greater intrusion of their privacy than the ferry passengers who have to open their trunks for a brief visual inspection by a ferry attendant. 428 U.S. at 547, 96 S.Ct. 3074 (upholding brief questioning in a “secondary inspection area” which lasted on average between three and five minutes). And even if the intrusions in this case were more significant than those in the Supreme Court’s checkpoint cases, they are certainly less intrusive than the search at issue in Edwards. In Edwards, we found pre-boarding baggage searches at airports to be minimally intrusive, even when a Deputy United States Marshal searched a woman’s bag, found a package with a pair of slacks wrapped around it, removed the slacks, and looked inside the package. 498 F.2d at 499-500; see also MacWade, 460 F.3d at 273 (<HOLDING>). Nor does plaintiffs’ assertion that
holding that a random visual and manual search of bags and packages carried onto the new york city subway was minimally intrusive holding that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of plastic garbage bags left on or at the side of a public street holding tacit consent to search of person was insufficient to prove consent to search bags where bags were not in defendants actual possession defendant merely pointed out bags at officers request and officer never specifically asked for consent to search bags holding that random searches of subway passengers carryon bags which include the visual inspection of the contents of such bags to be minimal holding that defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of plastic bags placed in or near his open garbage cans and that the police did not violate his fourth amendment rights in seizing and searching the bags where they were able to do so without trespassing on the defendants property