464 F.2d 1180 (3rd Cir. 1972), 72-1231, United States v. Slocum

Docket Nº:72-1231.
Citation:464 F.2d 1180
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America v. Edward A. SLOCUM, Appellant.
Case Date:July 19, 1972
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Page 1180

464 F.2d 1180 (3rd Cir. 1972)



Edward A. SLOCUM, Appellant.

No. 72-1231.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

July 19, 1972

         Argued June 13, 1972.

Page 1181

         Richard Newman, Newark, N. J., for appellant.

         William A. Carpenter, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J., for appellee; John J. Berry, Asst. U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J., on the brief.

         Before SEITZ, Chief Judge, and VAN DUSEN and ADAMS, Circuit Judges.


         SEITZ, Chief Judge.

         The defendant appeals from his district court conviction for possession of, with intent to distribute, cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1).

         Defendant Slocum was arrested at Newark Airport by a Deputy United States Marshal assigned to the airport's Anti-Air Piracy Squad. Defendant had purchased a one-way ticket on a flight to Mexico City which included a stop-over in Atlanta. The ticket agent had alerted the marshal that defendant's characteristics conformed to the Federal Aviation Administration's Anti-Air Hijack Profile ("the Profile"). Thus, as defendant accompanied other passengers through a magnetometer set up at the boarding gate the marshal monitored him with particular care. The magnetometer was designed and calibrated to detect the presence of metal objects with substantial ferrous content carried by a passenger either on his person or inside his carry-on luggage. Defendant registered a clearly positive reading which prompted the marshal to intercept him and request positive identification. Defendant's ticket was issued to "Ed Clark." However, he could provide no identification. Consequently, the marshal requested that defendant move to a location away from the boarding area where a pat-down search could be conducted. No weapons or explosives were found as a result of this search so the marshal then proceeded to inspect defendant's luggage. This search revealed a rolled up sock which the marshal described as concealing a "definite foreign substance." The marshal asked that the contents of the sock be identified. But defendant responded only that he did not wish the sock unrolled. This intensified the marshal's suspicion that the substance might be an explosive. He opened the sock and discovered a plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. Suspecting the powder to be some type of illegally possessed narcotic the marshal placed defendant under arrest. Tests subsequently confirmed that the bag contained 131 grams of cocaine.

         Defendant challenges his conviction for possession of the cocaine on several grounds.


         Defendant initially challenges the constitutionality of the pre-boarding screening program as designed by the Federal Aviation Administration. Consideration of defendant's challenge requires a summary of the program's various procedural components. See United States v. Lopez, 328 F.Supp. 1077, 1082-1085 (E.D.N.Y. 1971). If the program is in effect for a particular flight, screening begins when airline personnel process a

Page 1182

passenger for boarding. The employees directly engaged in pre-flight passenger processing evaluate each passenger according to the FAA Profile. The Profile was developed by a group of professionals representing a cross-section of the various fields of expertise relevant to the hijacking problem. In its entirety the Profile establishes approximately twenty-five characteristics which studies have shown to be held in common by past hijackers. Several of these characteristics, all of which are readily...

To continue reading