Worlds of Adventure adds metal detectors

Oh Dave, I feel you on having a certain amount of "standard gear". For me, that often includes a bookbag (or conversely a jacket with a ton of pockets). Just certain things I like to have are extremely inconvinent to have in short pockets (providing of course that the shorts I wear even *have* pockets).

As for SFWoA passing "illict" materials to the police, in my similar "non-legal opinion" that would NOT be illegal search and seizure. Why not? Because you have to acquiesce to the search. When they ask to search a bag/pocket/wheelbarrow, a person can very easily say "No". At that point, the most SFWoA could do is refuse you entry, but they cant search you. If that person says "go ahead", then anything they find is fair game and is their moral (if not legal) obligation to report to the "proper authorities".

Cops do this all the time. They'll pull a car over for speeding/failure to use a turn signal/broken tailight and then ask the driver if they can search the vehicle. The driver has the right to say no. At which point, the officer is barred from searching the vehicle until a warrent can be obtained. Most people just say yes because saying no gives the appearance that you are doing something wrong (BS, I just dont want you nosing through my ish!). But once you say yes, anything they find is fair game ;)

So once again kiddies, heed Nancy Regan and "Just say no!"
lata,
jeremy

My opinion on such a search:

The Fourth Amendment states that, "...no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "

Now let's consider the case of an airport screening: My thought is that the three constitutional warrant requirements are satisfied in this case--

A) Probable cause: There is reason to believe that someone may wish to carry prohibited items. Because someone planning to carry prohibited items is unlikely to come out and say so, a voluntary search is necessary to keep everybody honest. Flimsy, but there's your probable cause.

B) Place to be searched: That is, you and the stuff you are carrying.

C) Persons or things to be seized: When you go through security at the airport, there is a sign giving a detailed list of prohibited items...a list which recently grew in size. Many of the items on the list are of a general nature, but they are prominently listed. By comparison, this is where the Six Flags search falls apart: because there is no identification of the items being looked for. And that would just be a basic protection against a security guard who likes his job a little too much.

I guess this solves the camera situation at Geauga: they let you bring the camera through the gate, so it must be OK to use it on the grounds...... :)

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

But again Dave, the airport screening is completely voluntary. Granted, if you refuse, you dont fly, but it is still a choice. The fourth amendment only covers "Warrants" for search, that is, searches which under no circumstances can you refuse.

Moreover, there *is* an indication of the items that SFI is looking for. The indication is broad and general, but it is an indication none the less. I'll post the text from the SFA, GAdv, FT and oT maps when I home.

Finally, even if what you say *is* true and all they are looking for is food/drinks, that much *IS* described in the map as being "contraband" :)

However, it *IS* funny that you bring up the airport screeners. It was never a constitutional issue with the screeners before because private industries are not subject to the same bar against "illegal search and seizure". However, now that it has been mandated that all the airport screeners are to be agents of the Federal Government, one "could" raise the issue and test it in the Judiciary. I have the utmost confidence that such a test would fail (I do not believe that the screenings would constitute "unreasonable searches") but it could (and perhaps should) be tried.
lata,
jeremy
--daily more facinated with the law of the land

I for one have no qualms about the recent proliferation of metal detectors and related measures being taken at theme parks. The simple solution is to limit your carry-in items to bare essentials. Quite frankly at a bare minimum I need my wallet when I go to a park. The glasses and keys can stay in the car. However I do sometimes take my camera bag into parks with me, its a bulky camera bag owing to the size of the digital camcorder (and accesories) it contains. Lately I have taken to leaving all the accesories in the car as well. Yes, I have seen parks where the entrance plaza secrurity is little more than a 'show' to show people that you are protecting them from 'evil deed doers', or worse may contain flawed methodology.

Its a sad footnote on society these days, but unfortunately one that grows ever more neccesary. As for the parks that have, for the meantime, chosen to not go the route of entrance plaza security, I imagine that as people get more and more used to the fact that visiting crowded tourist attractions entails metal detectors, there will be a demand for the other parks 'to do something for our safety'

And I leave you with this footnote: I was reently in a foreign country more than 4,000 miles from my home where I encountered metal detectors at no less than four tourist attractions. Two of those attractions had even installed X-Ray baggage scanners, and a third was in the process of installing the baggage scanners. Like it or not, it looks like this will become a standard feature when visiting high profile tourist attractions.

-----------------
----
David Bowers
Mayor, Coasterville

I'm okay with the metal detectors. They don't make me feel all that much safer but they really don't bother me either. What DOES bother me though are the haphazard searches of bags. Either do it right, looking through every pocket and rummaging through it, OR don't do it at all. While I have encountered some employees searching good, the glance that most park employees give in no way makes me feel secure. Do they really think the knife/gun/pepper spray/anthrax is just going to be laying on top easy to spot? It's just a waste of everyone's time. Even worse is sometimes, particularly at Six Flags, I have had to basically beg someone to check my bag on occasion. So in a way, I think the metal detectors make things LESS secure as staff seem to be less concerned about searching bags if you didn't beep the detector.

And I can't single out any one park either...I have had this half hearted attempt at searching done at every park that searches bags including Six Flags, Knott's and Disney. Even worse is that out of the hundereds of times my bag has been searched, only ONE TIME was every pocket looked at. The harder to see pocket on my bag isn't checked at all 99.9% of the time.

Either do it right or don't do it at all!

I believe the metal detectors are only a waste of time. They may prevent the drunk who gets mad and stabs somebody from doing any harm, but they won't stop anyone who's planning to do harm. As stated earlier, there are plenty of other ways to get weapons into a park.

-----------------
CP trips in 2001- 17, CP trips during offseason- 2, CP trips 2002- 7.
-Chris Woodard

Anyone that thinks metal detectors at amusement parks are a good idea is a frigin moron.

1 - you go to these parks to get away from all the BS in the world .. not for it to be thrown in your face as a $4.00/hr idiot searches your purse for hairspray (a potential weapon .. could be used as a flamethrower .. idiot!)

2 - if someone wanted to do something bad ..do you think the metal detectors would stop them? Since the metal detector idiots do not have guns . the imaginary terrorist would just start the attack at the gate. Hey, with so many sheep in line, they might not even have to enter the park to make a big impact.

You see, every bit of our freedoms that are given up are not replaced. To many good people have given their lives to preserve our countries way of life for some corporate jack ass to decide to widdle it away for fear of not 'protecting us'.