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

A news story I read in The Palm Beach Post quoted NYPD official as saying that even before the 7/7 bombings in London, the NYPD was already working on implementing this search policy!

They aren't doing it in response to the bombings: they're doing what they have long wanted to have an excuse to do! :mad:

-blackmind
 
So obvious is that this so-called "war" is a sham. ...

In addition to what several posters have mentioned in other regards, what is blatantly obvious is that any searches or formulas for how they are conducted for subway transport can easily be sidestepped by .. a switch to other targets.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You know what is disturbing? The fact that we even have HERE, on this forum, people who say that "Yes, some screening will have some small impact and any impact is better than no impact." They will give up the liberty, but deliberately pay no mind to the fact that we cannot purchase safety by so doing -- for the reason you just pointed out.


So where does this end? That is the most important question. What is next? Searches at every single bus depot? Shopping malls? Hospitals? Supermarkets? Movie theatres?
Click to expand...

Exactly. There IS no end to it. The senselessness and uselessness of searching citizens getting onto the subway, or buses, or trains, or airplanes, is made obvious by the fact that these are not the only places where crowds of people are vulnerable to terrorists with explosives or chemicals. No one searches you at the supermarket, but if the blew the place up, they could kill 100 people, easy. How about libraries? How about college lecture halls? These places are totally unprotected, but for some reason we have to search people who get on subways?


If we are going to fight a real "war" - if that what it is - why not fight it and stop those getting in that threaten us, and get those out that are already here?
Click to expand...

Bleeding hearts won't let us fight a "real war." They are too concerned for the feelings of those we are fighting against -- the ones who will kill us if we don't kill them. We mustn't "profile" them; we must guard their rights under the Geneva Convention (do THEY fight by the G.C. terms?!); we mustn't insult their heritage or religion (do THEY allow Christian bibles in their countries, or freedom of worship?!)...

It's time to get a grip, and fight these animals like we mean it.

-blackmind
 
A news story I read in The Palm Beach Post quoted NYPD official as saying that even before the 7/7 bombings in London, the NYPD was already working on implementing this search policy!

They aren't doing it in response to the bombings: they're doing what they have long wanted to have an excuse to do!
Click to expand...

I wish I had it, I read the same thing on one of the news web sites the other day - msnbc or cnn or something like that.


What I am wondering is after this crap of random searches starts, if something still happens how is the public going to react then? Will they be smart enough to recognize that there is no way to ensure safety, or will it be a panick and respond with lockdown and martial law?
 
OK, enough pissing and moaning.
Let's actually something CONSTRUCTIVE.
What would you do, if put into a position of supreme authority, to:
1. Violate absolutely no one's Constitutional rights (not even a whiff of violation).
while
2. Assuring that there will be absolutely no terrorist attacks on American soil at any time in the future.
Remember, you have to provide the citizens of the United States, all what, 260 million at this point, with absolute security with absolutely no hint of a violation of civil liberties.
Click to expand...

Should we start with the obvious.
Secure the borders. Take all of these people and put them on the borders. I am all for LEGAL immigration. As it stands now though if you cross from Mexico, and are not of Mexican nationality, you can't be returned to mexico. Might as well open the gates!

How about this one. Check every cargo container, ship, and plane the comes from outside the US.

There is more but these don't get addressed because they aren't the real issue here. What is at stake here is the complete control of a population. This is only another milestone in the road to that end.
 
Either way, it is a violation of my rights.
Click to expand...

How is it a violation of your rights? The 4th Amendment doesn't prohibit searches without a warrant, or searches without probable cause. Read it. It prohibits UNREASONABLE searches, and issuing warrants not based on probable cause.

Take a poll of NYC residents and ask them, in light of what is going on with subway bombers around the world, if they, the target of the worst terrorist attack in the country, ever, think those searches are unreasonable.

we mustn't insult their heritage or religion (do THEY allow Christian bibles in their countries, or freedom of worship?!)...
Click to expand...

Who is they? Iraq? Considering there are thousands of Christians in Iraq, I would guess they let them have Christian bibles. CHURCHES even!!! Lebanon? By law, the President of Lebanon has to be Christian. I'm guessing he gets a bible too....Are you suggesting that people in Iraq aren't allowed to have Christian bibles?
 
I wish I had it, I read the same thing on one of the news web sites the other day - msnbc or cnn or something like that.


What I am wondering is after this crap of random searches starts, if something still happens how is the public going to react then? Will they be smart enough to recognize that there is no way to ensure safety, or will it be a panick and respond with lockdown and martial law?
Click to expand...


I already posted somewhere about how the people should demand this test:

Give it a month. If none of the searches has turned up a bomb or a terrorist, then obviously the searches do not have the capability of doing so, and are useless. Thus they should be ceased.

And it is abundantly clear that the net bomb-finding result of these searches WILL be zero, so long as people who realize they are about to be searched can just turn around and say, "See ya!" They then, of course, will head for a different subway station and take that random chance again of getting through without being searched.

And how about this, people:

HOW ARE THESE SEARCHES GOING TO STOP SUICIDE BOMBERS WHO COME IN WITH BOMBS STRAPPED TO THEIR BODIES, AND NOT IN KNAPSACKS OR DUFFEL BAGS?!

Or are the NYPD fascists going to be searching people who look like their clothes are too baggy and might be concealing C-4 strapped to the torso and legs?

-blackmind
 
FrankDrebin,

How is it a violation of your rights? The 4th Amendment doesn't prohibit searches without a warrant, or searches without probable cause. Read it. It prohibits UNREASONABLE searches, and issuing warrants not based on probable cause.

Take a poll of NYC residents and ask them, in light of what is going on with subway bombers around the world, if they, the target of the worst terrorist attack in the country, ever, think those searches are unreasonable.
Click to expand...


Even if I grant that the 4th Amendment doesn't prohibit searches without a warrant (obviously a search of a vehicle with probable cause does not require a judge's signed warrant, obviously) WISHING TO GET ONTO A SUBWAY IS NOT PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE AUTHORITIES TO SEARCH YOU OUT OF A BELIEF THAT YOU ARE ATTEMPTING A SUBWAY BOMBING.

Your threshold for probable cause is preposterously low, Frank. You are confusing the understanding that anyone could be a potential suicide bomber with the fact that the authorities should be required to have specific belief that YOU specifically give them cause to be suspicious before they can search you.

It is unreasonable in the extreme for the authorities to say that searching EVERYONE is reasonable. That's exactly what you are defending.

If searching everyone was truly reasonable, then the police could stand outside the door of every citizen and wait for him to go outside, and then pat him down and say, "We have a 'reasonable' need to make sure you are not carrying any illegal weapons or drugs when you step out in public."

"The right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated."

That is VERY clear. All we have to do is define what makes a search reasonable or not. Do you really argue that the founders intended that ANY claim to be trying to serve the public safety would constitute a proper reason to search a citizen? To search ANY and ALL citizens, in the absence of direct evidence that a crime is being attempted or committed?

Your attitude is extremely dangerous to liberty, if that's what you believe.

-blackmind
 
Who is they? Iraq? Considering there are thousands of Christians in Iraq, I would guess they let them have Christian bibles. CHURCHES even!!! Lebanon? By law, the President of Lebanon has to be Christian. I'm guessing he gets a bible too....Are you suggesting that people in Iraq aren't allowed to have Christian bibles?
Click to expand...

Actually, I was thinking of something I read about Saudi Arabia when I said that. I read that if they find you in possession of a Christian bible there, you were subject to imprisonment, deportation, execution, depending on various circumstances.

I wouldn't bet against there being other muslim nations where the same is essentially true.

-blackmind
 
Take a poll of NYC residents and ask them, in light of what is going on with subway bombers around the world, if they, the target of the worst terrorist attack in the country, ever, think those searches are unreasonable.
Click to expand...

I was in NYC on 9/11. I watched the second plane hit and both towers collapse. Not from the comfort of my living room on the television like most people here, but from the rooftop of my apartment building. I didn't even need binoculars to see the second plane. I walked around NYC for months in the midst of that acrid smell of burned metal, plastic, paper, and death. I also ride the NYC subway system almost everyday. I'll take my chances without the useless searches, thank you very much.
 
Take a poll of NYC residents and ask them, in light of what is going on with subway bombers around the world, if they, the target of the worst terrorist attack in the country, ever, think those searches are unreasonable.
Click to expand...


I guess Shaggy joins me in thinking that this statement was incredibly smug and presumptuous, as though you alone, Frank, know what's on the minds of New Yorkers -- and also as though there are NO New Yorkers who break stride and think differently from the sheep who think these searches are worth a tinker's dam.

Who cares if hysterical people think that useless searches are worthwhile and not unreasonable? Since when does it make sense to ask the most frightened and impressionable people what policy should be?

You are seeming to claim here that NO New Yorker would ever think any of these searches are "ever" unreasonable. I put to you that if the NYPD grabbed a little blond 7-year-old girl who was about to get onto a subway with her school knapsack and said that she had to have her bag searched because she might be carrying a bomb, PLENTY of New Yorkers would agree, "C'mon, THAT is wasting time and effort. Let's be a little more realistic about who we suspect might be a terrorist."

Or are you claiming different? YOU said that I should poll New Yorkers to see if they EVER think these searches are unreasonable. It was clear that you were insisting that these searches are universally thought reasonable.

Shaggy disproved your thesis.

-blackmind
 
Your threshold for probable cause is preposterously low, Frank. You are confusing the understanding that anyone could be a potential suicide bomber with the fact that the authorities should be required to have specific belief that YOU specifically give them cause to be suspicious before they can search you.

It is unreasonable in the extreme for the authorities to say that searching EVERYONE is reasonable. That's exactly what you are defending.
"The right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated."
That is VERY clear. All we have to do is define what makes a search reasonable or not. Do you really argue that the founders intended that ANY claim to be trying to serve the public safety would constitute a proper reason to search a citizen? To search ANY and ALL citizens, in the absence of direct evidence that a crime is being attempted or committed?

Your attitude is extremely dangerous to liberty, if that's what you believe.
Click to expand...

As I said earlier, you don't NEED probable cause to conduct certain searches. Given that fact, how would you know what my threshold for probable cause is or isnt'? You certainly dont' need probable cause to search for weapons on a person in public or in the passenger compartment of his vehicle. The 4th amendment does NOT require probable cause for searches. It only requires probable cause for WARRANTS. With regard to warrantless searches, it only requires that society accepts the search as "reasonable". So far, we have one New Yorker who thinks the search is unreasonable. Surely, someone somewhere is doing a hopefully objective poll to see how New Yorkers feel about this. I would like to see the results of that poll. I have no problem with the searches, and I don't have a problem with the Customs people having the authority at the Detroit/Windsor tunnel or bridge to be able to pull me over without reasonable suspicion or probable cause to look in my car.

I guess Shaggy joins me in thinking that this statement was incredibly smug and presumptuous, as though you alone, Frank, know what's on the minds of New Yorkers
Click to expand...

I'd be willing to bet that more New Yorkers than not don't have a problem with the searches.

You are seeming to claim here that NO New Yorker would ever think any of these searches are "ever" unreasonable.
Click to expand...

I don't think that "one" New Yorker should be able to negate the searches if the majority of them don't have a problem with them. And rest assured, if the majority of New Yorkers feel the searches are unreasonable, they will stop the searches.

It is unreasonable in the extreme for the authorities to say that searching EVERYONE is reasonable. That's exactly what you are defending.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of situations where searching "everyone" is reasonable. As a matter of fact, searching "everyone" is a lot more reasonable than random searches in most cases.

The New York Civil Liberties Union has called the searches unconstitutional, and yesterday its executive director, Donna Lieberman, said the group had received about 25 calls from riders expressing concern.
Click to expand...

Wow.....25 calls expressing "concern". That's a lot of New Yorkers there......25....And considering that's coming from the ACLU, I bet they at least "doubled" the number for the Times article. One official said that it's OK to randomly search vehicles at alcohol checkpoints. That's WRONG. One thing alcohol checkpoints absolutely can't be is random.
 
Frank Drebin said:
With regard to warrantless searches, it only requires that society accepts the search as "reasonable". So far, we have one New Yorker who thinks the search is unreasonable. Surely, someone somewhere is doing a hopefully objective poll to see how New Yorkers feel about this.
Click to expand...
Frank-
Where on earth were you when the High School Civics Class commenced?

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. We don't make law based on referendum, majority vote or mob rule. And we don't abrogate Rights that do not flow from the government based on "objective poll".
Rich
 
Frank-
Where on earth were you when the High School Civics Class commenced?
Click to expand...

I guess I was reading Supreme Court decisions instead of paying attention to how my under paid teacher was interpreting the constitution and a hundred years of case law.

There have been plenty of decisions where the court has determined that the "reasonableness" of a search is based on "what society is prepared to accept as reasonable". My contention is that society, not a half dozen guys on a gun forum, is prepared to accept the NYC saerches, in the present context at the present time, as "reasonable".
 
Searching everyone would bring NY subways to a lag that would hurt NY too much.

And also if they are searching every 5th person with a bag or container... wouldnt a terrorist just position himself between those to be searched?
(called nypd public affairs and they said every 5th person with bag or container is searched to keep things random)

Also what happens when a terrorist has bombs strapped to his chest? no container? slipped right through the cracks.
 
And also if they are searching every 5th person with a bag or container... wouldnt a terrorist just position himself between those to be searched?
(called nypd public affairs and they said every 5th person with bag or container is searched to keep things random)
Click to expand...

They already tried every 5th person....it didn't work in manhy places.....too many people surging through.

Many aspects in the war on terror have an element of "doing something is better than doing nothing".
 
Every 5th person with a container, not just every 5th person.
Summers almost over, and in NYc it gets cold, I wonder if they will make people open their coats.
 
The "every 5th person with a container thing" I'm sure, was an attempt to ensure the searches were not "random", and complied with current law on administrative type searches and alcohol checkpoint-type searches. If these searches ARE unconstitutional, it's because they are too random, not because it's unconstitutional to search people without probable cause. Then again, if theyr'e at least making an effort to not search randomly, that may be OK.
 
Many aspects in the war on terror have an element of "doing something is better than doing nothing".
Click to expand...

NYPD is not at war with NY citizens, NYPD like all PD's across the country are at war with those that plan on or have executed terrorist actions.

Terrorist as defined by websters dictionary
"One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism."

Not one that engages in public transport.
 
NYPD is not at war with NY citizens, NYPD like all PD's across the country are at war with those that plan on or have executed terrorist actions.
Click to expand...

So if you really want to do something unconstitutional, start searching only people that some civil servant profiles as a terrorist. What's a terrorist look like? For that matter, what does a Muslim look like? An Arab? Is it likely that in NYC a person "who engages in terrorism" is also likely to be one who engages in public transport"?
 
I also think that this random search crap is the same as daring the BG's to enter the subway.. like if NYPD is saying WE HAVE THE SUBWAYS SAFE YOU (terror) CAN'T ENTER.

BG's says to himself "I WILL GET IN THERE, I BET YOU I CAN"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top