Answered You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
Write a 6 pages paper on aviation law (application of law). However, local and state authorities have also enacted legislation that is aimed at reducing and abating the effects caused by noise polluti
Write a 6 pages paper on aviation law (application of law). However, local and state authorities have also enacted legislation that is aimed at reducing and abating the effects caused by noise pollution. In the case of Air Transport Association of America v Crotti, the courts in Northern California held that the proprietors or operators of airports might regulate the noise on the ground but not aircrafts that are on flight (304). This was in stark contrast to the finding in the Burbank case whereby it was emphasized that the power to control noise in airports does not preempt the federal government or the local as well as state authorities to adopt policies that will greatly reduce noise from aircrafts. Later the Federal Aviation Authorities (FAA) expressly rejected the exclusive control of noise abatement in instances of aircrafts but imposed upon the operators of airports the responsibility of reducing the effects of noise caused by aircrafts (310). When it comes to liability, the Federal Aviation Act explicitly provides that it neither abridges nor changes the position held by common law and the remedies that can be provided by the statutes. In Greater Westchester the court’s examination of the Act found that nothing could make it think that the FAA possessed powers to adjudicate on disputes between operators of airports and those that are found in the surrounding areas. The intimation here is that those that are aggrieved by the noise from aircrafts in their neighborhood should direct their complaints to the operators of the airports for any remedies that accrue to them. Q.2 The United States Constitution Fourth Amendment protects the rights of individuals from unreasonable searches at airport checkpoints that may be reasonable or unreasonable which are lawful and unlawful respectively (Carson and Ramen, 2012). When it comes to searches at airports, the courts in interpreting the Fourth Amendment stress the application of the standard of reasonable suspicion of a criminal activity. In order that the search qualify to be a seizure it is important that the authorities determine whether it was reasonable or unreasonable determined from the articulable facts and reasonable inferences that were available to the officer at the time of the arrest. However, the law expressly provides that a search against a person is unreasonable if it falls within the recognized exceptions, which may include searches and seizures applicable in valid incidents as was held in United States v Chadwick. For cases of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in the application of the Fourth Amendment, the courts recognize the need for the privacy of a person from intrusion from the government that may be deemed unreasonable. The court recognizes the Fourth Amendment that takes care of citizens against police activity such as search and frisks that was ably discussed in the case of Terry v Ohio which elaborated on the level of intrusion. While the courts have continuously applied their own doctrines to justify searches at airports, it is important to note that the current searches done at airports are mainly informed by the need to ensure that national security is upheld.