14 C.F.R. § 121.538
Aircraft security
Certificate holders conducting operations under this part must comply with the applicable security requirements in 49 CFR chapter XII.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: United States v. Paul Howard Gumerlock, United States of Am. v. Marc Paul Fannon, 590 F.2d 794 (9th Cir. 1979).
United States v. Paul Howard Gumerlock, United States of Am. v. Marc Paul Fannon, 590 F.2d 794 (9th Cir. 1979). “Finally, on July 15, 1976, the administrator added subparagraph (k) to 14 C.F.R. § 121.538 , directly responsive to subsection (a) of section 204 of the 1974 Act.”
United States v. Charles Davis AKA Marcus Anderson, 482 F.2d 893 (9th Cir. 1973). “30, 1971) (proposing new rule 14 C.F.R. § 121.538 ). See also id. at 19172-73 (proposing new rule 14 C.”
United States v. Raymond Edwards, United States of Am. v. David Richards, 602 F.2d 458 (1st Cir. 1979). “) (1976), and accompanying regulations, see 14 C.F.R. § 121.538 , confer a government function on the airlines sufficient to subject them to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.”
United States v. Patrick G. Henry, 615 F.2d 1223 (9th Cir. 1980). “The x-ray scan system is used as part of the screening system required by 14 C.F.R. § 121.538 (b) (1979). 4 This is precisely the kind of government involvement we held in Davis to be sufficient to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment.”
United States v. Berdj Keuylian, 602 F.2d 1033 (2d Cir. 1979). “25, which does not require the screening of checked baggage.”
United States v. John Allen Andrews, 618 F.2d 646 (10th Cir. 1980). “Even so, Andrews contended that Ford did not involve the prohibitions contained in the 1976 addition of Subsection (k) to 14 C.F.R. § 121.538 . Subsection (k) provides that an airline may refuse to transport goods if consent to search the goods is refused by the shipper.”
United States v. Ozark Air Lines, Inc., 419 F. Supp. 795 (E.D. Mo. 1976). “538(h) of the Federal Aviation Regulations, 14 C.F.R. § 121.538 (h), and section 610(a) of the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.”
United States v. Sullivan, 544 F. Supp. 701 (D. Me. 1982). “The regulations in force at the time of the present search are codified at 14 C.F.R. § 121.538 (1978), which reads in pertinent part as follows: (b) Each certificate holder shall adopt and put into use a screening system, acceptable to the Administrator, that is designed to…”
United States v. Henry E. Herzbrun, 723 F.2d 773 (11th Cir. 1984). “The women were employed pursuant to security procedures mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration at 14 CFR § 121.538 (rev.1979). 2 . Both the Government and Herzbrun agree that this detention, which lasted approximately 50 minutes, constituted a full-scale arrest rather…”
United States v. Stephen R. Deangelo, 584 F.2d 46 (4th Cir. 1978). “The signs in the terminal gave him fair notice that if in the course of the total screening process a physical inspection of his hand luggage should be considered necessary to assure the safety of the traveling public, he *48 could be required to submit it for that purpose.”
People v. Kluga, 32 Cal. App. 3d 409 (Cal. Ct. App. 1973). “[3] (1a) At the time of defendant's search, there existed a Federal Aviation Administration regulation (14 C.F.R. 121.538; hereinafter, the regulation) that controlled airlines-boarding searches.”
Gibson v. State, 921 S.W.2d 747 (Tex. App. 1996). “2, 1972) (adopting proposed rule 14 C.F.R. § 121.538 in part). In December 1972, the FAA ordered that magnetometer screening of all passengers and searches of all carry-on baggage be instituted by January 5, 1973.”
— 14 C.F.R. § 121.538(b) — 1 case
United States v. Stephen R. Deangelo, 584 F.2d 46 (4th Cir. 1978). “The signs in the terminal gave him fair notice that if in the course of the total screening process a physical inspection of his hand luggage should be considered necessary to assure the safety of the traveling public, he *48 could be required to submit it for that purpose.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.