Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/3/2005 9:43:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/3/2005 9:44:48 PM EDT by 22bad]
Civil Liberties Union Prepares Lawsuit Challenging Random Searches of Bags on Subways
By SEWELL CHAN
Published: August 4, 2005
www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/nyregion/04search.html?oref=login
The New York Civil Liberties Union plans to file a lawsuit today challenging the legality of the Police Department's new policy of randomly searching bags and packages in the subway system.

The lawsuit, to be filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan, contends that the searches are "virtually certain neither to catch any person trying to carry explosives into the subway nor to deter such an effort." It also says that many riders have been selected in a "discriminatory and arbitrary" manner, creating the potential for racial profiling.

Paul J. Browne, the Police Department's chief spokesman, said the searches, which began on the evening of July 21, were both effective and legal. Under the search policy, officers are to use an essentially random criterion - stopping every 5th, 12th or 20th passenger carrying a bag or package. Selecting riders on the basis of race or national origin is prohibited.

Even so, at a news conference, five members of the City Council asked the Police Department yesterday to begin collecting information about the race and ethnicity of riders who are searched so that officials can demonstrate that riders are not being selected because of their backgrounds. Mr. Browne said the department had no plans to collect or record such information.

The Council members said they were concerned about statements this week by two lawmakers that the search policy was not selective enough.

One of those lawmakers, State Assemblyman Dov Hikind, a Brooklyn Democrat, said, "There is a terrorist profile for a potential suicide bomber, and it's not the 75-year-old grandmother with sloping shoulders, who has an oversized tote bag firmly tucked under her arm."

The other lawmaker, Councilman James S. Oddo, a Republican who represents parts of Staten Island and Brooklyn, said, "Plain and simply, young Arab fundamentalists are the individuals undertaking these acts of terror," and added that he agreed with Mr. Hikind.

Councilman Robert Jackson, a Manhattan Democrat at the news conference, said extremists came in all forms. "A bomber or terrorist could look like you or I," he said.

The civil liberties union's lawsuit does not directly accuse the police of intentional discrimination in the searches, but contends that the policy violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law.

The suit is to be filed on behalf of at least four people, including two men whose bags were searched on July 22, at subway stations in Manhattan and Queens. A third man, a lawyer who works in Midtown, entered the Times Square station on July 26 but then walked out when he saw that officers were searching bags. A fourth man is described in the suit as a "political activist, writer and media critic" who is worried about being harassed if the police notice the political materials he carries. The civil liberties union said it would name the plaintiffs at a news conference today.

"Given the way the department has implemented its search program, the only people being searched are innocent users of the subway system," the suit states.

William J. Stuntz, a professor at Harvard Law School, said he believed that the suit had little chance of succeeding. While the Fourth Amendment is generally taken to prohibit coercive searches without individualized suspicion, he said, the courts have repeatedly recognized exceptions. "We have a tradition of giving the government broad authority to protect transportation systems, and in the wake of Sept. 11, the tendency has been for that authority to grow even broader," he said.

In another security effort, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly met yesterday with Amtrak officials and police officials from other cities and states to discuss security along the rail corridor between New York and Washington.

Since July 18, the New York City police have walked through some Amtrak trains before they leave Pennsylvania Station. The police officials agreed to improve coordination on the "timing, placement and frequency" of police activities along the route.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 9:48:47 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 9:49:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/3/2005 9:53:57 PM EDT by ElCamino]

Originally Posted By Defcon:
Good for them!

These random searches are rediculous, IMHO.



Don't worry, they'd be even more against targeted searches.

ETA:



It also says that many riders have been selected in a "discriminatory and arbitrary" manner, creating the potential for racial profiling.



They're just pissed because they're afraid some guy that happens to be from, say, Syria, might have his bags search. God forbid.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 9:50:40 PM EDT
These random searches are a joke anyway. They need to racial profile and look at people in the eye and how they are acting. Just picking every 5 th person to check dosen't make any sense.
As to the ACLU they are not in touch with reality and whats going on in this war on terror
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 9:51:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ElCamino:

Originally Posted By Defcon:
Good for them!

These random searches are rediculous, IMHO.



Don't worry, they'd be even more against targeted searches.



many riders have been selected in a "discriminatory and arbitrary"
manner, creating the potential for racial profiling


Waaaaay more against
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 9:53:47 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 9:57:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Defcon:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."



Nobody's making you get on the subway. Sometimes there needs to be some ground rules to ensure safety in public services. If you don't like it, you can always walk, and not be bothered.

That's my take, anyway.

That being said, random searches are stupid.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 9:58:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/3/2005 10:00:16 PM EDT by twonami]
I was listening to the news and there was actually a NY politician who said that the searches are a waste of time unless they search the obvious types and approved racial profiling. I wish I remembered his name but good for him and not being friggen PC
ETA: probably James Oddo
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 9:59:25 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 10:00:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ElCamino:

Originally Posted By Defcon:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."



Nobody's making you get on the subway. Sometimes there needs to be some ground rules to ensure safety in public services. If you don't like it, you can always walk, and not be bothered.

That's my take, anyway.

That being said, random searches are stupid.



+1
if they are not profiling they are wasting their time, bet robberies and assaults are down though
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 10:02:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Defcon:
How many terrorists are projected to be caught in say.... a year? 5 years?



with random searches...........none
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 10:04:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/3/2005 10:24:35 PM EDT by Defcon]
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 10:04:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ElCamino:

Originally Posted By Defcon:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."



Nobody's making you get on the subway. Sometimes there needs to be some ground rules to ensure safety in public services. If you don't like it, you can always walk, and not be bothered.

That's my take, anyway.



This argument works fine, unless you have taxpayer dollars going into the service.

Even, in my view, the airlines have a problem here, as they have been some of the biggest bailout grantees around. Fortunately, airlines screen EVERYONE.

NYPD doesn't screen EVERYONE because people would have a fucking cow.

I cannot imagine this stands up to constitutional muster.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 10:11:42 PM EDT
In this case it is the New York civil liberties union

I think this lawsuit was expected and that is the reason for the random policy

the fbi terrorist profile should be used to narrow down the "random" searches
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 10:17:33 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 10:18:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/3/2005 10:51:07 PM EDT by TheTracker]
Guys correct me if I am wrong because I really am not sure of this. Racial profiling breaks what law that we have on the books .Is it in our constitution, The civil rights act. What is it?
If a bank just got robbed by lets say 4 middle east men and the cops are stopping small groups of middle east men in the area that is not racial profiling its just profiling . Cops do this all the time There not going to stop and question a group of white or black guys. They will be racial profilig looking for mideast men . So if we at at war with this group of people isn't that the same thing they have already commited crimes and they are always the same race. So what law are we breaking to look at middle eastern men at check points? Other saying its not PC
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 10:21:45 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 10:26:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Defcon:

Originally Posted By 22bad:

Originally Posted By Defcon:
How many terrorists are projected to be caught in say.... a year? 5 years?



with random searches...........none



I tend to agree. This is why I believe the ACLU is doing a good thing. I don't have to agree with ALL of their views but I can agree with the outcome they seek.

To me this whole thing is violates the 4th Amdenment.



So, we should not be on the lookout for guys who look like terrorists getting on the subway wearing a trenchcoat in the middle of summer? Will it take a London-like bombing in NYC before we decide we do need to profile folks? What if the ACLU wins the suit, and as a direct result, and group of children are torn to shreds by a bomb wrapped in nails? What will we say then?
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 10:37:21 PM EDT
Just want to point out that IIRC all of the 8 or 9 bombs in London were in a backpack
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 10:43:08 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 10:47:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/3/2005 10:49:47 PM EDT by jkstexas2001]

Originally Posted By Defcon:

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
So, we should not be on the lookout for guys who look like terrorists getting on the subway wearing a trenchcoat in the middle of summer? Will it take a London-like bombing in NYC before we decide we do need to profile folks? What if the ACLU wins the suit, and as a direct result, and group of children are torn to shreds by a bomb wrapped in nails? What will we say then?



Being on the lookout is one thing. Searching people randomly or without a single reason other than their ethnicity is laughable at best.

Since there is the potential for a bombing to happen, we should give up basic freedoms to potentially protect the children?




I would say that if they fit a number of criteria they should be searched, especially if they are wearing a coat in the summer time. I do not advocate searching people SOLEY on ethnicity at all. I also think that random searches are ridiculous -- searching an 80 year old lady, for example, because she is the fifth person through the turnstyle. I would advocate monitoring places where extremists are known to congregate -- certain mosques (not all mosques, just those whose Imam is vitriolic against the US), putting their pictures in a computer, and having face matching software running on the video systems in the subway, and having the police watch those whom the system "tags" as potential terrorists.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 10:54:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Defcon:

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
So, we should not be on the lookout for guys who look like terrorists getting on the subway wearing a trenchcoat in the middle of summer? Will it take a London-like bombing in NYC before we decide we do need to profile folks? What if the ACLU wins the suit, and as a direct result, and group of children are torn to shreds by a bomb wrapped in nails? What will we say then?



Being on the lookout is one thing. Searching people randomly or without a single reason other than their ethnicity is laughable at best.

Since there is the potential for a bombing to happen, we should give up basic freedoms to potentially protect the children?



They have a pretty strong profile established with regard to race(s), age and sex

and they have also announced the further profile of recently shaved smelling of some type of
scented "purifying water"

I completely disagree with your assessment of "giving up of basic freedoms" on subways\buses
but..........if we start talking about CAR bombs..............we would probably be on the same page
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 10:57:08 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 10:58:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/3/2005 10:59:58 PM EDT by 22bad]

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:

Originally Posted By Defcon:

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
So, we should not be on the lookout for guys who look like terrorists getting on the subway wearing a trenchcoat in the middle of summer? Will it take a London-like bombing in NYC before we decide we do need to profile folks? What if the ACLU wins the suit, and as a direct result, and group of children are torn to shreds by a bomb wrapped in nails? What will we say then?



Being on the lookout is one thing. Searching people randomly or without a single reason other than their ethnicity is laughable at best.

Since there is the potential for a bombing to happen, we should give up basic freedoms to potentially protect the children?




I would say that if they fit a number of criteria they should be searched, especially if they are wearing a coat in the summer time. I do not advocate searching people SOLEY on ethnicity at all. I also think that random searches are ridiculous -- searching an 80 year old lady, for example, because she is the fifth person through the turnstyle. I would advocate monitoring places where extremists are known to congregate -- certain mosques (not all mosques, just those whose Imam is vitriolic against the US), putting their pictures in a computer, and having face matching software running on the video systems in the subway, and having the police watch those whom the system "tags" as potential terrorists.



One of the failed terrorist bombers was frequenting a mosque where HE was criticizing
the imam about being against terrorism, too bad that none of them reported the terrorist
www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=375406
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 10:59:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/3/2005 11:00:01 PM EDT by Winston_Wolf]
... Good!

... Touchy / Feely security measures like these prevent no hostile activities - and you proponents of this shit know it down deep.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 12:12:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Defcon:
Good for them!

These random searches are rediculous, IMHO.



+1

Billy Joe Bob's bag hides an Al Qaeda bomb????? Yes....lets do a little racial profiling..........The ONLY folks doing suicide bombings etc. are young Sunni Muslims. Irish americans seem not to be a problem.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 12:59:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Lingum14:

Originally Posted By Defcon:
Good for them!

These random searches are rediculous, IMHO.



+1

Billy Joe Bob's bag hides an Al Qaeda bomb????? Yes....lets do a little racial profiling..........The ONLY folks doing suicide bombings etc. are young Sunni Muslims. Irish americans seem not to be a problem.



checked some other forums on the web
everybody keeps bringing up mcveigh
seems they have a problem naming white terrorists
I'll lend a hand, the unibomber, there that is two of them
how many muslim terrorists have committed terrorist acts?
(a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand?)
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 1:44:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Austrian:

Originally Posted By ElCamino:

Originally Posted By Defcon:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."



Nobody's making you get on the subway. Sometimes there needs to be some ground rules to ensure safety in public services. If you don't like it, you can always walk, and not be bothered.

That's my take, anyway.



This argument works fine, unless you have taxpayer dollars going into the service.

Even, in my view, the airlines have a problem here, as they have been some of the biggest bailout grantees around. Fortunately, airlines screen EVERYONE.

NYPD doesn't screen EVERYONE because people would have a fucking cow.

I cannot imagine this stands up to constitutional muster.



Taxpayer dollars goes to enrich the community, not yourself. It is irrevelant if the service is paid for by tax dollars, you still don't have to use it.

Should I not pay taxes because I don't have any kids that go to school?

Should I not pay taxes because I have never rode on a city bus in my life?

Should I not pay taxes because I don't follow baseball and have never set foot in the Diamondback stadium?
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 4:58:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Lingum14:

Originally Posted By Defcon:
Good for them!

These random searches are rediculous, IMHO.


+1

Billy Joe Bob's bag hides an Al Qaeda bomb????? Yes....lets do a little racial profiling..........The ONLY folks doing suicide bombings etc. are young Sunni Muslims. Irish americans seem not to be a problem.



Not so fast Billy Joe Bob Lingum......

Your elderly Mother is headed for the airport with your little Sister. I am AQ and know I will be searched. I intercept them in the lot, grab lil Sis and make Mom take the backpack onboard since I know they wont search her.

When you create a protected class, you create a loophole that can be exploited.

Everyone needs searched with emphasis on the perceived threat. And when looking for terrorists, dont forget....






And this is a dead Chechen Suicide bomber...Can you tell her from an "Irish America"?





Link Posted: 8/4/2005 4:25:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CavVet:

Originally Posted By Lingum14:

Originally Posted By Defcon:
Good for them!

These random searches are rediculous, IMHO.


+1

Billy Joe Bob's bag hides an Al Qaeda bomb????? Yes....lets do a little racial profiling..........The ONLY folks doing suicide bombings etc. are young Sunni Muslims. Irish americans seem not to be a problem.



Not so fast Billy Joe Bob Lingum......

Your elderly Mother is headed for the airport with your little Sister. I am AQ and know I will be searched. I intercept them in the lot, grab lil Sis and make Mom take the backpack onboard since I know they wont search her.

When you create a protected class, you create a loophole that can be exploited.

Everyone needs searched with emphasis on the perceived threat. And when looking for terrorists, dont forget....


www.bluecorncomics.com/pics/mcveigh.jpg

www.jrebelde.cubaweb.cu/2003/julio_septiembre/jul-3/fotos/malvo.jpg

And this is a dead Chechen Suicide bomber...Can you tell her from an "Irish America"?

www.siue.edu/~ejoy/Dead%20Chechen%20Suicide%20Bomber.jpg



everybody keeps bringing up mcveigh
seems they have a problem naming white terrorists
I'll lend a hand, the unibomber, there that is two of them
how many muslim terrorists have committed terrorist acts?
(a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand?)
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 4:34:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 4:35:50 PM EDT by jtw2]
Like I said on the other thread about this.

What about using PUBLIC sidewalks? Ok to randomly check your person then?
What happens when they move to car bombs? Ok to randomly search your car?
What happens when the set off huge caches of explosives in a home and take out entire city blocks? Ok to search houses at random then?
cars are on PUBLIC streets as are houses which are also served by PUBLIC utilities.

Where does it end? It should end where the 4th amendment says it ends and this is over that line.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 4:57:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 22bad:

Originally Posted By CavVet:

Originally Posted By Lingum14:

Originally Posted By Defcon:
Good for them!

These random searches are rediculous, IMHO.


+1

Billy Joe Bob's bag hides an Al Qaeda bomb????? Yes....lets do a little racial profiling..........The ONLY folks doing suicide bombings etc. are young Sunni Muslims. Irish americans seem not to be a problem.



Not so fast Billy Joe Bob Lingum......

Your elderly Mother is headed for the airport with your little Sister. I am AQ and know I will be searched. I intercept them in the lot, grab lil Sis and make Mom take the backpack onboard since I know they wont search her.

When you create a protected class, you create a loophole that can be exploited.

Everyone needs searched with emphasis on the perceived threat. And when looking for terrorists, dont forget....


www.bluecorncomics.com/pics/mcveigh.jpg

www.jrebelde.cubaweb.cu/2003/julio_septiembre/jul-3/fotos/malvo.jpg

And this is a dead Chechen Suicide bomber...Can you tell her from an "Irish America"?

www.siue.edu/~ejoy/Dead%20Chechen%20Suicide%20Bomber.jpg



everybody keeps bringing up mcveigh
seems they have a problem naming white terrorists
I'll lend a hand, the unibomber, there that is two of them
how many muslim terrorists have committed terrorist acts?
(a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand?)



How about the Muslims who don't look like Arabs? I've seen Iraqis with red hair, look at that Chechen terrorist in the above pics, etc. They don't all look like Arabs.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 5:17:43 PM EDT
They should profile based on a few simple things

If a person looks nervous or agitated, especially if - he/she is carrying a backpack, or is wearing unusally thick clothing

Eye contact should be made, and the screeners should make use of their best judgement to determine if the person they're looking at is worth a closer look.

Even with the most professional, experienced screeners, they probably will not prevent most bombing attempts without specific, up to date intelligence to use as a guide.

I really don't think there's an easy answer to the question of how to stop suicide bombers. I guess maybe we should pay attention to what the Israelis do and try to mimic them.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 5:20:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 5:27:46 PM EDT by Austrian]

Originally Posted By TheTracker:
Guys correct me if I am wrong because I really am not sure of this. Racial profiling breaks what law that we have on the books .Is it in our constitution, The civil rights act. What is it?
If a bank just got robbed by lets say 4 middle east men and the cops are stopping small groups of middle east men in the area that is not racial profiling its just profiling . Cops do this all the time There not going to stop and question a group of white or black guys. They will be racial profilig looking for mideast men . So if we at at war with this group of people isn't that the same thing they have already commited crimes and they are always the same race. So what law are we breaking to look at middle eastern men at check points? Other saying its not PC



Your examples break down thus:

Known (suspected) criminals with a known description known to be at large in the immediate area by virtue of a RECENTLY committed crime.

Unknown criminals with an unknown description (except for the general) not known to be at large in the immediate area but with the EXPECTATION of a FUTURE crime TO BE COMMITTED.

See the problem?
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 5:26:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By Austrian:

Originally Posted By ElCamino:

Originally Posted By Defcon:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."



Nobody's making you get on the subway. Sometimes there needs to be some ground rules to ensure safety in public services. If you don't like it, you can always walk, and not be bothered.

That's my take, anyway.



This argument works fine, unless you have taxpayer dollars going into the service.

Even, in my view, the airlines have a problem here, as they have been some of the biggest bailout grantees around. Fortunately, airlines screen EVERYONE.

NYPD doesn't screen EVERYONE because people would have a fucking cow.

I cannot imagine this stands up to constitutional muster.



Taxpayer dollars goes to enrich the community, not yourself. It is irrevelant if the service is paid for by tax dollars, you still don't have to use it.



Totally false. You now have GOVERNMENT doing searching for use of government facilities and all the attendant potential for abuse and profiling. Private firms get away with this because you do not have a constitutional right to private services. Are you going to tell me that you do NOT have a constituational right to government services? If so you have a series of law makers (including the founders) who disagree with you. It's called the "due process" and "equal protection" clauses.


Should I not pay taxes because I don't have any kids that go to school?


Straw man. The fact that the services are made available by the government means they must be accessible to all citizens if they wish to avail themselves of the services. Insisting they trade one right (right to be free from unreasonable search) for another (right to avail oneself of government subsidized travel) is unconstitutional plain and simple. This kind of law has been struck down dozens of times before and NYC here is just banking they can keep it going long enough because the courts will be slow to strike it. (The wheels of justice turn slowly, etc.) They are not on constitutional thin ice here, they are already neck deep and treading water.


Should I not pay taxes because I have never rode on a city bus in my life?


Again, straw man.


Should I not pay taxes because I don't follow baseball and have never set foot in the Diamondback stadium?



See above. Brush up on Constitutional Law.

Austrian, Esq.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 5:28:37 PM EDT
The ACLU is usually full of shit, but occasionally they do something right
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 5:51:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 5:53:01 PM EDT by guardian855]

Originally Posted By Austrian:

Totally false. You now have GOVERNMENT doing searching for use of government facilities and all the attendant potential for abuse and profiling. Private firms get away with this because you do not have a constitutional right to private services. Are you going to tell me that you do NOT have a constituational right to government services? If so you have a series of law makers (including the founders) who disagree with you. It's called the "due process" and "equal protection" clauses.



When did anybody deny anybody the right to go on the subway? That isn't the issue here now is it?
The issue is if the government can look into your backpack before you go on said subway.


Should I not pay taxes because I don't have any kids that go to school?

Straw man. The fact that the services are made available by the government means they must be accessible to all citizens if they wish to avail themselves of the services. Insisting they trade one right (right to be free from unreasonable search) for another (right to avail oneself of government subsidized travel) is unconstitutional plain and simple. This kind of law has been struck down dozens of times before and NYC here is just banking they can keep it going long enough because the courts will be slow to strike it. (The wheels of justice turn slowly, etc.) They are not on constitutional thin ice here, they are already neck deep and treading water.



It's good to know that people can not be searched before they avail themselves of the services. Glad to know I won't be waiting in lines at Airport security checkpoints, or at the entrance to the Courthouse. Oh wait, they can do that and the SCOTUS hasn't struck it down yet. Hate to tell you this, but this kind of thing is already going on.


See above. Brush up on Constitutional Law.

Austrian, Esq.

I have brushed up on Constitutional Law. The problem is the Fourth Amendment does not forbid all searches, just "unreasonable" ones. What's reasonable and unreasonable is different things to different people.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:27:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By 22bad:

Originally Posted By CavVet:

Originally Posted By Lingum14:

Originally Posted By Defcon:
Good for them!

These random searches are rediculous, IMHO.


+1

Billy Joe Bob's bag hides an Al Qaeda bomb????? Yes....lets do a little racial profiling..........The ONLY folks doing suicide bombings etc. are young Sunni Muslims. Irish americans seem not to be a problem.



Not so fast Billy Joe Bob Lingum......

Your elderly Mother is headed for the airport with your little Sister. I am AQ and know I will be searched. I intercept them in the lot, grab lil Sis and make Mom take the backpack onboard since I know they wont search her.

When you create a protected class, you create a loophole that can be exploited.

Everyone needs searched with emphasis on the perceived threat. And when looking for terrorists, dont forget....


www.bluecorncomics.com/pics/mcveigh.jpg

www.jrebelde.cubaweb.cu/2003/julio_septiembre/jul-3/fotos/malvo.jpg

And this is a dead Chechen Suicide bomber...Can you tell her from an "Irish America"?

www.siue.edu/~ejoy/Dead%20Chechen%20Suicide%20Bomber.jpg



everybody keeps bringing up mcveigh
seems they have a problem naming white terrorists
I'll lend a hand, the unibomber, there that is two of them
how many muslim terrorists have committed terrorist acts?
(a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand?)



How about the Muslims who don't look like Arabs? I've seen Iraqis with red hair, look at that Chechen terrorist in the above pics, etc. They don't all look like Arabs.



So far they do not fit the profile, the profile is pretty specific, most people will not blow themselves up
the profile was a lot easier to create than most criminal profiles because they just had to put the pieces
of the blown up terrorists back together and they had the profile, there was no "guessing" involved........
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 8:25:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 8:28:24 PM EDT by Austrian]

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By Austrian:

Totally false. You now have GOVERNMENT doing searching for use of government facilities and all the attendant potential for abuse and profiling. Private firms get away with this because you do not have a constitutional right to private services. Are you going to tell me that you do NOT have a constituational right to government services? If so you have a series of law makers (including the founders) who disagree with you. It's called the "due process" and "equal protection" clauses.



When did anybody deny anybody the right to go on the subway? That isn't the issue here now is it?
The issue is if the government can look into your backpack before you go on said subway.



False. The issue is that the government can refuse, arbitrarily and without due process, your access to the subway unless you "consent" to a search which is not reasonable within the meaning of the 4th. This is fine, again, while it's not a government transport operation.

I'm surprised you don't see this distinction. It's not unclear. No different than requiring you to take a literacy test before voting. Don't want to take the test? Fine. No one is making you. Just don't try to vote. No one is DENYING you the right to vote, you know. [rollseyes]


It's good to know that people can not be searched before they avail themselves of the services. Glad to know I won't be waiting in lines at Airport security checkpoints, or at the entrance to the Courthouse. Oh wait, they can do that and the SCOTUS hasn't struck it down yet. Hate to tell you this, but this kind of thing is already going on.


I pointed out to you already that the airlines are not government actors, or did you miss that part? Again, you need to read a little law. Also, these fall into administrative searches. (See U.S. v. Davis). The present facts do NOT.

The Supreme Court has CONSITANTLY held that even being made to walk through a magnometer (much less pass personal effects though an x-ray) is a search for 4th amendment purposes. (U. S. v. Epperson for example).

Interestingly, general searches of people in the airport who are not boarding a plane are unconstitutional without either warrant or "Terry like" circumstances. (Wires poking out). (See: U.S. v. Moreno).


I have brushed up on Constitutional Law.


Time for a refresher. I notice you are not at all familiar with the implications of even the most critical cases (Katz, Moreno, Terry, Davis) much less the more recent stuff like Bourgeois v. Georgia and Stauber v. New York. I've actually gotten people off on 4th amendment issues in Federal Court. What DO you know about the subject exactly?


The problem is the Fourth Amendment does not forbid all searches, just "unreasonable" ones. What's reasonable and unreasonable is different things to different people.


Uh, no. It's not. The standard is quite set and has been for a long time. Again, I think you need to brush up on your Con. Law. There is no such thing as the "Subjective Subjective standard" of reasonable expectation of privacy.

Exercise for the student: Start with Katz v. U.S. (1967). If you can come up with some situation or prior case law that tells me a person's briefcase with, e.g., confidential business documents is not about as high on the "expectation of privacy" list as it gets (personal papers are actually named in the amendment, you know) then I will reconsider. Until then you're pissing in the wind.

You could try for the illegal activity exception. That would be an interesting case to try and make.

Plain view gives you no help.

Incident to arrest does not apply.

What theory will you rely on, exactly?

Austrian, Esq.

[edited to fix quotes]
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 8:42:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 8:45:13 PM EDT by Grunteled]

Originally Posted By ElCamino:

Originally Posted By Defcon:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."



Nobody's making you get on the subway. Sometimes there needs to be some ground rules to ensure safety in public services. If you don't like it, you can always walk, and not be bothered.

That's my take, anyway.

That being said, random searches are stupid.




For now.

ETA: I'd support searching based on an inkling of reasonable grounds. Completely random searches are BS.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 8:44:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 9:03:50 PM EDT by TheTracker]

Originally Posted By Austrian:

Originally Posted By TheTracker:
Guys correct me if I am wrong because I really am not sure of this. Racial profiling breaks what law that we have on the books .Is it in our constitution, The civil rights act. What is it?
If a bank just got robbed by lets say 4 middle east men and the cops are stopping small groups of middle east men in the area that is not racial profiling its just profiling . Cops do this all the time There not going to stop and question a group of white or black guys. They will be racial profilig looking for mideast men . So if we at at war with this group of people isn't that the same thing they have already commited crimes and they are always the same race. So what law are we breaking to look at middle eastern men at check points? Other saying its not PC



Your examples break down thus:

Known (suspected) criminals with a known description known to be at large in the immediate area by virtue of a RECENTLY committed crime.

Unknown criminals with an unknown description (except for the general) not known to be at large in the immediate area but with the EXPECTATION of a FUTURE crime TO BE COMMITTED.

See the problem?


I understand your example ,But is there a specific law on the books that would prevent our goverment from announcing that they will start racial profiling young middle eastern men. I understand it is not PC and the ACLU would file a law suit against are govermemt ,but what would there bases be for the law that are goverment is breaking. Is there one on the books that prevents us from doing this. Is it the civil rights act .I know this is a legal question if anyone knows the answer please post it .I have not been able to find it
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 9:03:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheTracker:

Originally Posted By Austrian:

Originally Posted By TheTracker:
Guys correct me if I am wrong because I really am not sure of this. Racial profiling breaks what law that we have on the books .Is it in our constitution, The civil rights act. What is it?
If a bank just got robbed by lets say 4 middle east men and the cops are stopping small groups of middle east men in the area that is not racial profiling its just profiling . Cops do this all the time There not going to stop and question a group of white or black guys. They will be racial profilig looking for mideast men . So if we at at war with this group of people isn't that the same thing they have already commited crimes and they are always the same race. So what law are we breaking to look at middle eastern men at check points? Other saying its not PC



Your examples break down thus:

Known (suspected) criminals with a known description known to be at large in the immediate area by virtue of a RECENTLY committed crime.

Unknown criminals with an unknown description (except for the general) not known to be at large in the immediate area but with the EXPECTATION of a FUTURE crime TO BE COMMITTED.

See the problem?


I understand your example ,But is there a specific law on the books that would prevent our goverment from announcing that they will start racial profiling young middle eastern men. I understand it is not PC and the ACLU would file a law suit against are govermemt ,but what would there bases be for the law that are goverment is breaking. Is there one on the books that prevents us from doing this. Is it the civil rights act .I looked at a lot of the laws on that and it is not specfic on a law that would be broken for these extreme times we live in



It's 4th amendment and the right to equal protection under the law. That's an unreasonable search. You can't simply stop someone and detain them because they are the same race as someone who committed a crime on the ratioale that this person might ALSO MAYBE commit a crime or might also maybe have committed a crime. You have just been denied "equal protection under the law" on the basis of your general appearance. Entirely different from canvasing the area for a suspect of a known description.

As people have pointed out, if we permitted this than skinny geeks might have a hell of a time after McVeigh.

You can use race (or gender) as part of an "objective suspect description" (Brown v. City of Oneonta) but not alone, unless particular circumstances exist (border check, etc.) See: United States v. Brignoni-Ponce
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 9:06:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 9:08:30 PM EDT by TheTracker]
Thanks for that quick answer.So thats it then our goverment could never begin to do this under the 4th
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 9:11:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheTracker:
Thanks for that quick answer.So thats it then our goverment could never begin to do this under the 4th



The way it could be done is to make the argument that people don't EXPECT privacy anymore when it comes to public transportation of any kind. i.e. creeping statism.

That's the problem with the "expectation of privacy" standard. Who actually expects to have ANY privacy anymore when we all know that "big brother" watches everything? Hence: There is no 4th.

Drives me nuts.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 9:20:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Austrian:

Originally Posted By TheTracker:
Thanks for that quick answer.So thats it then our goverment could never begin to do this under the 4th



The way it could be done is to make the argument that people don't EXPECT privacy anymore when it comes to public transportation of any kind. i.e. creeping statism.

That's the problem with the "expectation of privacy" standard. Who actually expects to have ANY privacy anymore when we all know that "big brother" watches everything? Hence: There is no 4th.

Drives me nuts.


I guess even in that case racial profiling would be against the 4th They would have to search each and every person using any type of public transportation or they would say don't use it.
As to big brother watching us Tin foil hat back on
Top Top