Police to Check Bags on NYC Subways ... 4th amendment anyone?

[OneInchGroup]

Civil Rights Versus Catching Terrorists

Maybe someone, somewhere, in law enforcement or government, might finally get to the part about profiling being an effective means of solving the problem of foreign terrorists being able to blend in to any crowd that assembles anywhere? CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE RESERVED TO CITIZENS OF THE USA. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO EXTEND OUR RIGHTS TO ANY FOREIGN NATIONALS ON OUR SOIL. I travel by air all the time and am getting pretty damned sick and tired of having to go through all the motions now required in order to board a plane, knowing that it is all 100% pointless as long as potential attackers are not profiled. How many people really believe that children or middle aged, blonde midwestern businessmen commuting 3 or 4 times a week are likely to be a real threat? If we had any sense we'd be issuing Preferred flyer photo IDs to everybody identified as "NOT A TERRORIST" and doing fingerprint instachecks to verify who everyone is before they could get to any form of mass transit. My secured PC at work has a fingerprint verification pad that knows who is accessing it, and there are similar web-based systems that can identify anyone with a criminal record or without a US passport in less than 2 seconds. Lets get serious and actually secure the borders for a change. Check my prints and let me on the plane without having to take off my damned shoes, and into the DC Subway without having my briefcase ransacked, for God's sake!

 

[Rich Lucibella]

OIG-
Ask and Ye Shall Receive. It's called National Id or RealID and it's guaranteed to keep .gov apprised of the comings and goings of everyone....ok, maybe not everyone, but they'll certainly know a lot more about the Law Abiding Citizen. Best of all, it's already Law.
Rich

 

[TimRB]

"CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE RESERVED TO CITIZENS OF THE USA. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO EXTEND OUR RIGHTS TO ANY FOREIGN NATIONALS ON OUR SOIL."

This is not correct. Foreign nationals accused of crimes here have exactly the same protections under the Constitution as citizens. This is a natural fallout of the concept that the Constitution does not, in and of itself, grant rights; it only enumerates the rights that are divinely granted.

Tim

 

[alan]

At the not inconsiderable risk of repeating myself, I again submit that looking at the number of passengers carried daily on the NYC subway system, I grew up in NYC and lived there for many years, random searches, outside that verrrry long shot chance, are a Dog and Pony Show.

Antipitas made mention of "a reasonable expectation of privacy when away from ones home". I would say that, in ones home, the individual had a whole lot more than a reasonable expectation of privacy, and that the fact that the individual happened to be "out and about" involved in lawful business or errands diminishes this not the least, for if being "out in public" denudes one of their right to privacy, the right to be left the hell alone, how long do you think you will retain that right, when at home. Government has shown, on numerous occasions, that it can always justify or rationalize it's more egregious antics. Just look at the "stuff" pulled by ATF, for an example of such, if one were needed.

 

[mvpel]

mvpel, I agree with you to a degree. But then you are 'profiling' people, and basing your searches on ethnic origin, or some other factor, and some will be just as mad, and rightly so about that, as will be mad about the searches to begin with.

The "right not to arouse suspicion among police officers" has never been proposed or seriously considered as a right, either Constitutional or fundamental.

At least the whining and complaining about racial profiling would have a backdrop of something other than a meaningless and unconstitutional dog-and-pony show - something that would actually have a chance of intercepting a terrorist attack.

And besides, merely stopping anyone who looked middle-eastern, in the absence of any other articulable suspicion with respect to attire, behaviour, demeanor, etc, would be almost as pointless an exercise as searching nuns.

 

[butch50]

Quote from Rich: Same holds true of: Churches, Movie Theaters, Shopping Malls, Hotels, Office Buildings and Apartment Complexes. Shall we commence random searches at each of these or do we assume the terrorist dismantles his bomb when he realizes he can't get thru the 1:5 "dragnet" on the subway platform?

The logistics are different, and the targets are different. Subways are not only people rich target environments but shutting them down has a devastating effect on huge quantities of people and on the ability of a city as an organization to survive. There is simply no comparison with subways and Churches, Theaters, Malls, Hotels, Office buildings and Apartment Complexes. Logistically speaking a subway system has a very limited number of entrances, which makes checking bags possible. We simply could not field enough people to search Churches, Theaters etc.

I think you have invented a wonderful new term of art for places where we might expect our Bill of Rights to applyut in public in general". Your post describes that as any place where .gov chooses not to perform random searches. I think we may have a winning compromise there....after all, our politicians and bureaucrats would never abuse that power.

I appreciate the attribution . Given a chance power will be abused. BUT, I do not believe that the subway searches are abuse of power. They are among many other things, voluntary. A search that is conducted after receiving the searchees voluntary acquiesence is not a violation of that persons rights. In my mind, small and dim as it is, an unconstitutional search must at least contain the element of compulsion. If I am searched against my will it may well be an unconstitutional search, based upon the other elements of it. If I am asked if I agree to be searched, and if I say yes; then that search does not violate my rights.

Question from Rich: Just how will voluntary searches of every 5th person result in the capturing of suicide bombers? I mean, if you can't answer that question coherently, you're simply in support of a very dangerous Feel Good Law.

I can not answer that. It is not possible to answer that. For all we know the deterrent effect may have already saved 50 lives. For all we know it hasn't accomplished a thing. It is like instituting safety procedures on a construction site - you rarely ever know about an accident that was avoided. Personally I think it would be more effective to not do random searches, but to do target searches based on profiling. Profiling to me seems to be a scientific methodology. The profile should be developed on a strictly statistical basis. If/when enough bombs go off in our subways then profiling may be able to come out of the closet where it has been relegated to and be used effectively. But that is for another day, isn't it? Too much PC fear out there right now.

Question from Mr. James: You state several times there is no Constitutional problem with random searches at subway stops to keep bombs off subways. What do you suppose NYPD will do to anyone who doesn't have a bomb, but does have a knife, or a Glock, or a few glassines of heroin, or some pornographic materials with young-looking models?

The searches are voluntary. The prospective searchee may simply decline to be searched and walk away without repercussion. If a person agrees to a search and that search turns up contraband of some sort, then that person has not had his rights violated, because he agreed to the search. If you are pulled over for a broken tail light and the cop asks if he may search your car, and you tell him it is OK and he finds illegal drugs and arrests you, he has not violated your rights.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

A search that is conducted after receiving the searches voluntary acquiescence is not a violation of that persons rights.

Then, except for your values on what is "practical" it would be completely Constitutional for The Government to conduct "voluntary or turn back" searches on highways, and sidewalks; at Churches, Movie Theaters, Shopping Malls, Hotels, Office Buildings, Driveways and Apartment Complexes????

When asked the answer of benefits of these "voluntary or turn back" searches, you opine:

I can not answer that. It is not possible to answer that.

If you admit that you cannot guess, even on an order of magnitude, the number of lives SAVED from this illegal 4th Amendment search; that you cannot articulate even one practical scenario where it will avoid a bombing... how can you possibly be willing to abrogate our GOD GRANTED RIGHTS with any reason whatsoever?

That's a horrendous answer, DT. I cannot answer what the effect of house to house firearms confiscation would be on firearms deaths, either. But I know that firearms have "taken" 10X the number killed in 9/11 EVERY YEAR. Are you now in the Brady Camp on the Second? Or are you really just a Single Amendment Patriot?
Rich

 

[butch50]

Then, except for your values on what is "practical" it would be completely Constitutional for The Government to conduct "voluntary or turn back" searches on highways, and sidewalks; at Churches, Movie Theaters, Shopping Malls, Hotels, Office Buildings, Driveways and Apartment Complexes????

There are voluntary searches at airports, at concerts, sporting events, schools, govt buildings, and many other places. Walking through a metal detector is a search of your person, a convenient one in some ways, but a search none the less. I don't see what I am saying about logistics as values, rather practical application of limited resources. You can put a finite number of people at subway entrances and conduct searches. You can not realistically have people everywhere to do searches.

If you admit that you cannot guess, even on an order of magnitude, the number of lives SAVED from this illegal 4th Amendment search; that you cannot articulate even one practical scenario where it will avoid a bombing... how can you possibly be willing to abrogate our GOD GRANTED RIGHTS with any reason whatsoever?

I can not guess, even on an order of magnitude. If we were searching every single person I couldn't guess because we don't actually have any data to work with on how many bombers were thwarted. Why would I be willing to abrogate my God Granted rights? I am not willing to. I do not see an abrogation of my rights when someone asks me if I am willing to be searched. If I am searched against my will, that is a violation of my rights. If I volunteer to be searched then I have not lost any rights. So bottom line is:

1. I do not think these subway searches are unconstitutional.
2. I do not know how effective they are. I don't know how ineffective they
are.
3. Given that they do not violate our rights, and given that the possibility exists that they may do some good, and given that we aren't doing anything else worthwhile: I see no harm in these searches.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

OK. Lemme paraphrase your words and apparent conclusions:

- As long as searches are voluntary.
- As long as government agents grant you "right" to refuse yourself access to areas and services that the "Followers" are allowed to enjoy.
- As long as they are for the public safety, defined as "might have made you safer"......

Such searches might be conducted anywhere, should we ever face a War on Terrorism, a War on Drugs or a War on Poverty. After all, "Constitutional" is really just a word....we're talking about something far more important: PUBLIC SAFETY.

In TRUTH, that is hardly a Stalinist concept. Uncle Joe would never have promulgated PUBLIC SAFETY as the watchword of the repressive day. Uncle Joe was a tyrant and he certainly announced himself as such.....didn't he?

How dare Rich even make the comparison in thought processes. He must be one of those agitators. Couldn't possibly see the BIG picture.
____________________________
Did I paint the picture accurately?
____________________________

Given that they do not violate our rights

I submit they Do. Read the Fourth and look at you interpretations of where that right does not exist.

and given that the possibility exists that they may do some good

You can do better than that. Even Rosie O'Donnell never waffled that much in her quest to step on th BoR for a "higher" purpose. At least invoke the word "Compelling" somewhere.

given that we aren't doing anything else worthwhile

That's a quotable quote in the annals of thought provoking reasons to restrict liberties.

I see no harm in these searches.

Of course you don't. Just look at the logic and words that precede this proclamation.

Rich

 

[Derius_T]

The only way you can hold both those positions is thru lip service only dedication to the Bill of Rights; you can't truly believe in their importance, while insisting on their abrogation, absent benefit; rather you demonstrate a non-reasoned, emotional attachment to just one: the Second. This marginalizes your ability to support even that one.

I guess my years of service, or the blood I bled for my country was mere 'lip service' too? Imagine that. I do believe stongly in the BOR and the Constitution, and that their meaning and the faith in them be preserved. But they are NOT holy religious documents. The founding fathers knew situations would arise in the future, unforseen and unimaginable to them, which would require admendments or adjustments to their original concept.

What it boils down to, is not wether or not I believe in or uphold our constitution, but wether or not I find these searches to be 'unreasonable' or without 'probable cause'. THIS IS WHERE WE DISAGREE.

I find that under the present threat of danger, the circumstances warrant searches. I think the current situation dictates it. As a matter of fact, if it were possible, I would search EVERYONE, and those who didn't like it could ride a bike.

I truely do not believe these police are doing these searches in an attempt to undermine our rights, or strip us of our freedoms....I see no underlying conspiracy here. I simply see men and women, putting their lives on the line, doing their DUTY, and a job they most likely HATE just as bad as those being SEARCHED!

Lets inject a little reality into the situation. In a perfect world, these measures would not be needed, but if you can pull your head out of the sand long enough, you would realize we do not live in a perfect world.

Now I have been on this board a long time, and rarely do we disagree. But you must realize we disagree on the 'reasonableness' of these searches only, and not continue to attack a mans personal loyalty to his country. That behavior is a bit beneath you Rich, honestly.

Are you now in the Brady Camp on the Second? Or are you really just a Single Amendment Patriot?

I assume you say this in response to:

Truth be told Rich, it most likely won't do a damned thing. But the alternative, doing nothing, will achieve the same result. At least there is a chance that the 'improved security measures' may deter the bombers.

(I know, I know, just like banning guns 'might' cut down on crime....I see the comparison)

Actually I was simply realizing how much my comment sounded like something from the Brady Camp, and made the comparison myself before someone else did it for me......

 

[mvpel]

BUT, I do not believe that the subway searches are abuse of power. They are among many other things, voluntary. A search that is conducted after receiving the searchees voluntary acquiesence is not a violation of that persons rights. In my mind, small and dim as it is, an unconstitutional search must at least contain the element of compulsion.

My fellow Earthicans, we enjoy so much
freedom it's almost sickening. We're free
to choose which hand our sex monitoring
chip is implanted in. And if we don't want
to pay our taxes, why, we're free to spend
a weekend with the pain monster.

 

[butch50]

Gee Rich, I am beginning to think that you disagree with me, or am I missing something here ?

I re-read your latest thread a couple of times and I am not quite sure if you just called me a Stalinist or not. Would you be so kind as to clarify for me?

We have not lost any rights due to the police doing random voluntary searches at subway entrances. Voluntary searches do not abrogate rights. Do you refuse to shop at every store that has a theft detector at the exit? Every time you go through one of those you are consenting to a search. Every time you go through a metal detector you are consenting to a search. Every time you get on an airplane you have consented to a search.

Why has it caught your attention so with the subway issue? What's different? Searches are a part of every day life in this day and age.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Butch-
I did not call you a Stalinist. That would be a personal attack. I made it clear that Uncle Joe used the exact same argument for repression as you do now. That's simple historical fact.

Do I "refuse to shop at every store that has a theft detector at the exit?". Nope, but I would if they asked to empty the contents of my lady's purse. And you are damned right I'd be a bit more than incensed if GOVERNMENT AGENTS chose to perform that task.

What it boils down to, is not whether or not I believe in or uphold our constitution, but wether or not I find these searches to be 'unreasonable' or without 'probable cause'. THIS IS WHERE WE DISAGREE.

I find that under the present threat of danger, the circumstances warrant searches. I think the current situation dictates it. As a matter of fact, if it were possible, I would search EVERYONE, and those who didn't like it could ride a bike.

DT-
Look at the two paragraphs above. Can you not see how diametrically opposed your own words are?

In one you state that random searches do not violate the Constitution.
In the next you clearly state that your reading of Non-negotiable Rights of Free Men may somehow be mitigated by the Threat of the Day. Does that not strike you as pretty weak support of the Bill of Rights? After all, it's the same argument advanced by every group that has ever demanded that bureaucrats ignore the Government contract with the American citizen.

I'd like to know just what it is everyone is so frightened of. Death? Face it....it's gonna happen in the blink of Time's eye. The only thing you leave behind is your legacy to the next generation. Choose carefully what you wish that to be. After all, it's about all you'll be remembered for.
Rich

 

[mvpel]

Yeah, right, "voluntary" - live under a bridge and eat garbage from dumpsters, or "consent" to searches everywhere you go. I'd rather spend the weekend with the pain monster, thankyouverymuch.

If I could simply say "no thank you, I don't wish to be searched" and then proceed on to the subway, then it would be "voluntary."

Look how the word "voluntary" is being twisted and brutalized here, it's positively Orwellian.

Merriam Webster:
=====
Main Entry: 1vol·un·tary
Pronunciation: 'vä-l&n-"ter-E
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin voluntarius, from voluntas will, from velle to will, wish -- more at WILL
1 : proceeding from the will or from one's own choice or consent
2 : unconstrained by interference : SELF-DETERMINING
...
7 : acting or done of one's own free will without valuable consideration or legal obligation
====

So you don't think the ability to ride the subway instead of walking a few miles, or paying ten times as much for a cab, is a "valuable consideration?"

=====
Main Entry: com·pel
Pronunciation: k&m-'pel
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): com·pelled; com·pel·ling
Etymology: Middle English compellen, from Middle French compellir, from Latin compellere, from com- + pellere to drive -- more at FELT

2 : to cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure
=====

How about the "overwhelming pressure" to get where you want to go at a reasonable cost in time, money, and effort?

 

[Dead]

Mvpel,

I thnk they mean "voluntary" as in we have guns and you dont.. So unless you want them pointed and getting shot you will VOLUNTARY let us search you.... The choice is yours... Bullet in the chest or search...

The above is extreme but it is getting close to the truth.

Rich Lucibella,

I would like to comment on the "how many lives have been saved" by searches... Simple if a bomber is out to blow themselves up and kill as many as they can when they do, if they are stopped and about to be searched in a crowded place.. simple they blow themselves up right there. Their goal in the end is accomplished either way searches or no searches it wont stop them from their goal, it just however might not be the ideal location that was choosen. So the only way you could say "X lives where saved" is to say 1 person was killed instead of 2 at the very best, this at the cost of trampling the rights of millions. :barf:

 

[Al Norris]

When they began the "voluntary" searches at the airport, I volunteered my money somewhere else. When they began their "voluntary" searches at concerts, I volunteered my money elsewhere. When they began their "voluntary" rolling DUI checkpoints, I voluntarily left the freeway. When they said they had to search the packages that contained the merchandise I just purchase at Costco, I took the guy back to the checkstand with me. I placed everything I had just bought onto the table and demanded a refund. In front of the manager any everyone else, I cut up my membership card and haven't been back. That was years ago, too.

I'm funny that way. If you want to search me, your excuse had better be more than, "because."

Let me get you a clue: There is nothing "voluntary" about submitting to a search inorder to partake of the service. That, my friends, is the very definition of coercion.

 

[LAK]

Rich Lucibella

Just how will voluntary searches of every 5th person result in the capturing of suicide bombers?

Oh, this is easy ....

Suicide bomber joins one of the lines of hundreds of people waiting to go through the turnstiles. As he nears the search point he glances around him noting "Hey, what a big crowd this is".

When his turn comes, he makes certain he is randomly selected by noting - as he draws nearer - counting heads in front of him. Ooops, he's going to be a "number nine", so he turns to the person behind him "Oh, you go in front sir, They'll want to check me you know".

Wearing his Michelin Man down parka the cops eye him closely as he reaches them. He opens his coat - sure enough revealing what appears to be belt of housebricks all wired together. About the time the first cop shouts half a syllable .... he goes kaboom.

Hey presto, one suicide bomber "caught" that "otherwise would have slipped through undetected".

Now do you see just why we need these searches?

 

[Bravo25]

Lets do some math here. 12 million riders a day. If you search just 1% it would take 100 people who could spend no more that.6.666666666 seconds, 24 hours a day, on each search. This is 1%! a whole lot less than 5%.

As has been stated earlier once the bottle neck at the turnstile is compiled then the target will have been maximized there. This will then become the bombing location.

Then, we will of course, have to move the checkpoint to the street, then to the roads, then to the houses.......

 

[Derius_T]

In one you state that random searches do not violate the Constitution. In the next you clearly state that your reading of Non-negotiable Rights of Free Men may somehow be mitigated by the Threat of the Day. Does that not strike you as pretty weak support of the Bill of Rights? After all, it's the same argument advanced by every group that has ever demanded that bureaucrats ignore the Government contract with the American citizen.

I said that I personally do not find the searches 'unreasonable' considering the current situation. And only a search deemed unreasonable or without probable cause truely violates the 4th. I happen to find them most likely useless, but my opinion of their effectivness does not affect my feeling that they are not unreasonable. If these police were being forceful or demanding, or physically detaining you for a search, then it would fall under breech of the 4th, and I would scream as loudly as anyone else. The fact remains that no matter how you choose to define voluntary, it still means you have the option to walk away. Now when they start tackling people who 'voluntarily choose' not to be searched, or search them anyway by force without their consent, it becomes involuntary, and I would have a huge problem with it.

As I said, I don't see a conspiracy here or the police trying to hassle me or strip me of my rights, I see men and women valiantly doing their duty, even though they most likely hate it or disagree with it as much as we do. Or do you think all police are bad and out to take away your rights?

And no, I am not saying that situation dictates throwing constitutional or BOR laws out the window, just saying that it is your OPINION OF THE ACTION, that dictates wether YOU see it as a violation or YOUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. I simply see it as a way to placate the people and give them a sense of security. Are they making things safer? Whos to say....we have NO STATISTICAL DATA. It is the MANNER and INTENT of the searches which makes them violate the 4th or not......If I felt they violated my rights, I would not submit to them, just as you are free not too.......they have made that abundantly clear.....

 

[mvpel]

How is it "reasonable," or with any measure of "probable cause," to search a habit-wearing Catholic nun just because she happened to be fifth in line, while a shifty-eyed, scruffy-bearded Middle-Eastern type with a large backpack can walk into a station, spot the cops, then run back out of the station without being pursued or questioned?

If the police hate doing this, instead of doing real police work, shouldn't that be a clue that it shouldn't be done in the first place?