WPC/ W j _ .qk߄zS7A%,$EP&.޴RfA)#lJ^oyW09DTD+[mjr Yu"BA؛|u3HK /#;GJF7L#w hD(u#G&'&ojd1Lau3Lg_].uJ 7X|V` b[:?=7x @V{[pooL%hecv;wȳD{;kXG!RH庢TɣWĨ#VT/.#[qtKJb0ϽF+jHKS=3㕜kL5*5%WQ#';/ zsdDމyJSW40.fdݠsqA!lh}ziV0ދNQ#\Kn} 6ȿrR/G# UN % 0 UJ> ^ w 4 ! m#(: 0b 0DuN 1u 0c0 72(; llb </ Zk  > (A E & lk @? 0AS ,* zd rW j b3!! z"  # 0T$ zj$$ z%W& zW'' z(C) f0** x+, j, ZX-X-X- ----------------- B- - =- -5.5.5.5.5.5.5.5.5.5.5.5.5.5. 05)b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b. 0u.Brother MFC-8420 USB Printer,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(\$8?XXdXXd8        X?XXXX?XXX?\  `&Times New Romang3 :2x3|x U   y$      XXXXXXXX    1    _^XXԀTwofeetbytwofeet.J.A.2357.#XX^#((3y$ \!8XXdd8        XXXXXXXX      0  (#$  0  3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  i)   y$      XXXXXXXX    2    ^XX_ԀAsdefendantChertoffputit, Aterroristattackonthetwo-lanebridge X downthestreetfrommyhouseisbadbuthasarelativelylowconsequence j comparedtoanattackontheGoldenGateBridge....Attheotherendofthe |$ spectrum,evenaremotethreattodetonateanuclearbombisahigh-levelpriority 6 becauseofthecatastrophiceffect.QuotedinNewYorkTimes,July18,2003 H ( ForNewChief,aNewApproachtoHomelandSecurity).#XX^#page page chapter volume footnote endnote eCases FN \!    XXXXXXXX  IUXX33C.F.R.part104#XXIUq# \!    XXXXXXXX  IUXXFourthAmendment#XXIUq#33 C.F.R. part 104StatutesFourth AmendmentConstitutional ProvisionsH \!    XXXXXXXX  IUXX33C.F.R.104.305#XXIUq#33 C.F.R.  104.305Statutes33 C.F.R.  104.305 7 \!    XXXXXXXX  IUXXTemporaryInterimFinalRule:ImplementationofNationalMaritimeInitiatives,  68Fed.Reg.39240(July1,2003)#XXIUq# Temporary Interim Final Rule: Implementation of NatioOther Authorities33 C.F.R. part 104Temporary Interim Final Rule: Implementation of Natio \!    XXXXXXXX  IUXX46U.S.C.70102(a)#XXIUq#$46 U.S.C.  70102(a)Statutes \!    XXXXXXXX  IUXX46U.S.C.70101(6)#XXIUq#(Vm$0   & 70101(6)Statutes  \!    XXXXXXXX  IUXXChevronU.S.A.Inc.v.NaturalResourcesDefenseCouncil,Inc.,467U.S.837  (1984)#XXIUq#)Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense CouCases \!    XXXXXXXX  IUXXUnitedStatesv.MeadCorp.,533U.S.218(2001)#XXIUt#+United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001)CasesChevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense CouUnited States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001) \!    XXXXXXXX  IUXXChristiansonv.HarrisCounty,529U.S.577,587(2000)#XXIUt#/Christianson v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 577, 587 (20Cases  \!    XXXXXXXX  IUXXCityofIndianapolisv.Edmond    ,531U.S.32(2000)#XXIUt#(,!$0  0` (#(#  1City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 37 (200Cases \!    XXXXXXXX  IUXXUnitedStatesv.Lifshitz,369F.3d173(2dCir.2004)#XXIUt#4United States v. Lifshitz, 369 F.3d 173, 186 (2d CirCases \!    XXXXXXXX  IUXXN.G.exrel.S.C.v.Connecticut,382F.3d225(2dCir.2004)#XXIUt#6N.G. ex rel. S.C. v. Connecticut, 382 F.3d 225, 242 Cases \!    XXXXXXXX  IUXXUnitedStatesv.Edwards,498F.2d496(2dCir.1974)#XXIUt#8United States v. Edwards, 498 F.2d 496, 500 (2d Cir.Cases \!    XXXXXXXX  IUXXBondv.UnitedStates,529U.S.334(2000)#XXIUt#:Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334 (2000)Cases \!    XXXXXXXX  IUXXTreasuryEmployeesv.VonRaab,489U.S.656(1989)#XXIUt#<Treasury Employees v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 (1989)Cases \!    XXXXXXXX  IUXXChandlerv.Miller,520U.S.305(1997)#XXIUt#>Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 321 (1997)CasesChandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 321 (1997)'2 deStatuteseConstitutional ProvisionseOther Authorities( $(MJ$2   1  .3  0  \!8XXdd8        XXXXXXXX  __TRX3'2 x 4 address labelsX3' Letter3'2 x 4 address labelsXXXX3'LetterTXX/8XXdXXd8X@LL ^XXDocketNo.#XX^#7XX051835cv#XX7)#Ԉ X @*@@*@l l ^XXINTHEUNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS t  @++FORTHESECONDCIRCUIT  .  @))_________________________  @  XX F @ MICHAELCASSIDY,ROBERTJ.CABIN, d   `     h      p      x HH1 PlaintiffAppellants,   `     h      p @)v.     MICHAELCHERTOFF,Secretary,UnitedStatesDepartmentof (  HomelandSecurity,inhisofficialcapacity,THOMASH.COLLINS, :  Admiral,Commandant,UnitedStatesCoastGuard,inhisofficial L capacity,GLENNWILTSHIRE,Captain,UnitedStatesCoastGuard ^ FederalMaritimeSecurityCoordinator,NewYorkCaptainofthe p PortZone,inhisofficialcapacities,LAKECHAMPLAIN * TRANSPORTATIONCOMPANY,initscapacityasagentofthe < UnitedStatesGovernment, N K `     h      p   2 DefendantAppellees. r @))_________________________  @d d  REPLYBRIEFOFPLAINTIFFAPPELLANTS  " @))_________________________   x   #     `     h      p     @ONAPPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT 8%" @ FORTHEDISTRICTOFVERMONT J&#    `     h   WilliamA.Nelson n(& CooperatingAttorney )(' AmericanCivilLibertiesUnionofVermont *:(  52HighStreet +L)! Middlebury,VT05753 ,^*" 8023886781 -p+# AttorneyforPlaintiffAppellants .,$ #XX^#  /-% 8XXdXXd8%  ^XX@" TABLEOFCONTENTS  X C   'Vm  'Vmb0     TABLEOFAUTHORITIES#""I(#.@@(#(##ii'Vmb~݌ ~& Ќ  ARGUMENT""J(#. 1 J 2!  2!b0  0` (#(#    2!b}݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  2!  2!0  0` (#(#    1.SpecialNeedsWithoutSpecialFacts#""J(#.~~5` (#` (##12!݌ n Ќ  2!  2!0  0` (#(#    2!݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  2!  2!0  0` (#(#    2. HighRisk#""J(#.~ ~ ` (#` (##52!݌   Ќ  2!  2!b0  0` (#(#    2!b}݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  2!  2!0  0` (#(#    3.TheGovernmentsCallforDeference#""J(#.5` (#` (##72!݌   Ќ  2!  2!0  0` (#(#    2! ݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  2!  2!0  0` (#(#    4.ConstitutionallyProtectedPrivacy#""J(#.4` (#` (##92!݌ 2  Ќ  CONCLUSION<"<"I(#. 11 V  V  z"    TABLEOFAUTHORITIES rt  X CASES l    e   e   Bondv.UnitedStates,529U.S.334(2000)<"<"I(#.410e ݈ 8 Ќ̌  e   e =  Chandlerv.Miller,520U.S.305(1997)<"<"I(#.111e =X݈ \ Ќ̌  e   e   ChevronU.S.A.Inc.v.NaturalResourcesDefenseCouncil,Inc.,467U.S.837   (1984)!!G(#.$$8,9e ݈   Ќ̌  e   e   Christiansonv.HarrisCounty,529U.S.577,587(2000)""J(#.A9e ݈   Ќ̌  e   e   CityofIndianapolisv.Edmond,531U.S.32(2000)""J(#.<9e ݈ 2  Ќ̌  e   e   N.G.exrel.S.C.v.Connecticut,382F.3d225(2dCir.2004)""J(#.G9e ݈ V Ќ̌  e   e c  TreasuryEmployeesv.VonRaab,489U.S.656(1989)<"<"I(#.=10e c~݈ z" Ќ̌  e   e -  UnitedStatesv.Edwards,498F.2d496(2dCir.1974)<"<"I(#.?10e -H݈ F Ќ̌  e   e   UnitedStatesv.Lifshitz,369F.3d173(2dCir.2004)""J(#.44@9e ݈ j Ќ̌  e   e   UnitedStatesv.MeadCorp.,533U.S.218(2001)!!G(#.:8,9e ݈  Ќ̌  oSTATUTESANDREGULATIONS  U   e   e   33C.F.R.part104!!G(#. 3,5e ݈ @ Ќ̌  e   e   33C.F.R.104.305!!H(#.& & 3-5e ݈ d!  Ќ̌  e   e 6   46U.S.C.70101(6)""J(#. 7e 6 Q ݈ #0! Ќ̌  e   e   46U.S.C.70102(a)""J(#. 7e ݈ %T#! Ќ̌    'x%#   CONSTITUTIONALPROVISIONS j V   e   e "  FourthAmendment E(#. passime ""݈ 6 Ќ̌  !  OTHERAUTHORITIES l W   e   e #  TemporaryInterimFinalRule:ImplementationofNationalMaritimeInitiatives,   68Fed.Reg.39240(July1,2003)!!H(#.>>+5-7e #'#݈   Ќ̌  ##XX^ #    ^XX__ _@77&  ARGUMENT  $Ԉ X   1.SpecialNeedsWithoutSpecialFacts  =% (   InarguingthespecialneedforpassengerandvehiclesearchesontheLCT P ferriesthegovernmentdescendstoparticularsatonlytwopointsinitsbrief.Inits t caseforthe efficacyofthesearchprogram,thegovernmentdefendsthepractice   ofsearchingcartrunks,butnotcontainersinsidetrunks,assimply   commonsensical,because inspectionsoflargerspaces(e.g.vehicletrunks,as 8  opposedtoCassidyssmall  #  1      ׀styrofoamcooler)aremorelikelytoidentifythelarge \ quantitiesofexplosivesnecessarytosinkorheavilydamageaferry,ortokilland ( injureagreatnumberofpassengers.BriefoftheFederalDefendants( Gov. L Br.)31.Commonsensesaysjusttheopposite:animprovisedexplosivedevice p ofthesortwhichterroristshaveaccesstowouldcertainlycauseheavydamageto  anyoftheLCTferriesandgreatlossoflife.Itprobablycouldnotsinktheferry,  butplaintiffsexpertwilltestifythatnotevenacarbombwouldsinktheferry, 4 becauseablastabovethewaterlinewouldbedirectedupward.J.A.4514. X  Moretothepoint,thegovernmentdoesnotexplainwhy,ifthisisthejustification, |"$  passengercarryons,suchasCabinsmuchsmallerbikepackmustbesearched, $H"  J.A.2688,92,whilethesearchersignorecontainersintrucks,sparetirewheel &l$" wells,undercarriages,etc.,andwhy,ifthesearchesaremeanttodeterhijacking (&$ andsabotage,thesearchersareinstructedtogivefirearmsandotherweaponsa  +(& freepass.J.A.2137. X   Thegovernmentsbrieftouchesearthagain,albeitbrieflyinitsargument |$ thatthisremoteruralferrylineisatriskofaterroristattack. Itisperfectly H plausible[,]thegovernmentargues, thatacalculatingterroristwouldchooseto l targetaferryoutsideofoneofthemainUnitedStatescities,undertheassumption   thatsecuritywouldbeeasiertobreachinalocationlikeLakeChamplain....Gov.   Br.22.Byextension,theunlikelierthetarget,themoreneedthereistoconduct 0  searches. T   Withthesetwoexceptions,theFederalDefendantsmakeonlyageneric, x  nationwidecaseforthenecessityofthesesearches,basedontheSeptember11 D attacks,andthenationalimperativeofheightenedsecuritywhichproduced,in h turn,theMaritimeTransportationSecurityActof2002,theadministrative  designationofpassengersvesselsover100tonsasa highriskcategory;andthe  DHS/CoastGuardregulationswhichauthorize,butdonotrequire,searchesof , passengersandvehiclesboardingsuchvessels. P    Plaintiffswillrespondtothemeritsoftheseargumentsbelow,butthe t"  principalflawinthegovernmentsdefenseisitsmisdirection.Thiscomplaintis $@"  not,asthegovernmentclaims, achallengetoafederalsearchpolicyforferries, &d$" Gov.Br.3,butratheranasappliedchallengetosearchesbeingconductedontwo (&$ LakeChamplainferrieslines.NothingintheMTSAoritsimplementing +(& regulationsrequiresthesesearches,andindeednoneofthespecificsecurity (-*( measuresspelledoutin  33C.F.R.part104applies,giventhatLCTisbeing X allowedtooperateunderanAlternativeSecurityProgramwhichneedonly |$ provide anequivalentlevelofsecuritytothatestablishedbypart104._33_ԀC.F.R. H 101.105. ` PlaintiffschallengeisdirectedattheseASPsearches,notatany l general searchpolicy,orpassengersearcheswhichmayormaynotberequired   onferriesoperatinginNewYorkCity,PugetSound,andoffBostonandSan   Francisco,seeGov.Br.2223,astowhichplaintiffslackstandingorevidenceto 0  voiceanopinion. T    Infact,bystatuteandregulation,andinstarkcontrasttoairplanes,thereis x  no federalsearchpolicyforferriesotherthanadecisionmakingprocessor D  framework,Gov.Br.4,bywhichtheCoastGuarddeterminesonacasebycase h basisthatsearcheswillberequiredonsomevesselsandnotothers;and,ifso,  whatkindsofsearchestheymustbe.Thatdecisionisbasedineverycaseona  detailed VesselSecurityAssessmentinvolvinganarrayoflocalsecurityissues, , includingthelayoutoftheparticularvessel,  33C.F.R.104.305(a)(1)(i)(vi),and P  threatassessments fortheareasinwhichthevesseloperatesoratwhich t"  passengersembarkordisembark[,]id.  104.305(a)(2),asdeterminedbyanon $@"  scenesurveyofeachvessel,id.  104.305(b),followedbyananalysisofexisting &d$" operatingproceduresandrecommendationsfornewprocedures,id.  104.305(c), (&$ including possiblesecuritythreatssuchasdamagefromdangeroussubstancesor +(& devices,hijacking,smuggling,useofthevesseltocreateasecurityincident,oras (-*( aweapon,etc.Id.  104.305(c)(9)(i)(ix). X   Thegovernmentdoesnotandcannotexplainwhythedecisiontosearch |$ mustbebasedonlocal,contextspecificconsiderations,whiletheconstitutional H reasonablenessofthatdecisioncanbeupheldwithoutregardtothelocalcontext. l   Thelackofanyfactspecificjustificationforthereasonablenessofthese   searchesunderthe_  Fourth_ԀAmendmentunderscorestheconstitutionaldanger.The   governmentsargumentcouldapplytoalmostanycheckpointsearch.Anymode 0  oftransportation,anyfacilityopentothepublic,anystreet,anyneighborhood, T couldbeatrisk;eventheunlikelycouldbereasonablyfoundtobelikely.Gov. x  Br.22.Anygroupofcitizens,simplybyvirtueoftheirentryintoazone D determinedtobeatrisk,wouldconstitutea welldefinedtargetclass,Gov.Br. h 19,whichcouldbesearchedwithoutindividualsuspicionorcause.The  judgmentsastowhichzoneswereatriskwouldbelefttoexecutivediscretion,as  wouldthemodalityofthesearches.Id.27,29.Therewouldbeessentially , nothingleftforthecourtstodoorfortheFourthAmendmenttoprohibit. P    ThisisarecipeformartiallawwhichthisCourtshouldrejectoutofhand. t"    2. HighRisk  _D $@"    Thegovernmentrepeatedlystressesits highriskdesignationfor &h$" passengervesselsgreaterthan100tonsorwhichcarrymorethan150passengers, (&$ aclasstowhichsomeofLCTsferriesbelong.TheCourtshouldnotsettoo +(& muchstorebythisalarmingtitle,whichtheregulationsuseasatermofart. ,-*(   First,andmostobviously,thehighriskclassificationisonlyrelative X measure.Theriskassessorswerechargedwithproducing anationalevaluation |$ oftherelativesecurityriskfacingtheMarineTransportationSystemoftheU.S. H _ ! _TemporaryInterimFinalRule:ImplementationofNationalMaritimeInitiatives, l 68Fed.Reg.39240,39244(July1,2003)(emphasisadded).     Second,asarguedabove,thishighriskdesignationisonlythefirststepin   anydecision,proorcon,regardingpassengerandvehiclesearches.Vesselswhich 0  fallintooneofthehighriskclassesaresubjecttotheoverallvesselsecurity T requirementsof " 33C.F.R.part104,includingtheonsiteinspection,andthe x  assessmentsandrecommendationscalledforby  104.305,andasecurityprogram D (eitheravesselsecurityplan,oranalternativesecurityprogram)whicheitherdoes h ordoesnotrequiresearches.Thegovernmentsdefenseofthe highrisk  designationisthereforemisdirected.    Third,totheextentthatthecategoryisrelevant(asanecessarybutnot , sufficientpreconditionforsearches)itisimpossibletoderivemuchpractical P  meaningfromtheterm.Theregulatorsexplainhighriskasacombinedrubric t"  coveringterroristthreats( ^^theperceivedprobabilityofanattackbasedon $@"  maritimedomainawarenessandtheexistenceofintelligence#^^L#);vulnerabilities &d$" ( ^^theconditionalprobabilityofsuccessgiventhatathreatscenariooccurs#^^M#);and (&$ consequences( ^^theestimationofadverseeffectfromthetarget/attackscenarioin +(& sixcategories:death/injury,economic,environmental,nationaldefense,symbolic (-*( effect,andsecondary(follow-on)nationalsecuritythreat#^^N#.). # 68Fed.Reg.at X 3924445.Nothingexplainshowthesevariouscomponentswereweighedand |$ factoredintothe highriskdetermination,orwhythecutofflinewasdrawn H whereitwas:whetherbecause ^^[p]assengervesselsubjectto46CFRsubchapters l HorKweredeemedlikelytargets,oreasytargets,orbecauseofthepotential   consequencesofasuccessfulattack.#^^P# #  2         __  Finally,the highriskcategoryisfurthermuddiedbythefactthattherisk 0  assessorswentbeyondtheirstatutorymandateindecidingwhichclassesofvessels T tosingleout.TheMTSAcallsforastudytodeterminewhichclassesofvessel x   poseahighriskofbeinginvolvedinatransportationsecurityincident. % 46 D U.S.C.70102(a).Thattermisdefinedas asecurityincidentresultingin h significantlossoflife,environmentaldamage,transportationsystemdisruption,or  economicdisruptioninaparticulararea.Id._ ( _70101(6).ButtheDHS/Coast  Guardstudyalsoconsideredtheriskthataparticularclassofvesselscouldbe , used asameansoftransferringorenablingthetransferofterroristsor P  terrorism-relatedmaterials.... # 68Fed.Reg.39244.Totheunknownextentthat t"  passengervesselsover100tonshavebeendesignated highriskbecauseoftheir $@"  potentialtotransportterrorists,thedesignationissuspect. X   3.TheGovernmentsCallforDeference  W |$   Thegovernmentdefendsthevaguenessofitsjustificationwithrepeated L callsforjudicialdeference.Thejudgmentthatsearchesarenecessaryis more p appropriatelymadeby...theCoastGuardthanbythecourts(Gov.Br.15);this   Courtisnot properlyequippedtounderstandthepsychologyofaterrorist,or   predicthisactions(id.22);andastotheparticularmeanschosen, thecourtsare 4  obviouslynotwellpositionedtomakethedifficultchoicesinvolved.Id.29.Its X discussionofthedeferencedue,however,isquitebrief.Id.2526,citing * Chevron |$ U.S.A.Inc.v.NaturalResourcesDefenseCouncil,Inc.,467U.S.837(1984),and H othercasesrequiringdeferencetoagencyrulesanddirectivesintendedtocarrythe l forceoflaw.IfplaintiffswereraisingageneralchallengetotheMTSA  regulations,orthe highriskdesignationofparticularclassesofvessels,the   argumentmighthavemerit. 0   Butplaintiffschallengeismuchnarrower.Theadministrativedecision T  genuinelyatissueappliesonlytoLCTsferries,andisoneofpresumably x"  thousandsofsuchvesselspecificdecisions,noneofwhichextendsbeyondthe $D"  particularvesselorfleetinvolved.In , UnitedStatesv.MeadCorp.,533U.S.218 &h$" (2001),theCustomsServiceissueda rulinglettertoanimporterof day (&$ planners,whichhadpreviouslybeenclassifiedasdutyfree,announcingthat +(& theseitemswouldhenceforthbeclassifiedas bounddiarieswhichweresubject ,-*( totariff.Inresponsetotheimporterscomplaintthatthesenewtariffswerenot X authorizedbystatute,theCustomsServicearguedfor - Chevrondeference.The |$ Courtrejectedthatclaim,principallybecausetherulingatissueappliedonlyto H Mead,wasoneofthousandsofsuchrulings,andwasnotintendedtohavethe l forceoflaw. Anysuggestionthatrulingsintendedtohavetheforceoflaware   beingchurnedoutatarateof10,000ayear...issimplyselfrefuting. . Id.233.   Suchadhocrulingswere besttreatedlikeinterpretationscontainedinpolicy 0  statements,agencymanuals,andenforcementguidelines. . Id.234,quoting T  0 Christiansonv.HarrisCounty,529U.S.577,587(2000).Thegovernmentcites x  Meadwitha seegenerally,butmakesnoattempttoexplainhowitsdecision D approvingandrequiringsearchesontheLCTferriesisanydifferent,ormore h entitledto - Chevrondeference,thantherulingletterinthatcase.    Thegovernmentsbriefrefersrepeatedlytoplaintiffs beliefsand   opinionsregardingthenecessityandefficacyofthesesearches,Gov.Br.14,21, , 23,buttheissueisnotplaintiffsopinionbutthegovernmentsproof.TheFourth P  Amendmentcreatesabasicpresumptionagainstsuspicionlesssearches,_ 3 _Cityof t"  Indianapolisv.Edmond    ,531U.S.32,37(2000),andthereisnoquestionbutthat $@"  thegovernmentbearstheburdenofjustifyinganexceptiontothenorm.See &d$" _ 5 _UnitedStatesv.Lifshitz,369F.3d173,186_(2d_ԀCir.2004);_ 7 _N.G.exrel.S.C.v. (&$ Connecticut,382F.3d225,242(2dCir.2004)(Sotomayor,J.,concurringand +(& dissenting).Itcannotavoidthatburdenbyacallforjudicialdeference. (-*(   4.ConstitutionallyProtectedPrivacy  ci  X   Thesecondscaleofthespecialneedsbalanceinvolvestheprivacyinterests ( affectedbythesearch.Thegovernmentsargumentonthistopicisalsocursory, L notwithstandingthatitisaskingformorethantheSupremeCourthasever p allowedinitsroadblockcases(whichinvolvedbriefstops,butnosearches).   MakingtheuncontestedpointthattheFourthAmendmentdoesnotshieldthe   interiorpartsofanautomobilewhichcanbeviewedfromoutside,Gov.Br.34,the 4  governmentunaccountablyomitsanydiscussionofsearchesoftrunks,which X clearlyaresoprotected.#XX^$#^XXԀWithrespecttohandluggageandothercarryonsthe |$ governmentsaysonlythatthesearches involve[]nottheslighteststigma[.]Id. H 35,quoting_ 9 _UnitedStatesv.Edwards,498F.2d496,500_(2d_ԀCir.1974). ; Bondv. l UnitedStates,529U.S.334(2000),whichdefinitivelyreaffirmedtheprotected  privacyinterestinthecontentsofhandluggage,isnevermentioned.     Thegovernmentschargethatplaintiffsarereallyaskingformoreintrusive 0 searches(Gov.Br.37),isaclassicredherring. T    Ifthegovernmentwereseriousaboutdeterringanddetectingactsof x"  terrorismagainsttheLCTferriesthesearcheswouldhavetobefarmoreextensive $D"  andintrusive.Theinferenceisthatthegovernmentisnotserious,andthatthe &h$" costsofgettingevenminimallyseriousaresimplynotworththeexpenseand (&$ inconveniencewhichthatwouldentail. +(&   JusticeScaliasdictuminhisdissentin = TreasuryEmployeesv.VonRaab, ,-*( 489U.S._656,687_Ԁ(1989), thattheimpairmentofindividuallibertiescannotbe X themeansofmakingapoint[,]wasembracedbyamajorityoftheSupremeCourt |$ in_ ? _Chandlerv.Miller,520U.S.305,321(1997). H   Symbolism, theimagethe[administration]seekstoproject[,]_ @ id.,_Ԁandthe l creationofpublicawareness,J.A.378,mayormaynotbeimportantpurposes.   Therearemanymeansbywhichthegovernmentcanaccomplishthemwhichdo   notinvadeconstitutionallyprotectedprivacy,includingofficialpatrols,useof 0  bombsniffingdogs,andvideosurveillance.Making_the_Ԁpointthrougha T haphazardandirrationalprogramofsearchesviolatestheFourthAmendment. x  H4X` hp x%#%XH@%_  CONCLUSION  v_Ԉ D   Forthesereasonsandforthereasonsstatedin_plaintiffs_Ԁprincipalbrief,the l judgmentappealedfromshouldbereversedandthecaseremandedtothedistrict  _court.   _$Dated:_August22,2005 0 __  ____0 ` __0 ` (#` (#__0 (# (#__0h(#(#__0h(#h(#_Respectfully_submitted,B(#(# __  ____0 ` __0 ` (#` (#__0 (# (#__0h(#(#__0h(#h(#__________________________________$D" (#(# __  ____0 ` __0 ` (#` (#__0 (# (#__0h(#(#__0h(#h(#_WilliamA._Nelson%V#!(#(# __  ____0 ` __0 ` (#` (#__0 (# (#__0h(#(#__0h(#h(#_52High_Street&h$"(#(# __  ____0 ` __0 ` (#` (#__0 (# (#__0h(#(#__0h(#h(#_Middlebury,VT_05753'z%#(#(# __  ____0 ` __0 ` (#` (#__0 (# (#__0h(#(#__0h(#h(#_802388_Ԅ6781(&$(#(# __  ____0 ` __0 ` (#` (#__0 (# (#__0h(#(#__0h(#h(#_Counselfor_Plaintiffs)'%(#(# ____#XX^l#___