Opinion by Judge BEA; Concurrence by Judge GRABER.

More than 700 million passengers board commercial aircraft in the United States each year.1 The Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”) is given the task of ensuring their safety, the safety of airline and airport personnel and, as the events of September 11, 2001, demonstrate, the safety of the general public from risks arising from commercial airplane flights. To do so, the TSA conducts airport screening searches of all passengers entering the secured area of the airport. We have *957previously held such airport screening searches are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches. Today we clarify that the reasonableness of such searches does not depend, in whole or in part, upon the consent of the passenger being searched.

I.

A.

On February 1, 2003, Daniel Kuualoha Aukai arrived at the Honolulu International Airport intending to take a Hawaiian Airlines flight from Honolulu, Hawaii, to Kona, Hawaii. He proceeded to check in at the ticket counter but did not produce a government-issued picture identification. Accordingly, the ticket agent wrote the phrase “No ID” on Aukai’s boarding pass.

Aukai then proceeded to the security checkpoint, at which signs were posted advising prospective passengers that they and their carry-on baggage were subject to search. He entered the security checkpoint at approximately 9:00 a.m., placed his shoes and a few other items into a plastic bin, and voluntarily walked through the metal detector or magnetometer. The parties agree that the magnetometer did not signal the presence of metal as Aukai walked through it. Nor did his belongings trigger an alarm or otherwise raise suspicion as they passed through the x-ray machine. After walking through the magnetometer, Aukai presented his boarding pass to TSA Officer Corrine Motonaga.

Pursuant to TSA procedures, a passenger who presents a boarding pass on which “No ID” has been written is subject to secondary screening even if he has passed through the initial screening without triggering an alarm or otherwise raising suspicion. As it was performed here, secondary screening consists of a TSA officer passing a handheld magnetometer, known as a “wand,” near and around the passenger’s body. If the wand detects metal, it sounds an alarm. The TSA officer then discerns the cause of the alarm, using techniques such as feeling the outside of the passenger’s clothes in the area that caused the alarm and, if that area is near a pocket, directing the passenger to empty his pocket.

Because Aukai’s boarding pass had the “No ID” notation, Motonaga directed Au-kai to a nearby, roped-off area for secondary screening. Aukai initially complied but complained that he was in a hurry to catch his flight which, according to the boarding pass, was scheduled to leave at 9:05 a.m., just a few minutes later. Although Aukai went to the roped-off area as directed, he did not stay there. When Motonaga noticed that Aukai had left the area and was gathering his belongings from the plastic bin, she instructed Aukai that he was not allowed to retrieve his property and that he had to stay in the roped-off area.

Aukai then appealed to TSA Officer Andrew Misajon, who was to perform the secondary screening, explaining again that he was in a hurry to catch his flight. Misajon nonetheless had Aukai sit in a chair and proceeded to use the wand to detect metal objects. At some point, Misa-jon had Aukai stand, and when Misajon passed the wand across the front of Au-kai’s body, the wand alarm was triggered at Aukai’s front right pants pocket. Misa-jon asked Aukai if he had anything in his pocket, and Aukai responded that he did not. Misajon passed the wand over the pocket a second time; again the wand alarm was triggered. Misajon again inquired whether Aukai had anything in his pocket; again Aukai said he did not. Mi-sajon then felt the outside of Aukai’s pocket and concluded that something was inside the pocket. Misajon could also see the outline of an unknown object in Aukai’s pocket. At some point during this screen*958ing process, Aukai informed Misajon that he no longer wished to board a plane and wanted to leave the airport.

At this point, TSA Supervisor Joseph Vizcarra approached Misajon and asked whether he needed assistance. Misajon related the events and Vizcarra asked Mi-sajon to pass the wand over Aukai’s pocket again. When the wand alarm again was triggered, Vizcarra directed Aukai to empty his pocket. Aukai again protested that he had nothing in his pocket. Using the back of his hand, Vizcarra touched the outside of Aukai’s pocket and felt something in the pocket. He again directed Aukai to empty his pocket. This time Aukai reached into his pocket and removed either his keys or change, but a bulge was still visible in his pocket. Vizcarra directed Aukai to remove all contents from his pocket. After claiming at first that there was nothing more, Aukai finally removed an object wrapped in some form of tissue paper and placed it on a tray in front of him.

Suspecting that the object might be a weapon, Vizcarra summoned a nearby law enforcement officer. Vizcarra then unwrapped the object and discovered a glass pipe used to smoke methamphetamine. The law enforcement officer escorted Au-kai to a small office near the security checkpoint. Aukai was placed under arrest and was searched incident to his arrest. During the search, the police discovered in Aukai’s front pants pockets several transparent bags containing a white crystal substance. Aukai eventually was taken into federal custody, where he was advised of and waived his Miranda rights, and then gave a statement in which he inculpated himself in the possession of methamphetamine.

B.

Aukai was indicted for knowingly and intentionally possessing, with the intent to distribute, 50 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and 841(b)(1)(A)(viii). Aukai filed a motion to suppress the evidence found incident to his arrest at the airport and the statement he later made, which the district court denied. Aukai then pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement that preserved his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion. The district court sentenced Aukai to a term of imprisonment of 70 months and a term of supervised release of 5 years. Aukai timely appealed.

II.

We review de novo the district court’s legal basis for denying a motion to suppress, but review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Marquez, 410 F.3d 612, 615 (9th Cir. 2005) (as amended).

III.

The Fourth Amendment requires the government to respect “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons ... and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const, amend. IV. “A search or seizure is ordinarily unreasonable in the absence of individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. While such suspicion is not an ‘irreducible’ component of reasonableness, [the Supreme Court has] recognized only limited circumstances in which the usual rule does not apply.” City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 37, 121 S.Ct. 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333 (2000) (citations omitted). However, “where the risk to public safety is substantial and real, blanket suspicionless searches calibrated to the risk may rank as ‘reasonable’ — for example, searches now routine at airports and at entrances to courts and other official buildings.” Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 323, 117 S.Ct. 1295, 137 L.Ed.2d 513 (1997) (holding *959Georgia’s requirement that candidates for state office pass a drug test did not fit within this exception) (citing Nat’l Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 674-76 & n. 3, 109 S.Ct. 1384, 103 L.Ed.2d 685 (1989) (upholding warrantless drug testing of employees applying for promotion to positions involving drug interdiction)). Thus, “where a Fourth Amendment intrusion serves special governmental needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, it is necessary to balance the individual’s privacy expectations against the Government’s interests to determine whether it is impractical to require a warrant or some level of individualized suspicion in the particular context.” Von Raab, 489 U.S. at 665-66, 109 S.Ct. 1384.

Under this rationale the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of so-called “administrative searches.”2 In New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691, 107 S.Ct. 2636, 96 L.Ed.2d 601 (1987), the Supreme Court upheld the warrantless search of a junkyard’s records, permits, and vehicles. The Supreme Court reasoned: “Because the owner or operator of commercial premises in a ‘closely regulated’ industry has a reduced expectation of privacy, the warrant and probable-cause requirements, which fulfill the traditional Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness for a government search have lessened application ....” Id. at 702, 107 S.Ct. 2636 (internal citation omitted). Thus, New York’s interest in regulating the junkyard industry, in light of the rise of motor-theft and comprehensive motor vehicle insurance premiums, served as a “special need” allowing inspection without a warrant. Id. at 708-09, 107 S.Ct. 2636; see also id. at 702, 107 S.Ct. 2636. The regulatory statute also provided a “constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant” because the statute informed junkyard operators that inspections would be made on a regular basis and limited the discretion of inspecting officers. Id. at 711, 107 S.Ct. 2636.

In Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 110 S.Ct. 2481, 110 L.Ed.2d 412 (1990), Sitz challenged the constitutionality of suspicionless sobriety checkpoints conducted on Michigan’s highways, contending that the program violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizures. Id. at 447-48, 110 S.Ct. 2481. The Supreme Court upheld the sobriety checkpoints because “the balance of the State’s interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which [the sobriety checkpoints] can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of’ finding the sobriety checkpoints constitutionally reasonable. Id. at 455, 110 S.Ct. 2481.

Significantly, the Supreme Court has held that the constitutionality of administrative searches is not dependent upon consent. In United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311, 92 S.Ct. 1593, 32 L.Ed.2d 87 (1972), the Supreme Court upheld the war-rantless search of a pawn shop owner’s gun storeroom. The search was authorized by a federal gun control statute. The *960Court held that, “[i]n the context of a regulatory inspection system of business premises that is carefully limited in time, place, and scope, the legality of the search depends not on consent but on the authority of a valid statute.”3 Id. at 315, 92 S.Ct. 1593. Thus, “[w]hen a[gun] dealer chooses to engage in this pervasively regulated business and to accept a federal license, he does so with the knowledge that his business records, firearms, and ammunition will be subject to effective inspection.” Id. at 316, 92 S.Ct. 1593.

We have held that airport screening searches, like the one at issue here, are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches because they are “conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, namely, to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft, and thereby to prevent hijackings.” United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973); see also United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174, 178 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 111, 166 L.Ed.2d 255 (2006); Marquez, 410 F.3d at 616. Our case law, however, has erroneously suggested that the reasonableness of airport screening searches is dependent upon consent, either ongoing consent4 or irrevocable implied consent.5

The constitutionality of an airport screening search, however, does not depend on consent, see Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315, 92 S.Ct. 1593, and requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a posi>9/ll world.6 Such a rule would afford terror*961ists7 multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by “electing not to fly” on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found. This rule would also allow terrorists a low-cost method of detecting systematic vulnerabilities in airport security, knowledge that could be extremely valuable in planning future attacks. Likewise, given that consent is not required, it makes little sense to predicate the reasonableness of an administrative airport screening search on an irrevocable implied consent theory. Rather, where an airport screening search is otherwise reasonable and conducted pursuant to statutory authority, 49 U.S.C. § 44901, all that is required is the passenger’s election to attempt entry into the secured area8 of an airport. See Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315, 92 S.Ct. 1593; 49 C.F.R. § 1540.107. Under current TSA regulations and procedures, that election occurs when a prospective passenger walks through the magnetometer or places items on the conveyor belt of the x-ray machine.9 *962The record establishes that Aukai elected to attempt entry into the posted secured area of Honolulu International Airport when he walked through the magnetometer, thereby subjecting himself to the airport screening process.

To the extent our cases have predicated the reasonableness of an airport screening search upon either ongoing consent or irrevocable implied consent, they are overruled.

IV.

Although the constitutionality of airport screening searches is not dependent on consent, the scope of such searches is not limitless. A particular airport security screening search is constitutionally reasonable provided that it “is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives [][and] that it is confined in good faith to that purpose.” Davis, 482 F.2d at 913. We conclude that the airport screening search of Aukai satisfied these requirements.

The search procedures used in this case were neither more extensive nor more intensive than necessary under the circumstances to rule out the presence of weapons or explosives. After passing through a magnetometer, Aukai was directed to secondary screening because his boarding pass was marked “No ID.” Aukai then underwent a standard “wanding procedure.” When the wand alarm sounded as the wand passed over Aukai’s front right pants pocket, TSA Officer Misajon did not reach into Aukai’s pocket or feel the outside of Aukai’s pocket. Rather, Misajon asked Aukai if he had something in his pocket. When Aukai denied that there was anything in his pocket, Misajon repeated the wanding procedure. Only after the wand alarm again sounded and Aukai again denied having anything in his pocket did Misajon employ a more intrusive search procedure by feeling the outside of Aukai’s pocket and determining that there was something in there.

At that point, TSA Supervisor Vizcarra became involved. Vizcarra asked Misajon to pass the wand over Aukai’s pocket again. When the wand alarm again sounded, Vizcarra directed Aukai to empty his pocket. Aukai again protested that he had nothing in his pocket. Using the back of his hand, Vizcarra touched the outside of Aukai’s pocket and felt something inside. Vizcarra again directed Aukai to empty his pocket. This time Aukai reached into his pocket and removed either his keys or change, but a bulge was still visible in his pocket. Vizcarra directed Aukai to remove all contents from his pocket. After first claiming there was nothing more, Au-kai removed an object wrapped in some form of tissue paper and placed it on a tray in front of him. Suspecting that the item might be a weapon, Vizcarra unwrapped the item, discovering drug paraphernalia.

Like the Third Circuit, we find these search procedures to be minimally intrusive. See Hartwell, 436 F.3d at 180(holding similar search procedures to be “minimally intrusive,” explaining that the procedures are “well-tailored to protect personal privacy, escalating in inva-siveness only after a lower level of screening disclosed a reason to conduct a more probing search”).

The duration of the detention associated with this airport screening search was also *963reasonable. Witnesses testified that Aukai entered the checkpoint area at approximately 9:00 a.m. and that the entire search at issue — starting from when Aukai walked through the checkpoint until the TSA’s efforts to rule out the presence of a weapon resulted in the discovery of drug paraphernalia — took no more than 18 minutes. Although longer than detentions approved in other cases, see, e.g., Sitz, 496 U.S. at 448, 110 S.Ct. 2481 (average delay of 25 seconds); United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 546-47, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 (1976) (average detention of 3-5 minutes), the length of Au-kai’s detention was reasonable, especially in light of Aukai’s conduct, because it was not prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to rule out the presence of weapons or explosives.10 See Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407, 125 S.Ct. 834, 160 L.Ed.2d 842 (2005) (stating that a seizure can become unlawful if it is “prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete [its] mission”).

Accordingly, we hold that the airport screening search of Aukai was a constitutionally reasonable administrative search.

AFFIRMED.

specially concurring:

I concur in the result and nearly all of the reasoning in the majority opinion. I write separately, however, because I cannot join the majority’s irrelevant and distracting references to 9/11 and terrorists. Daniel Aukai is no terrorist and yet, whether in 1997 or 2007, the search that law enforcement personnel conducted of his person falls squarely within the confines of a reasonable administrative search.

The majority holds, and I agree, that once a passenger enters the secured area of an airport, the constitutionality of a screening search does not depend on consent. That legal conclusion rests firmly on Supreme Court precedent and on the government’s interest in ensuring the safety of passengers, airline personnel, and the general public. For .decades, nefarious individuals have tried to use commercial aircraft to further a personal or political agenda at the expense of those on board and on the ground.1 And the threat continues to exist that individuals, whether members of an organized group or not, may attempt to do the same. In my view, *964references to a “posMVll world,” maj. op. at 960, do not advance the analysis. Nor is there any legal significance to whether or not an individual is a terrorist. See maj. op. at 960-61. By relying on those factors, the majority unnecessarily makes its solid holding dependent on the existence of the current terrorist threat, inviting future litigants to retest the viability of that holding.