NYCLU sues city over subway searches

[ACougar]

I'm sorry, ACougar. But you can't have it both ways. You either take precautionary measures in life, or you throw caution to the wind and let "Fate" determine your safety.

Which is it?

I really don't understand the problems some people have with a nuanced position. I should be free to determin what safety measures I choose to take, I should not have them forced upon me. Even when I have taken what I deem to be reasonable precautions, I understand my destiny to still be in the hands of Fate.

 

[ACougar]

I have been pondering this as well, any insight on the subject would be nice.

My research on the subject indicates that it is illegal on Constitutional grounds... but no cares enough to do anything.

It is a complicated situation. I would deem the differance to be that some people have no choice but to use public transportation in order to maintain a roof over thier head and food on thier table. I suspect that people who fly have other alternatives, a differant job, a differant mode of transportation, they ussually have more economic power.

 

[ACougar]

The Declaration of Independence (containing the phrase with life, liberty, happiness) is not a part of the Constitution.

It is however the very reason we chose to revolt against the Crown of England. The right to Liberty and the freedom to persue our own happiness is sacred.

 

[wowbagger]

I have been pondering this as well, any insight on the subject would be nice.

My research on the subject indicates that it is illegal on Constitutional grounds... but no cares enough to do anything.

Technically, airport searches are unconstitutional but I have heard 2 basic reasons it is allowed by the courts.
1. They have deemed the non-random screening of every single passenger as "reasonable" (as opposed to arbitrary random searches)
2. Because of the nature of air travel and airport connections, an airport can be viewed as a "border" and so the Constitution is suspended there. (this one sounds weird as I've never heard of the Constitution being "suspended")

I havent read the case law, so I could be wrong here, but it makes sense to me. Any 4th amendment lawyers around here?

EDIT TO ADD: Actually the first reason I heard about (pre 9/11) on why its OK to search at airports was because it was done by private industry and so is just like getting searched at a concert or golf tournament. The government cannot dictate as long as they are not violating other laws. With the TSA now there I'm not sure if that reasoning is now passe.

 

[Caprice]

Technically, airport searches are unconstitutional but I have heard 2 basic reasons it is allowed by the courts.
1. They have deemed the non-random screening of every single passenger as "reasonable" (as opposed to arbitrary random searches).

Interesting. Is this probably the same line or reasoning that makes roadsize motor vehicle searches without a warrant OK?

 

[TheBear]

I really don't understand the problems some people have with a nuanced position. I should be free to determin what safety measures I choose to take, I should not have them forced upon me. Even when I have taken what I deem to be reasonable precautions, I understand my destiny to still be in the hands of Fate.

With that logic, we should get rid of police departments, fire & rescue departments, ER's and the like.

 

[wowbagger]

Interesting. Is this probably the same line or reasoning that makes roadsize motor vehicle searches without a warrant OK?

Roadside searches are not arbitrary like the subway. Law enforcement needs a "probable cause" in lieu of a warrant. I'm sure they abuse that loophole but there it is.

If they do an unreasonable search without any probable cause, you can sue them and anything illegal they may have found would be inadmissable in court (with exceptions of course for things like dead bodies).

The subway could legally plant police at all the subway stations and the police, seeing suspicious behavior, could search that individual and claim there was probable cause. This person would not be able to decline or walk away. To search every 10th person is not probable cause.l

 

[Caprice]

Roadside searches are not arbitrary like the subway. Law enforcement needs a "probable cause" in lieu of a warrant. I'm sure they abuse that loophole but there it is.

Would seem to me that a warrant is still required by the Constitution even in cases of probable cause.

 

[arnegrim]

A subway car is not the only place where there are a lot of people gathered. What about the bus? Busy street corner? The list goes on. So they randomly search subways. This won't deter a terrorist. Do you think that if he (or she) is willing to die for their cause that they're probably willing to risk getting caught? And even if they decide against the subway there are a number of other targets that they could choose. Stuff like this is laying the foundation for a police state.

Then we adjust our tactics and find some other way of finding them before they slaughter others.

Would you rather have 100's dead on a subway simply because it could happen anywhere? Should we stop chasing prostitutes because they no longer confine themselves to the 'seedy' part of town? I imagine there's quite a bit of 'profiling' that goes on in pursuing that.

 

[arnegrim]

Living in New York, and getting around on the subway system, is enough of a challenge as it is. When we make New York unfit for the average person to live in with half-***** security measures, the terrorists have already conquered New York. And if they want to bomb the train, they'll wire up children and old ladies instead of twenty-something Arab-looking men.

Because children and old ladies are already chomping at the bit to do it...

 

[JPPT1974]

Subway searches will also violate peoples' civil rights and also will make them think twice about taking the subway. Just the same as if it happens at a airport.

 

[MalcolmX]

Because children and old ladies are already chomping at the bit to do it...

If you looked at the use of female suicide bombers in Israel, you'd know this is a likely change in tactic. Change to something that doesn't fit the profile.

 

[arnegrim]

If you looked at the use of female suicide bombers in Israel, you'd know this is a likely change in tactic. Change to something that doesn't fit the profile.

And then... we 'change' the profile.

Why do people assume that if you use 'profiling' that it's set in stone and never modified to the current conditions?

 

[Caprice]

And then... we 'change' the profile.

Why do people assume that if you use 'profiling' that it's set in stone and never modified to the current conditions?

I think it has more to do with an endless circle of not really knowing what the next modification will be, thus any change we make can be easily countered.

 

[Vylo]

For those not familiar to the right to privacy, it would technically be covered by the 9th amendement (the one no one ever seems to know ).

As for random bag checks, it is sort of a interesting toss up. If you allow the searches, it can indeed violate the rights of people and make them feel considerably less comfortable with taking that form of transportation. If you disallow them, you do have a chance of a bomb being used on the subway. Things to consider:

1. Searching every single bag would have highly impractical if not impossible.

2. One seeking to use a bomb is likely to circumvent security at the mere suspicion of investigation, making these checks relatively ineffective.

3. As mentioned before, a bomb could easily be rigged to go off when a bag is opened for inspection, enough of these, and I don't think you will see people lining up to be security for subway station.

4. Explosives generally involve combinations of chemicals that can be detected by dogs, and electronic equipment. Using these would probably be a more effective way of scanning for explosives, without violating privacy, and possibly also being able to avoid the suspects from knowing that the police are onto them.

All in all, I don't think bag checks would be effective enough to deter terrorist attacks to warrant their usage. I certainly wouldn't feel any safer.

 

[arnegrim]

I think it has more to do with an endless circle of not really knowing what the next modification will be, thus any change we make can be easily countered.

That is a problem... but that doesn't mean we just throw our hands in the air and say 'This time put some stank on it!'

 

[burrow_owl]

Would seem to me that a warrant is still required by the Constitution even in cases of probable cause.

It may seem that way, but if you're in public and a cop has probably cause to think you've broken the law, you're busted.

The NYC policy is just stupid. They post cops at only a handful of stations (I go through Herald Square [a busy station] every day at rush hour, and have yet to even see an officer), so it'd be easy enough for someone to just bypass the busier stations and avoid the police. The NYCLU position is correct: the policy doesn't even bear a rational relationship to the policy's nominal purpose.

 

[Caprice]

It may seem that way, but if you're in public and a cop has probably cause to think you've broken the law, you're busted.

I wasn't arguing the reality of the situation. I know very well how traffic stops work (been in a few on the recieving end citations and I started the training involved to perform them). I was just bringing the idea up that perhaps they shouldn't be Constitutional.

 

[blueapplepaste]

Says who? Has there been any bombings in NY subways since this measure was implimented? Who is to say there will not be any terrorists who will have second thoughts about bringing a bomb into a NY subway?

Were there any bombings on the subway before this measure was implemented? One could argue that not doing anything has been effective.

Random searches does on main thing - it adds a level of deterrence to would-be subway bombers.

It adds no deterrence. If a terrorist is willing to blow himself up, do you really think that some random search will deter him? Absolutely not.