s for a ?baby?.
You think a bag-search is a violation? You haven't seen nothing yet.
Tired and lame.
Pretty sure nosy busybodies trying to play god with gov-guns is what is getting "tired and lame" around here.
What? One existing in an airport is not reasonable enough suspicion?
Why not admit the anonymous sockpuppet-narc could shoot David in the head, take his bag and walk way with total immunity absolutely guaranteed. How about admitting that terrorism gains traction whenever US officials are pushing shoot-first prohibitionism? Communist numbers increase with every mystical prohibitionist politician or law added. CPUSA tripled in the 1st prohibition Crash, then increased sevenfold with the Crash and Great Depression. Same with mohammedan jihadists. DEA breeds terrorism.