Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Discretion and fairness in airport security screening

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Security Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study reports the findings of a field survey asking more than 500 passengers at a large East Coast international airport about their experiences while going through airport security. Although existing research shows that metal detectors and baggage screening can be effective in reducing the likelihood of violence at airports and on planes, the fairness of such procedures has yet to be fully examined. While all passengers must be screened, there can also be discretion in airport security regarding whether passengers receive additional screening and how they perceive they are being treated. Findings indicate differences between racial groups and treatment, with nonwhites more likely to receive additional screening, have more items confiscated, feel embarrassed, and less likely to be provided an explanation for searches. Policy recommendations are suggested.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Statistics reflect data collected through 2011. See http://www.faa.gov/data_research/.

  2. In a few airports (for example, San Francisco International Airport), security screening is not carried out by TSA, but by a private company. However, these security officers still are supervised and managed by TSA officials, and follow similar standard operating procedures as other TSA-employed security officials.

  3. It is unknown whether any of these encounters occurred at airports. However, given that the 2008 (which is the most recently available) Police-Public Contact Survey of the Bureau of Justice Assistance uses the term ‘police’ and is a supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, the authors suspect that participants of the survey would not likely consider their airport experiences when answering these questions about encounters with the police.

  4. This is a term the FAA uses to define passengers found ‘interfering with the duties of a crewmember violates federal law’ or violating Federal Aviation Regulations 91.11, 121.580 and 135.120 which state that ‘no person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated’. See http://www.faa.gov/data_research/passengers_cargo/unruly_passengers/, for more information.

  5. Aviation and Transportation Security Act, Public Law 107-71, S. 1447, 107th Cong., 1st Sess. (2001).

  6. See http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/bdo/index.shtm and U.S. Government Accountability Office (2010).

  7. The TSA information is only available online at http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases/2005/press_release_0571.shtm.

  8. Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

  9. The TSA classifies airports in the following order (related to the level of passenger enplanements and other security considerations from highest to lowest): Category X, I, II, III and IV.

  10. The research team did ask the TSA for permission as well, but was not granted access to observe security inside of their 50-foot jurisdiction.

  11. Some passengers may have come from another airport and therefore would have gone through security at that airport unless they were international travelers which would require them to go through security again, upon entering the United States.

  12. The TSA Customer Satisfaction Survey and the full data can be accessed from http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases/2005/press_release_0571.shtm.

  13. See http://www.bts.gov/programs/omnibus_surveys/household_survey/.

  14. The researchers ended up just physically walking away from the Marshals, given that they had no grounds to detain us.

References

  • Alpert, G., Dunham, R. and Smith, M. (2007) Investigating racial profiling by the Miami-Dade police department. Criminology and Public Policy 6 (1): 25–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amir, M. and Einstein, S. (eds.) (2001) Policing, Security and Democracy: Theory and Practice. Huntsville, TX: Office of International Criminal Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. (2005) Black, white, and unequal: Examining situational determinants of arrest decisions from police-suspect encounters. Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law and Society 18 (1): 51–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. and Frank, J. (2005) Police-citizen encounters and field citations: Do encounter characteristics influence ticketing? Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 28 (3): 435–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cauley, J. and Im, E. (1988) Intervention policy analysis of skyjackings and other terrorist incidents. The American Economic Review 78 (2): 27–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charles River Associates Inc. and Polaris Research and Development. (2003) Air passengers from the bay area's airports, 2001 and 2002. Prepared for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

  • Clarke, R. (1980) Situational crime prevention: Theory and practice. British Journal of Criminology 20 (2): 136–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, R. (1983) Situational crime prevention: Its theoretical basis and practical scope. In: M. Tonry and N. Morris (eds.) Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, Vol. 14. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 225–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, R. (1992) Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies. New York, NY: Harrow and Heston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, R. (1995) Situational crime prevention. In: M. Tonry and D. Farrington (eds.) Building a Safer Society: Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 91–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, R. and Newman, G. (2006) Outsmarting the Terrorists. Westport, CT: Praeger Security International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornish, D. and Clarke, R. (eds.) (1986) The Reasoning Criminal. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, D. and Silver, B. (2004) Civil liberties vs security: Public opinion in the context of the terrorist attacks on America. American Journal of Political Science 48 (1): 28–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dugan, L., LaFree, G. and Piquero, A. (2005) Testing a rational choice model of airline hijackings. Criminology 43 (4): 1031–1065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durose, M., Schmitt, E. and Langan, P. (2005) Contacts between Police and the Public: Findings from the 2002 National Survey. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eck, J. (2002) Preventing crime at places. In: L. Sherman, D. Farrington, B. Welsh and D. MacKenzie (eds.) Evidence-based Crime Prevention. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 241–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eith, C. and Durose, M. (2011) Contacts between Police and the Public, 2008. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, A., Cleary, A., Innes, M. and Zeuthen, M. (2011) Monitoring and Evaluation Tools for Counterterrorism Program Effectiveness. Policy Brief for the Center on Global Counterterrorism Cooperation.

  • Enders, W. and Sandler, T. (1993) The effectiveness of antiterrorism policies: A vector-autoregression-intervention analysis. The American Political Science Review 87 (4): 829–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enders, W. and Sandler, T. (2000) Is transnational terrorism becoming more threatening? Journal of Conflict Resolution 44 (3): 307–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enders, W., Sandler, T. and Cauley, J. (1990) UN conventions, terrorism, and retaliation in the fight against terrorism: An econometric evaluation. Terrorism and Political Violence 2 (1): 83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engel, R. and Calnon, J. (2004) Examining the influence of drivers’ characteristics during traffic stops with police: Results from a national survey. Justice Quarterly 21 (1): 49–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fagan, J. and Davies, G. (2000) Street stops and broken windows: Race and disorder in New York city. Terry Fordham Urban Law Journal 28 (2): 457–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, A. and McDevitt, J. (2006) Rhode Island Traffic Stop Statistics Data Collection: Final Report. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Institute on Race and Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felson, M. (1994) Crime and Everyday Life: Insight and Implications for Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaines, L. (2006) An analysis of traffic stop data in Riverside, California. Police Quarterly 9 (2): 210–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gkritza, K., Niemeier, D. and Mannering, F. (2006) Airport security screening and changing passenger satisfaction: An exploratory assessment. Journal of Air Transport Management 12 (5): 213–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasisi, B. and Weisburd, D. (2011) Going beyond ascribed identities: The importance of procedural justice in airport security screening in Israel. Law and Society 45 (4): 867–892.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hibdon, J., Lum, C., Gill, C., Cave, B., Chahal, J. and Vovak, H. (2012) An Analysis of Security-related Incidents at Airports. Unpublished report (not available for public dissemination due to Secure Sensitive Information Restrictions).

  • Higgins, G., Gabbidon, S. and Jordan, K. (2008) Examining the generality of citizens' views on racial profiling in diverse situational contexts. Criminal Justice and Behavior 35 (12): 1527–1541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • JD Franz Research, Inc. (2007) Metropolitan Transportation Commission – Oakland International Airport San Francisco Airport 2006 Airline Passenger Survey. Sacramento, CA: JD Franz Research.

  • Johnson, D., Brazier, D., Forrest, K., Ketelhut, C., Mason, D. and Mitchell, M. (2011) Attitudes toward the use of racial/ethnic profiling to prevent crime and terrorism. Criminal Justice Policy Review 22 (4): 422–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landes, W. (1978) An economic study of U.S. aircraft hijacking, 1961–1976. Journal of Law and Economics 21 (1): 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langan, P., Greenfeld, L., Smith, S., Durose, M. and Levin, D. (2001) Contacts between Police and the Public: Findings from the 1999 National Survey. Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leventhal, G. (1980) What should be done with equity theory? In: K. Gergen, M. Greenberg and R. Weiss (eds.) Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research. New York, NY: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lum, C. (2010) Does the ‘Race of Places’ Influence Police Officer Decision Making? Final Report, W.E.B. DuBois Fellowship, National Institute of Justice. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice.

  • Lum, C. and Kennedy, L. (eds.) (2011a) Evidence-Based Counterterrorism Policy. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lum, C. and Kennedy, L. (eds.) (2011b) The next steps: A need for a research infrastructure for evaluating counterterrorism. Evidence-Based Counterterrorism Policy. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lum, C., Kennedy, L. and Sherley, A. (2006) Are counter-terrorism strategies effective? The results of the Campbell systematic review on counter-terrorism evaluation research. Journal of Experimental Criminology 2 (4): 489–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lum, C., Gill, C., Cave, B., Hibdon, J. and Weisburd, D. (eds.) (2011) Translational criminology: Using existing evidence for assessing TSA's comprehensive security strategy at U.S. airports. In: Evidence-Based Counterterrorism Policy. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundman, R. and Kaufman, R. (2003) Driving while black: Effects of race, ethnicity, and gender on citizen self-reports of traffic stops and police actions. Criminology 41 (1): 195–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagin, D. (1998) Criminal deterrence research at the outset of the twenty-first century. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research 23: 1–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2004) Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The evidence. Committee to review research on police policy and practices. In: W. Skogan and K. Frydl (eds.) Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

  • Novak, K. (2004) Disparity and racial profiling in traffic enforcement. Police Quarterly 7 (1): 65–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Packer, H. (1964) Two models of the criminal process. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 113 (1): 1–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reitzel, J. and Piquero, A. (2006) Does it exist? Studying citizens’ attitudes of racial profiling. Police Quarterly 9 (2): 161–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schafer, J., Carter, D., Katz-Bannister, A. and Wells, W. (2006) Decision making in traffic stop encounters: A multivariate analysis of police behavior. Police Quarterly 9 (2): 184–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L. (1998) Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal sanction. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 30 (4): 445–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, M. and Lichtblau, E. (2012) Racial profiling rife at airport, U.S. officers say. The New York Times, 11 August: A1.

  • Silke, A. (ed.) (2004) Research on Terrorism: Trends, Achievements and Failures. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sindhav, B., Holland, J., Rodie, A., Adidam, P. and Pol, L. (2006) The impact of perceived fairness on satisfaction: Are airport security measures fair? Does it matter? Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 14 (4): 323–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. and Visher, C. (1981) Street-level justice: Situational determinants of police arrest decisions. Social Problems 29 (2): 167–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D., Visher, C. and Davidson, L. (1984) Equity and discretionary justice: The influence of race on police arrest decisions. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 75 (1): 234–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. and Petrocelli, M. (2001) Racial profiling? A multivariate analysis of police traffic stop data. Police Quarterly 4 (1): 4–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunshine, J. and Tyler, T . (2003) The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law and Society Review 37 (3): 513–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The New York Times. (2010) Do body scanners make us safer? Room for debate online series. 22 November. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/11/22/do-body-scanners-make-us-safer, accessed 1 June 2012.

  • Thibaut, J. and Walker, L. (1975) Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. (1988) What is procedural justice? Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law and Society Review 22 (1): 103–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. (1990) Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. (2004) Enhancing police legitimacy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 593 (1): 84–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. (2006) Why People Obey the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. and Fagan, J. (2008) Legitimacy and cooperation: Why do people help the police fight crime in their communities? Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 6: 231–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. and Huo, Y. (2002) Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Courts. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T., Schulhofer, S. and Huq, A. (2010) Legitimacy and Deterrence Effects in Counter-terrorism Policing: A Study of Muslim Americans. New York University Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers, Paper 182.

  • Tyler, T. and Wakslak, C. (2004) Profiling and police legitimacy: Procedural justice, attributions of motive, and acceptance of police authority. Criminology 42 (2): 253–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2011) Crime in the United States, 2010, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/persons-arrested, accessed 28 November 2011.

  • US Department of Transportation. (2005) Air passenger opinions on security screening procedures. Newsletter of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

  • US Government Accountability Office. (2003) Airport Passenger Screening: Preliminary Observations on Progress Made and Challenges Remaining. Washington DC: US Government Accountability Office.

  • US Government Accountability Office. (2007) Aviation Security: Risk, Experience, and Customer Concerns Drive Changes to Airline Passenger Screening Procedures, but Evaluation and Documentation of Proposed Changes Could Be Improved. Washington DC: US Government Accountability Office.

  • US Government Accountability Office. (2010) Aviation Security: Efforts to Validate TSA's Passenger Screening Behavior Detection Program Underway, but Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Validation and Address Operational Challenges. Washington DC: US Government Accountability Office.

  • US Government Accountability Office. (2011) Aviation Security: TSA has made Progress, but Additional Efforts are Needed to Improve Security. Washington DC: US Government Accountability Office.

  • Warren, P., Tomaskovic-Devey, D., Smith, W., Zingraff, M. and Mason, M. (2006) Driving while black: Bias processes and racial disparity in police stops. Criminology 44 (3): 709–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author also wishes to thank Julie Hibdon, Cody Telep, Breanne Cave, Jaspreet Chahal and Heather Vovak for their research assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Criminology, Law and Society, Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, MS 6D12, Fairfax, 22030, Virginia, USA

    Cynthia Lum, Peter Zachary Crafton, Rebecca Parsons, Dale Beech, Tarren Smarr & Michael Connors

Authors
  1. Cynthia Lum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Zachary Crafton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rebecca Parsons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dale Beech
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tarren Smarr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michael Connors
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Appendix

Appendix

The Survey

illustration

figure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lum, C., Crafton, P., Parsons, R. et al. Discretion and fairness in airport security screening. Secur J 28, 352–373 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2012.51

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2012.51

Keywords

Search

Navigation