NYPD Searches My Bag

[Steve Nelson]

Today, as I entered the subway in NYC, I was stopped by the police. Every day, while riding the trains, you can hear "Backpacks and other large containers are subject to random search by the New York City Police Department" over the PA. And it just so happened that this morning, my backpack or other large container was randomly subjected to search by a few kind officers.

They give you the option to refuse entry and walk away. But if you refuse and proceed to enter, you can be arrested.

I knew I had nothing to hide, so, I let them go through my bag. Mainly because I didn't feel like refusing, thus, forcing myself to leave and go through a different entrance with no inspection station.

But what if I had things in my bag that I didn't want the police to see? Things that I have the right to have (though that is irrelevant). The fourth amendment of the constitution states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Although this whole incident was a simple situation of "No Harm, No Foul", I still feel irked. Maybe it's because of the police, but it could also be caused by me not acting in accordance with my own belief system.

I've stated my disdain for this policy of the NYPD before, yet, when push came to shove I gladly let them search my bag. Not to say that I should have called them fascists and ran through the turnstile. But, I could've easily denied their request and headed to a different entrance. Instead, I LET the constitution bend with my indifferent actions and laziness. And I will NEVER let it happen again.

My question for all of you is: What would you do if put in this position?

[drweir]

It really depends what I had in my bag. If I was carrying the usual stuff that's in my pockets and coat I'd have no problem with it. However if I had other objects, and Steve will get this, like what I had in the Transformers shoebox a few weeks ago I might be a bit apprehensive about letting them look.

[drweir]

Oh yeah, good thing you guys weren't planning on making a realistic bomb for an upcomming Backyard FX and you just happened to finish picking up the supplies!

[DeadFishProductions]

Well... I would let the Police search my bag... They're just doing their jobs and I never have anything to hide.

I mean you'd complain right up until a train or bus gets exploded and then the whole place goes "Ugh what do the police get paid to do???" It's ridiculous. I'm pretty sure that the Police don't enjoy searching through the same boring old shit day in, day out.

In terms of you having stuff you would be apprehensive about the Police seeing. They're not exactly going to tell the whole train station what you've got. You're just another anonymous person to them...

[Steve Nelson]

Well... I would let the Police search my bag... They're just doing their jobs and I never have anything to hide.

I mean you'd complain right up until a train or bus gets exploded and then the whole place goes "Ugh what do the police get paid to do???" It's ridiculous. I'm pretty sure that the Police don't enjoy searching through the same boring old shit day in, day out.

To me, it's not about letting the police do their job. If you respectfully decline and head to another entrance, it isn't making their job any harder.

If a terrorist has a bomb in his bag, his chances of entering a station with a checkpoint aren't very high. Neither are his chances of having his bag subjected to random search. And even if both of these things happen, he can respectfully decline and head to another entrance.

It's just plain stupid logic. It is ineffective because a terrorist can just try a different entrance. It's even more dangerous because it gives us a false sense of security. And worst of all...it's unconstitutional.

[DeadFishProductions]

I suppose so... But maybe some people need that sense of security?

[lyhoproductions]

Oh yeah, good thing you guys weren't planning on making a realistic bomb for an upcomming Backyard FX and you just happened to finish picking up the supplies!
It'd be great to see a realistic bomb on BFX!

[ilikecookies]

It'd be great to see a realistic bomb on BFX! go on google images and look at a real bomb. very simple

[WesScog]

Here is the primary question for me, is to protect the lives of innocent people a "reasonable" reason to search bags?

And I think if you look at the Japanese "Subway Sarin Incident", the only reason it didn't kill massively more amounts of people is because the attackers were so uncoordinated. (And because of the amazing organization of Japanese quick responders.)

Also, you're free to opt out of the bag searches without incident, so really, I wonder how "unreasonable" the searches are in the age of international terrorism.

But I think to protect public railways, that searches are "reasonable". I think reasonable and unreasonable are the keywords, and we have to define what is reasonable and unreasonable. Random searches on the street are unreasonable, or breaking into someones house or someones car without due process are unreasonable, random searches entering a government building, or entering a railway line (which are MAJOR terrorist targets, as the more recent attacks in Spain and Britain have further reinforced.) I think could be classified as "reasonable" searches.

[WesScog]

To me, it's not about letting the police do their job. If you respectfully decline and head to another entrance, it isn't making their job any harder.

If a terrorist has a bomb in his bag, his chances of entering a station with a checkpoint aren't very high. Neither are his chances of having his bag subjected to random search. And even if both of these things happen, he can respectfully decline and head to another entrance.

It's just plain stupid logic. It is ineffective because a terrorist can just try a different entrance. It's even more dangerous because it gives us a false sense of security. And worst of all...it's unconstitutional.

Wait so you can reenter in another place without being subject to a repeat search? Thats stupid.

I guess its supposed to be a deterrent thing?

[Steve Nelson]

Then why haven't Spain and Britain implemented a similar policy? In fact, if this were TRULY keeping us safe, wouldn't it be at EVERY entrance? Here's a good quote that sums up how I feel:

"We have no objection to reasonable searches, but we cannot and will not stand by while the police department seeks to expunge the Fourth Amendment from the Constitution with a program that subjects millions of people to suspicionless searches and that serves virtually no public-safety purpose."

[sonnyfromda02]

I would let them search my bags because I have nothing to hide. I've thought about carrying random weird things in the trunks of my cars, just in case police ever wanted to search my trunk, which to my amazement, has never happened. On another note, I really believe that if you had opted to go to another entrance, the police would have radioed each other to be on the lookout for you and to make sure you don't exhibit any strange behavior, which would have had police eyeing you for no reason, but the simple fact you didn't want them going through you things.

[bridboyross]

Hmm I think I would let them, though I dont totally agree with it chances are if I had nothing to hide I would just let them do it, I think nowadays this is going to be something we have to put up with. Nearly all of us have our information on databases etc held by governments (I know, my familys information was lost by our government as they just stuck them on CDs for transportation, who knows who could have had it) and all of us are caught on camera etc constantly, we in britain are becoming essentially a nanny state where one can do nothing without being under surveillance, Orwell was right, he was just a few years off.

[Vaughn Whynot]

well i not going to stick my laptop or camera in my ass
so i got nothing to hide

[New Spark Films]

I'm gonna go with Steve on this one. Even though I generally have nothing to hide, it seems unconstitutional and if I had something that looked dangerous, despite whether or not it actually was, I wouldn't feel like having to explain it. I know the Police are doing their job, but just stopping random people isn't the best way of protecting the public from terrorists in my opinion.

[thepie]

To me, it's not about letting the police do their job. If you respectfully decline and head to another entrance, it isn't making their job any harder.

If a terrorist has a bomb in his bag, his chances of entering a station with a checkpoint aren't very high. Neither are his chances of having his bag subjected to random search. And even if both of these things happen, he can respectfully decline and head to another entrance.

It's just plain stupid logic. It is ineffective because a terrorist can just try a different entrance. It's even more dangerous because it gives us a false sense of security. And worst of all...it's unconstitutional.

1) Tell that to the families of the dead from the Madrid and UK train bombings. The UK has probably the best police force in the world, yet a bomb was still able to explode in their trains. This isn't a dis to the UK police, they couldn't have done anything to prevent it, but i'm just saying that the chances are actually pretty good.
2) It would be unconstitutional if they FORCED you to open your bag and show them. You said yourself, you have an option. Giving you the option of declining and leaving makes it constitutional. Heres an option for you, would you rather have your bag looked at or be blown up?

[BinBinProductions]

Steve i dont know why you started a thread on this. The police are hired to do their job protecting you and everyone else. Who knows they might save your life someday because they checked your bag. But have you not seen the news about terrorists? Like the bombing in london. But hey what do i know? im only a teenager.

[Todd]

IMO the catch-22 "if you reserve your right to not feel like a proven-with-no-trial criminal, you are under arrest," is a violation of rights. I can totally understand the MTA and PD requesting all customers acknowledge that by using a service, you agree to certain terms. I do not understand their automatic arrest of anyone refusing service after they have announced such conditions. This supports suspicion as evidence. I ride the subway several times a day like most people in NYC, and I want to feel safe on them too. I also want to feel like a dignified human being, and not some peon who must succumb to the will of the state or face sanction.

Anyone ever read/seen The Crucible? Same scenario. It amazes me how many Americans in my generation, the generation before me, and those under me, are completely willing to surrender all their human rights over appeals to their emotions and security.

[Fisherking]

I suppose so... But maybe some people need that sense of security?

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

That statement was most likely made by Benjamin Franklin but it is my understanding (with that caveat that I am not a historian) that its authorship is of some debate. Regardless, a self-evidently true statement transcends its author.

These sort of minor encroachments on liberty succeed precisely because combating them is not worth the inconvenience. In a broader sense, they contribute to the sense of paranoia that is always in a central government's favour.

More distressingly, as Steve and WesCog pointed out, these measures are perfunctory; they don't even act as a deterrent. Like seemingly all government measures, they don't enact change so much as give a visible indication that change has occurred, regardless of the actual state of change. Our collective attention-span is so lamentably short, that we are content only with legislation enacted the next day. Like a Fabergé Egg, however, it looks pretty on the outside but on the inside - nothing. These measures will not make you safer. Pictures of cancerous lungs on the back of cigarette packets will not stop people smoking. Banning fast-food advertising during children's hours will not make kids slimmer. We want satisfaction immediately and long-lasting change does not come immediately. Nor does an elected government, whom will likely be gone in four years, care especially about long-term change - after all, how can you expect a focus on long-term change in a short-term government?

[WesScog]

The Random searches don't work if the person can re-enter somewhere else and not get searched, most definitely.

We need systems of REAL security in place, rather than simply the illusion of security.

I have no problem with security checkpoints, but we have to be realistic, it's impossible to realistically make something 100% secure, all we can do is try to minimize the potential for a security breech, but we can't stop them completely.

[glmclainmovies]

Agreed. The Illusion of safety is probably worse than not having safety.

[gcubedproductions]

If you have nothing to hide, why not let them search? But if you're in a rush, it might be easier to just turn them down and walk away. However, if I had something to hide, what is the reason to be mad and claim the are being unfair? The thing that you want to hide is obviously illegal or something, right?
Alas, it is a case-by-case type thing.

[GhostOfAllie]

I picked the "call the fascists and run through the turnstile"....simple because I couldn't resist, thats just the kind of cat I am.
But I really, I wouldn't want to let them search my bag, not because I have anything to hide[usually], but, it's simply not helping anything! It's pointless and it sort of violates my rights.

[NaziActionFigure]

Random bag checks aren't there to catch terrorists or promote a sense of security, it's so when a disaster happens, and people start pointing fingers, the NYPD can say "Don't look at us!". Nobody who can critically think can believe that that's an effective way to prevent terrorist attacks. There's a major loophole.

I visited NY one time(Post 9/11) and the security on Liberty Island was crazy. I sat my backpack down by a tree, and they literally almost "shut down the island". When I returned back to my bag, there were no less than fifteen security officers huddled around it. They saw me approaching it, and one asked "HEY, IS THIS YOUR FUCKING BACKBACK?". I told them it was and they had another officer open it to make sure it wasn't ticking or blinking I guess. It wasn't so they gave it back and gave me a speech a bout security and the measures they would have had to have taken if I left it there. It was extreme, but how can you blame them?

[WesScog]

It's always a good idea to have your security team huddled around a possible explosive.

[Apocalypse WOW!]

its unconstitutional period. they ask you to search your bag or car or whatever you ask for a warrant. You have a right to privacy. If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to be searched. When you sacrifice freedoms for safety you gain neither. I rather live in fear of "terrorists" than of my elected government. The government needs to stop assuming everyone is a criminal.


Don't taze me, bro.

PROTIP: If you want to feel safe from terrorist maybe we should get out of other people country's so we aren't hated so much around the world.

[WesScog]

I believe Al-Queda would still attack us even if we withdrew our bases from Saudi Arabia. (None of which are near Mecca, and are there with the explicit permission of the Saudi Arabian Government.) I mean, I might be wrong, but he got his panties in a wad because the Saudi government (Which he was fine with) choose the assistance of the most powerful military force on earth, rather than his extremist rag-tag fighters.

LOTS of people hate the United States, only a minority feel the need to murder innocent people because of our foreign policy. Most people rationally deal with their qualms against United States foreign policy. Change largely happens in a democratic society like ours through public choice, violence isn't necessary when you're dealing with a democracy.

But if you look at Bin Laden's history, after his victory over the Red Army in Afghanistan, and his exile from Saudi Arabia, he went on to assist extremists in the Sudan, who went on to commit one of the worst (and still enduring) genocides in recent history.

What country did Sudan invade to garner Al-Queda's wrath? None, it's just a matter of Al-Queda being a group of religious extremists who seek to impose their viewpoints on others. The have publically announced their desire to make Sudan an Arabic nation, they are commencing a program of ethnic and religious cleansing.

So no, I don't think they are attacking us because of foreign entanglements. At least that is not the only reason, not by a long shot.

[Jon Hanson]

So no, I don't think they are attacking us because of foreign entanglements. At least that is not the only reason, not by a long shot.

My worry is that the next attack will be justified by our actions in Iraq.

But then again, the kind of people who carry out terrorist actions don't need much to feel justified in murdering innocents, just look at the Danish cartoon fiasco.

[WesScog]

Exactly, we are dealing with people that don't feel a need to deal with others rationally, and have no respect for human life, and no ability to accept criticism of their 'religion' (As I believe people who follow extremist blends are not real Muslims.) logically.

I remember a statement by a Hamas leader I read about in a newspaper, he was talking about the campaign to defeat Israel, and how he said that Israel was only the first step, that Hamas would not stop until the flag of Islam was flying over the entire Universe. He didn't just demand Genocide against the Israelis and the defeat of America, he wants UNIVERSAL domination.

Now i'm by no means saying that Islam is a danger to Extraterrestrials (Although Al-Queda spaceships battling stock Lizard creatures is a really neat mental image), but I think this is an important concept in understanding the mindset of some of these groups. They want to rule the world, they want to convert or kill everyone on earth.

Now, do I think they can accomplish this? No, not by any means. I abide by the Fukayama perspective, in that things are getting better and more stable as democratic nations increases, and that terrorists will eventually become non-existent simply because worldwide democracy and prosperity is highly unlikely to produce terrorists.

BUT, I think that they will definitely succeed in killing a lot of innocent people before they become extinct all on their own.

To me, it's a matter of trying to calculate the most efficient way to minimize deaths and injuries, assist in the dissolving of these organizations, and spreading democracy. Then it's a matter of playing the 'waiting game'. We simply have longevity, they don't, they'll twitch their poker face first.

Although, if projections are correct, we might hit a Technological Singularity before the 2030's are over, which would make terrorism a non-issue.

What real inconvenience does a suicide bombing pose if you're skin is embedded with self-healing nanoprobes, and can basically stitch you back together (from what is now considered absolutely fatal wounds with no potential of recovery or survival) and just reboot your brain from it's most recent save state?

"Oh, boo-hoo, you blew me up, i'm 10 microseconds late to work now, thanks douchebag."

Not to mention the longevity that those technologies would offer. We're simply going to outlive groups that reject technological development.

[Jon Hanson]

I just remembered why I love your mind Wes, capping off a discusion on terrorism and foreign policy with your theories on technological singularities and nanobots.

I want to hear the one about space lasers and moon bases next.

[WesScog]

Oh lawd, is that you Jon!? You got here from TenNapel-land. How's it hangin'?

[Jon Hanson]

Oh lawd, is that you Jon!? You got here from TenNapel-land. How's it hangin'? Hahaha, I didn't know if you knew it was me, but I was pretty sure you'd get the hint after that.

I actually came here because I've been working crew on a movie and the director posts here.

http://forum.indymogul.com/showthread.php?t=1942

I'm doing good. It's good to be on a forum with you again. I haven't posted on the TenNapel board for almost three months.

I see you've got a nice thing going on here Mr. Moderator.

And now I feel as if you and me have massively derailed the thread.

It's just like old times.

But less tentacles.

[WesScog]

Thank you! And glad to have you here man, but yea, we better save the reunions for later unless we derail the thread further.

[Steve Nelson]

I just feel really frightened by this whole scenario. Especially at the reaction of so many people here on the forums.

Freedom is not free. And to maintain it takes responsibility and level-headedness. No matter what your opinion on this subject, you should ALWAYS question the government. Remember, the government is here to ensure freedom...not take away your freedoms for the promise of safety. That's how these countries run by dictators (Iraq) get to be the way they are. Iraq was a sovereign and safe nation (for those not persecuted). But freedom was no where to be found. And here we are, fighting a war in Iraq to give THEM freedom, while we slowly let it slip away.

And you know what, that line, "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about" is COMPLETE bullshit. Because, what if I had something illegal on me not pertaining to terrorism? If the cops decide to "randomly search my car" without a warrant and found something, the charges would be dropped because they violated the constitution. See, when they took my bag...it wasn't until they already were going through it that I saw I had the right to decline. And without a warrant or good reason (and random search isn't an applicable reason to a particular individual...and that's who the constitution protects) they were able to go through my bag illegally, but with the law on their side.

I will NEVER let this happen to me again. The government is here to serve you and me, not to scare us.

[_ray_biddle_]

It really depends what I had in my bag. If I was carrying the usual stuff that's in my pockets and coat I'd have no problem with it. However if I had other objects, and Steve will get this, like what I had in the Transformers shoebox a few weeks ago I might be a bit apprehensive about letting them look.

Umm, we have to talk about that! I was going to Seattle and took that with me.

Oops!

[_ray_biddle_]

I just feel really frightened by this whole scenario. Especially at the reaction of so many people here on the forums.

Freedom is not free. And to maintain it takes responsibility and level-headedness. No matter what your opinion on this subject, you should ALWAYS question the government. Remember, the government is here to ensure freedom...not take away your freedoms for the promise of safety. That's how these countries run by dictators (Iraq) get to be the way they are. Iraq was a sovereign and safe nation (for those not persecuted). But freedom was no where to be found. And here we are, fighting a war in Iraq to give THEM freedom, while we slowly let it slip away.

And you know what, that line, "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about" is COMPLETE bullshit. Because, what if I had something illegal on me not pertaining to terrorism? See, when they took my bag...it wasn't until they already were going through it that I saw I had the right to decline. And without a warrant or good reason (and random search isn't an applicable reason to a particular individual...and that's who the constitution protects) they were able to go through my bag illegally, but with the law on their side.

I will NEVER let this happen to me again. The government is here to serve you and me, not to scare us.

Good for you Steve! Seriously, if we are to abide by the law so are law enforcement officers.

I've learned a lot about this type of things recently as research for a documentary I have been hired to write/direct.

You want to read something about out of control law enforcement visit this link:

http://www.boundarycounty.net


Then on the left side read the ASC story.

In your case I understand a little more why NYC police are doing what they are doing. In the story on the web site I have shared it is just plain scary.

[Todd]

Steve I agree with you 100%, I think most people that wouldnt agree need a basic high-school course in political history and evolution. What the NYPD doing here is taking a step backwards, and de-evolving (something all societies are bound to do when they dont pay attention!). Its something quite typical of this Presidential Administration: Make an emotional appeal, create a moral obligation to comply, and strip you of your personal freedom. While I would rather feel safe and secure from physical danger in every day life, id rather not slowly delve into a freedomless society of ages past, under the premise of our government "protecting us."

See: Patrick Henry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Henry), for more information.

[Wraith 5]

I read somewhere that the average British citizen is caught on surveillance cameras at least 350 times a day, and I can believe these statistics. Our governments are going in completely the wrong direction to tackling security issues. I spent 2 weeks in Morocco last summer, and for the first time in a long time, felt a true sense of freedom, not that security was non-existant there either. I encountered several police checkpoints, but they were friendly, non-intrusive, and didn't make me feel like I'd done something wrong the moment I started talking to them.
Upon re-entering Britain, the minute I stepped into the check-in building at Heathrow airport, the familiar pressure at the back of my mind returned, that of constantly being watched, we've all learned to ignore it to some extent, but it's there.

I believe we also have some form of searching system over here, apart from the fact that we have no constitution or law that allows us to decline these searches. there was also talk of compulsory ID cards to be issued at some point within the next few years. Other plans include a national fingerprint and DNA database, instead of just keeping those of criminals on file. And the sad fact is, that most of these laws will probably be passed, as many people either don't know about them, or are persuaded to support them by the representation of crime through the media.

Gun crime is portrayed as a big problem here, and used to scare people into supporting these crazy laws. When the truth is that only around 50 people a year are killed by guns in Britain, which is less than the number of people killed by Bees every year! Then why aren't there any anti-bee laws?

So basically, what with the predictions of oil shortages, freedom-suppressing governments and a coming ice age... I think I'll go live in Morocco thanks.

[Jon Hanson]

Remember, the government is here to ensure freedom...not take away your freedoms for the promise of safety.

Not true. Or maybe, half true. The only time we ever had true freedom was in the state of nature, but we left it by forming governments, which were in their most elemental forms contracts in which the citizens gave up their right to adjudicate their own case in return for the safety provided by an impartial judge.

So if securing total freedom is the idea, than you shouldn't be looking to the government, but destroying it.

But in such a state of total freedom I doubt we'd be able to enjoy it, since we'd have to live in fear of others using their freedom to attempt to do us harm or limit our freedom.

So the idea has to be some kind of happy medium between anarchy, where nothing is the state, and communism where everything is the state.


You're case is hard to make a call on. You were trying to take the subway, and you obviously don't have an inalienable right to do so since it costs money to take the subway. It's public property, so technically everyone owns it, but lots of public property has limits, try as an adult to walk around an elementary school without clearance. The roads are public, but they have the most laws of them all, especially since driving a vehicle you own on them is a privatively, not a right.

Even considering the constitution, we have a right to bear arms, but you can't in Washington DC, schools, or assault weapons period.

And I doubt you'd complain about not having most of these freedoms listed, although maybe you should.

I very much distrust the government, but I also have to acknowledge it's not a black and white issue, we just have to search for the right shade of gray.

The government is here to serve you and me, not to scare us.
Again, half true. The government shouldn't just be in the business of scaring, but laws aren't of any use if people aren't afraid to break them.

If people weren't afraid of what the government would do to them if they committed murder you can bet the murder rate would be a hell of a lot higher than it is today.


On the topic, my main thought is that I doubt the ability of random checks to solve anything. They're random, so it's a crap shoot, and since you can opt out any terrorist can just keep going back or going to other terminals.

While sometimes it is best to give up some freedoms, the best rule of thumb is to never give up anything for something that doesn't work.

But I'm no expert on the subject, so I can't say for sure.

But still, you continued riding the subway with bags despite the fact you acknowledge that you knew you would be subject to random searches, which I think can be construed as giving your tacit agreement. And since you could have denied them the search you were basically giving them permission to search, so I can't see a way to see the thing as illegal.

I would be interested to know what kind of rights a potential subway rider has. I assume people have the right to take the subway regardless of their race or gender, but with regards to their financial situation, ie, whether or not they have fare.

I've never taken the subway, so I don't know how it all works.

EDIT:
Not to say I'm not afraid of losing freedom. Personally I'm scared s***less over the measure in California to OUTLAW homeschooling. Under a Republican Governor too!

[WesScog]

Well i've taken the Subway in New York, and I they didn't have check points when I was visiting, but we would get a pass card, and we'd slide it into the turnstile slot, and it would pop out the other end.

We were kind of confused about which way to go, since we'd never taken the Subway before, so we asked some Cops who were standing around near the entrance drinking Coffee and chilling, and they were real nice.

I didn't meet a single rude Cop in New York, or a single rude person for that matter, the Police were always very courteous, maybe it's because they were used to dealing with Tourists and realized we were clueless about what to do.

But I don't see checkpoints as useless, just, like I said, the way to handle this would be to check everyone's large bag, at every entrance. They do this at Disney parks, they check EVERYBODY'S bag, yet still keep the line moving quickly, so we know it can be done, it just needs to be handled efficiently to not interfere with people hurrying to get to work, or wherever they are headed, but I think it's possible to balance REAL security without being a hassle to people.

[ducttapemaster]

i would ask for a search warrant and if they didnt have it would have calmly refused and take another way

[NinternMike]

I just feel really frightened by this whole scenario. Especially at the reaction of so many people here on the forums.

Freedom is not free. And to maintain it takes responsibility and level-headedness. No matter what your opinion on this subject, you should ALWAYS question the government. Remember, the government is here to ensure freedom...not take away your freedoms for the promise of safety. That's how these countries run by dictators (Iraq) get to be the way they are. Iraq was a sovereign and safe nation (for those not persecuted). But freedom was no where to be found. And here we are, fighting a war in Iraq to give THEM freedom, while we slowly let it slip away.

And you know what, that line, "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about" is COMPLETE bullshit. Because, what if I had something illegal on me not pertaining to terrorism? If the cops decide to "randomly search my car" without a warrant and found something, the charges would be dropped because they violated the constitution. See, when they took my bag...it wasn't until they already were going through it that I saw I had the right to decline. And without a warrant or good reason (and random search isn't an applicable reason to a particular individual...and that's who the constitution protects) they were able to go through my bag illegally, but with the law on their side.

I will NEVER let this happen to me again. The government is here to serve you and me, not to scare us.


People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people.

[ducttapemaster]

People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people.
we should be like dale gribble:) always on the run ashasha pocket sand yep

[Steve Nelson]

You're case is hard to make a call on. You were trying to take the subway, and you obviously don't have an inalienable right to do so since it costs money to take the subway. It's public property, so technically everyone owns it, but lots of public property has limits, try as an adult to walk around an elementary school without clearance. The roads are public, but they have the most laws of them all, especially since driving a vehicle you own on them is a privatively, not a right.

Even considering the constitution, we have a right to bear arms, but you can't in Washington DC, schools, or assault weapons period.

And I doubt you'd complain about not having most of these freedoms listed, although maybe you should.



My issue is with the fact that these searches are random, therefore unreasonable...therefore unconstitutional. There is a big difference between the second amendment and the fourth amendment. Every citizen (unless they've been restricted due to criminal activity or are too young) has the right to bear arms. They may not be able to bring those guns EVERYWHERE. But they can own them. Which is all that the constitution grants.

The 4th amendment grants us protection against unwarranted and unreasonable searches and/or seizures. Everyone being searched before entering the White House makes sense. Random people being searched before entering the subway doesn't. If it were private property, I would say fine! But it's not...it's public and our taxes go to paying for it and it is UNREASONABLE...so...UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And anyone who thinks it actually does something doesn't know shit. Did pulling me over and checking my bag stop the terrorists? No. And I can rest assured that not ONE terrorist will be affected by this policy. Would they let them check their bags if they had a bomb in it!?!?! NO!!!!


But still, you continued riding the subway with bags despite the fact you acknowledge that you knew you would be subject to random searches, which I think can be construed as giving your tacit agreement. And since you could have denied them the search you were basically giving them permission to search, so I can't see a way to see the thing as illegal.


I continued riding the subway because I HAVE to to get to work. It's a public service and I have the right to ride it without fear of my constitutional rights being stripped of me...although I have to pay to get on...that doesn't mean the constitution becomes invalidated on that land. It's unreasonable and unfair to treat the citizens of our "free" nation this way. The government isn't greater or better than me or anyone else. And someone needs to bitch slap it to let it know who's boss (that's a metaphor...I don't support violence!...but I do support civil disobedience).

[sonnyfromda02]

In one about one month, I will be exercising my 2nd amendment. One thing I learned in my CHL class, is if police or government officials know you have a CHL, they treat you with more respect because it shows that you have had a thorough background check, and have been labeled as no threat.

[ducttapemaster]

WOW! you must be really affected by this i would too but you cant hold onto everything forever i agree very unconstitutional but they are doing their jobs its still stupid

[ducttapemaster]

WOW! you must be really affected by this i would too but you cant hold onto everything forever i agree very unconstitutional but they are doing their jobs its still stupid

[Steve Nelson]

WOW! you must be really affected by this i would too but you cant hold onto everything forever i agree very unconstitutional but they are doing their jobs its still stupid

I'm not pissed at the policemen. They were all nice. I'm pissed that this kind of thing is happening when we're fighting a war to give Iraq freedom. It's like a slap in the face to the citizens of our nation.

[Jon Hanson]

Right here I'm going to say that overall you're right. The big fact is that the system doesn't seem effective. It seems more like they're trying to make things LOOK safe, then actually be safe.

I've never looked at the use of the word unreasonable in the fourth amendment this way either,

There is a big difference between the second amendment and the fourth amendment. Every citizen (unless they've been restricted due to criminal activity or are too young) has the right to bear arms. They may not be able to bring those guns EVERYWHERE. But they can own them. Which is all that the constitution grants.


This may just be my ignorance, but where is the difference within the constitution itself?

We've come to accept restrictions on the second amendment due to years of conditioning, and a good case could be made that now we're accepting restrictions on the fourth amendment the same way.

And the constitution grants more than just the right to own guns, it grants the right to bear guns, to be equipped with them. And that's unqualified, it doesn't say the right to bear arms in designated areas.

We've traded off the freedom granted in the amendment, that seems unqualified, for a feeling of freedom.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The wording is strong, it doesn't say anything about limits to keeping and bearing arms. The second amendment is actually more firm in it's wording than the fourth because it doesn't lay out any way in which a person could be outside the law keeping and bearing arms, where as the fourth amendment lays out the way warrants can be issued to remove houses.

The 4th amendment grants us protection against unwarranted and unreasonable searches and/or seizures. Everyone being searched before entering the White House makes sense. Random people being searched before entering the subway doesn't. If it were private property, I would say fine! But it's not...it's public and our taxes go to paying for it

The White house is also paid by taxes, so it's public property.


I continued riding the subway because I HAVE to to get to work. It's a public service and I have the right to ride it without fear of my constitutional rights being stripped of me...although I have to pay to get on...that doesn't mean the constitution becomes invalidated on that land.

I was just using that to say that riding the subway doesn't seem to be a right, but a privilege granted by the government.


It's unreasonable and unfair to treat the citizens of our "free" nation this way. The government isn't greater or better than me or anyone else. And someone needs to bitch slap it to let it know who's boss (that's a metaphor...I don't support violence!...but I do support civil disobedience).

I agree with you here way more than not, and I'd go farther. If it becomes necessary violent revolution needs to be an option, considering that's what gave birth to this great nation.

WOW! you must be really affected by this i would too but you cant hold onto everything forever i agree very unconstitutional but they are doing their jobs its still stupid
Someone needs to care, even about the small things.

The road to complete statism isn't abrupt, it's long and gradual.

I may have disagreements with him, but I know our country needs people with a watchful eye keeping the government in check.

In all honesty I probably cut the government more slack than I should in the security department because I think it's pretty much one of the few things it actually should do.


And I'd also say that the most relevant fact regarding this particular instance is that the practice of random, essentially optional bag checks seems incredibly ineffective and not worth the hassle.


Steve, do you know any lawyer you could talk to about this? I'd be interested to hear their take on it, and what, if anything, can or should be done.

[jugglingfreak]

My issue is with the fact that these searches are random, therefore unreasonable...therefore unconstitutional.

No, it was reasonable because you have the right to refuse and move on. Unreasonable would be if they said "random bag check" grabbed you and held you down while searching you without your consent.

Wether you like it or not, you gave your consent.


I continued riding the subway because I HAVE to to get to work.

And there are alternate means, you are now complaining about convenience.


It's a public service and I have the right to ride it without fear of my constitutional rights being stripped of me...although I have to pay to get on...that doesn't mean the constitution becomes invalidated on that land.


Federal and state court houses are Public property too, what will happen if I enter with my legally owned gun.

To remove the gun issue from it, you usually have to go through a metal detector and bag search too, and unlike the subway, if you have business in court, you HAVE to be there and there is no alternative. Court houses have been that way for a lot longer than the subway, pre-911 in fact and no one has complained yet.

You rights have limits and always have and always will. "Freedom of speech does not grant you the right to yell fire in a crowded theater"

[Wraith 5]

As the saying goes; 'you put a frog in a pan of boiling water, and it jumps out.. but put it in a pan of warm water, and heat it up, and the frog sits there until it dies.
Our governments are slowly 'heating up the water' so to speak, so our rights are taken away piece by piece.. little enough that we can ignore this happening, as reacting would be inconvenient. I fear that this will keep happening, until the entire of western civilisation lives under a Police State, similar to the events in 'Equilibrium' (great film), and '1984' by Orwell.
We need some 'boiling water' to get someone to react.


You rights have limits and always have and always will. "Freedom of speech does not grant you the right to yell fire in a crowded theater"
Unless it's a movie theater, and you're watching a Bruce Willis film.. then the presence of fire is naturally taken for granted..

[Steve Nelson]

No, it was reasonable because you have the right to refuse and move on. Unreasonable would be if they said "random bag check" grabbed you and held you down while searching you without your consent.

Wether you like it or not, you gave your consent.

No, it is not reasonable. You obviously didn't take the time to read the other posts. If they randomly check bags and allow you to refuse...do you think any terrorist will let their bag be checked? NO! And that is why this random bag check to stop terrorism...will NEVER stop terrorism...because they'll just go to a different entrance. The only thing it does it intrude the privacy of every day commuters. UNREASONABLE!

And there are alternate means, you are now complaining about convenience.

What are my alternate means? I live a very far walking/bike riding distance from my work and it's not a safe area to be doing those things at the hours I sometimes come in from work anyway. I also don't have enough money for a taxi ride or my own car. The subway system isn't a luxury given to the people of New York. It's the result of our tax dollars and fares at work. It is a service we pay for and we deserve our constitutional rights on it.

By the way, is it considered a choice when you refuse consent and walk through the turnstile only to be arrested? No. Why am I randomly being forced to go through a different entrance if I don't feel like having my privacy invaded unconstitutionally? Especially when it's not happening to anyone else around me. Why just me? What if I had something in my bag that I didn't want the police to see because it would make me uncomfortable? And what if it were pouring out and I didn't want to walk to another entrance? Those are both fairly REASONABLE reasons for not wanting to be put into an UNREASONABLE situation. So, don't tell I'm complaining because you just sound like a condescending know-it-all who's never been put in that situation.

[New Spark Films]

No, it was reasonable because you have the right to refuse and move on. Unreasonable would be if they said "random bag check" grabbed you and held you down while searching you without your consent.

Wether you like it or not, you gave your consent.



And there are alternate means, you are now complaining about convenience.

How is that reasonable? As Steve said, it's not in any way preventing terrorism, it's compromising the rights and privacy of the commuters.

And you don't know anything about whether or not there are alternate means for the travelers, that's just an assumption you're making, that they have alternate means.

I'm on Steve's side with this. It IS completely unreasonable and it's another example of how the freedoms of the American people are slowly becoming more and more limited.

[jugglingfreak]

No, it is not reasonable. You obviously didn't take the time to read the other posts. If they randomly check bags and allow you to refuse...do you think any terrorist will let their bag be checked? NO! And that is why this random bag check to stop terrorism...will NEVER stop terrorism...because they'll just go to a different entrance. The only thing it does it intrude the privacy of every day commuters. UNREASONABLE!

I never said it did anything for terrorism. You are given the option to opt out. That is all that is needed to make it "reasonable"



What are my alternate means? I live a very far walking/bike riding distance from my work and it's not a safe area to be doing those things at the hours I sometimes come in from work anyway. I also don't have enough money for a taxi ride or my own car. The subway system isn't a luxury given to the people of New York. It's the result of our tax dollars and fares at work. It is a service we pay for and we deserve our constitutional rights on it.


Yes, you are talking about convenience. There is nothing to physically prevent you from walking/riding a bike. What you listed are just things that make it more convenient to ride the subway, not a necessity.

And unless your building enters directly into the subway station, you have to walk partially through the "unsafe area" anyway.


By the way, is it considered a choice when you refuse consent and walk through the turnstile only to be arrested?


I take it you can provide some kind of proof that this has ever actually happened?

Why am I randomly being forced to go through a different entrance if I don't feel like having my privacy invaded unconstitutionally?

It's not, you have other options.

Especially when it's not happening to anyone else around me. Why just me?

Because it's random. You happened to be there at that moment.

What if I had something in my bag that I didn't want the police to see because it would make me uncomfortable?


You have the option to leave.

And what if it were pouring out and I didn't want to walk to another entrance?

You are talking about convenience again.

Those are both fairly REASONABLE reasons for not wanting to be put into an UNREASONABLE situation.

And you have REASONABLE options.

So, don't tell I'm complaining because you just sound like a condescending know-it-all who's never been put in that situation.

I used to have Top Secret security clearance. The FBI takes 4 sets of finger prints and spends 6 months investigating you talking to everyone they can find that knew you going back 15 years (school teachers, classmates, friends, etc.) you give them the rights to check your bank accounts and all financial information and medical records. And fill out numerous forms detailing intimate personal information.

Yes, I think I been through a little bit more than a "bag check" (which you have to go through to even enter Disney World now).

[Steve Nelson]

You use convenience as if it encompasses everything that isn't extremely difficult...and it does if you want to play the devil's advocate. But I hardly doubt anyone makes the commute from where I live in Brooklyn to Manhattan, everyday, without using a car, train, or bus. Taking mass transit may be more convenient than walking or riding a bike, but that doesn't make it something I could do without. It would take me hours upon hours to walk and probably a little over an hour to ride my bike. If it rained, I'd be shit out of luck because my computer would get messed up. If I worked until 3 in the morning and needed to get back to Brooklyn only to be at work by 10 the next day, I'd have no time to sleep without getting to my apartment by mass transit. And yes, the train pulls a block away from my apartment...so, no...I don't have to walk through the ghetto to get on the train. And maybe that fact is convenient, but the mass transit system itself is a practical application of technology that is the sole reason I can have my job in Manhattan and live in Brooklyn. Without it, that'd be impossible. And without my job, I wouldn't have money. And without money, I wouldn't have food or shelter. And food and shelter are necessities, not conveniences.

I really don't care about your FBI past, that doesn't make you a connoisseur on my life and the situation I went through. You signed up to have that done, I didn't move to NYC knowing my bags would be unconstitutionally checked. And you obviously don't get that a random bag check that anyone can walk away from does nothing, do you? And that is why it is unreasonable, my friend. Because it is simply for show and does nothing, so, why should I suffer because they want to scare people...I'm not into scare politics and I find them...what's the word?....oh YEAH!....UNREASONABLE!

I take it you can provide some kind of proof that this has ever actually happened?

Well, actually, after they grabbed my bag and started going through it...I took the time to read the sign. It read that anyone who refused the search and attempted to go through the turnstile would be arrested. And, from what I've experienced...the sign doesn't lie.

[jugglingfreak]

You use convenience as if it encompasses everything that isn't extremely difficult...and it does if you want to play the devil's advocate. But I hardly doubt anyone makes the commute from where I live in Brooklyn to Manhattan, everyday, without using a car, train, or bus. Taking mass transit may be more convenient than walking or riding a bike, but that doesn't make it something I could do without. It would take me hours upon hours to walk and probably a little over an hour to ride my bike. If it rained, I'd be shit out of luck because my computer would get messed up. If I worked until 3 in the morning and needed to get back to Brooklyn only to be at work by 10 the next day, I'd have no time to sleep without getting to my apartment by mass transit.

But it is do-able and an hour bike ride is really not that big a deal (I used to bike around 45 min to work and did for about 3 to four months). There are water-proof bags/cases for your laptop.

Is this ideal? No, but it is an option if you really feel that strongly about the random bag checks.


And yes, the train pulls a block away from my apartment...so, no...I don't have to walk through the ghetto to get on the train. And maybe that fact is convenient, but the mass transit system itself is a practical application of technology that is the sole reason I can have my job in Manhattan and live in Brooklyn.

Yes, these things are know as modern conveniences for a reason. They're convenient..

Without it, that'd be impossible.

No, it would just be more difficult..


I really don't care about your FBI past, that doesn't make you a connoisseur on my life and the situation I went through.

You made the statement that I had "never been put in that situation."

I only posted it to let you know, that yes, I have. I have also been through searches at Airports (my employment required me to work on the computers at the boarding stations. I was searched every time and had to explain and wait because of the tools I had to carry with me.), Disney World, and other places before and after 9/11. This is nothing new.

You signed up to have that done

Yes and no. I was picked by my company to be one of the people who serviced the FBI computers. I was given the option of accepting or finding employment elsewhere.

I didn't move to NYC knowing my bags would be unconstitutionally checked.

It's not an unconstitutional search if you are give the ability to opt out.

And you obviously don't get that a random bag check that anyone can walk away from does nothing, do you?

No, I get it and agree. That isn't what I'm arguing and it's effectiveness has nothing to do with it's constitutionality. They are two different arguments.

And that is why it is unreasonable, my friend. Because it is simply for show and does nothing,

Your going to have a hard time living in the world then. There are tons of of perfectly constitutional laws that are stupid and ineffective.

For example, "blue laws". Where I live, you can't buy beer, wine, liquor on Sunday. However, if you go to a place that has over 50% of it's sales from food, you can.

How sensible is that? Does it keep anyone from drinking on Sunday? Of course not.. It stupid, it's ineffective, it serves little to no purpose, but it is constitutional..

so, why should I suffer because they want to scare people...I'm not into scare politics and I find them...what's the word?....oh YEAH!....UNREASONABLE!

What you see as unreasonable and what the law sees as unreasonable are two different things. If and individual gives consent to search, that is all that is needed and, guess what, police are under no requirement to even tell you that you have the right to refuse.. So the fact that you are given the option, makes it constitutional..

Feel free to ask the ACLU about it..


Well, actually, after they grabbed my bag and started going through it...I took the time to read the sign. It read that anyone who refused the search and attempted to go through the turnstile would be arrested. And, from what I've experienced...the sign doesn't lie.

Only if you proceed through the turnstile, not if you refuse and then leave the station. So yes, you can refuse and leave.

[Steve Nelson]

It's pointless to argue with someone who would've told Christopher Columbus to swim, because taking a boat would be too convenient. You ONCE AGAIN, only chose to see the points you wanted to see and I don't care to repeat them again. I'm sorry, but not a single thing you've said has been of any worth to me...so please, stop trying to influence my perception...it's a waste of both of our times. Speaking of time, I'm gonna go get drunk because I'm 21 in 17 minutes.

[Fisherking]

Speaking of time, I'm gonna go get drunk because I'm 21 in 17 minutes.

In Australia, we can drink at 18. It always struck me that America still hasn't gotten over prohibition (or maybe we're just a nation of piss-pots).

[jugglingfreak]

In Australia, we can drink at 18. It always struck me that America still hasn't gotten over prohibition (or maybe we're just a nation of piss-pots).

Actually it was 18 over here until the early 80's when it got bumped back up to 21. (some states had it at 21 earlier.)

[jugglingfreak]

It's pointless to argue with someone who would've told Christopher Columbus to swim, because taking a boat would be too convenient.

You said yourself it was just an hour bike ride, come on...


You ONCE AGAIN, only chose to see the points you wanted to see and I don't care to repeat them again.

The same can be said for you, you just keep repeating about wether or not it's effective. That has nothing to do with a laws constitutionality.

Apples and oranges..

I'm sorry, but not a single thing you've said has been of any worth to me...so please, stop trying to influence my perception...it's a waste of both of our times.

I wasn't attempting to influence you, I was just pointing out facts.


Speaking of time, I'm gonna go get drunk because I'm 21 in 17 minutes.

Happy Birthday.

[Jier]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

My question for all of you is: What would you do if put in this position?

But a lot of the time local laws and regulations over-rule those statutes. Especially now with safety concerns like they are. I'm not saying it's right, but it's one of the many things we have to put up with in this state of paranoia Americans live in daily.

Which, you know, is exactly what the 9/11 terrorists where wanting, and we've made their attacks a huge fucking success for them more and more everyday by how paranoid we get.

Of course, I'm on the other-side of the fence than you are as well. When a bomb-threat, or scare is made my squad is one of the firsts to get toned out and we secure the scene for police, and have all our equipment primed in case something does happen, so they can worry about the problem at hand as well as organizing other resources. From being on this side of it I can honestly tell you that for the majority of cops (At least, here.) they are completely brainwashed into what the "nu politics" is selling, both Liberals and Conservitives, when it comes to terrorism. So, I'd just continue checking it in. I mean, it's not like you'd be packing anything embarrassing, right? Like a three foot dildo or whatever? :P

[Scumriser]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc

[Kaygee]

The moment a honest citizen is put out of their way even for a second by measures put into place to stop terrorism, the bastards have already won. They want us to be afraid of them and we're showing that not only are we afraid of them, we're pissing our pants in abject terror.

[next-tarantino]

Today, as I entered the subway in NYC, I was stopped by the police. Every day, while riding the trains, you can hear "Backpacks and other large containers are subject to random search by the New York City Police Department" over the PA. And it just so happened that this morning, my backpack or other large container was randomly subjected to search by a few kind officers.

They give you the option to refuse entry and walk away. But if you refuse and proceed to enter, you can be arrested.

I knew I had nothing to hide, so, I let them go through my bag. Mainly because I didn't feel like refusing, thus, forcing myself to leave and go through a different entrance with no inspection station.

But what if I had things in my bag that I didn't want the police to see? Things that I have the right to have (though that is irrelevant). The fourth amendment of the constitution states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Although this whole incident was a simple situation of "No Harm, No Foul", I still feel irked. Maybe it's because of the police, but it could also be caused by me not acting in accordance with my own belief system.

I've stated my disdain for this policy of the NYPD before, yet, when push came to shove I gladly let them search my bag. Not to say that I should have called them fascists and ran through the turnstile. But, I could've easily denied their request and headed to a different entrance. Instead, I LET the constitution bend with my indifferent actions and laziness. And I will NEVER let it happen again.

My question for all of you is: What would you do if put in this position?


Too bad?

It's not like they're going to perform a cavity search on you.


And even so, if you're innocent, then you've nothing to hide...

[luv4paintball]

Actually it was 18 over here until the early 80's when it got bumped back up to 21. (some states had it at 21 earlier.)
actually i belive it still can be 18, but then the state that has the that 18 drinking age would loose alot of federal grants and such

oh, and if i had the time i would politly tell the police officers to let me through or get a warrent to search my bag.

[Steve Nelson]

Too bad?

It's not like they're going to perform a cavity search on you.


And even so, if you're innocent, then you've nothing to hide...

Have you ever read 1984? Are you really one of those people that would say "if you're innocent, then you've nothing to hide..."? I pity you.

[AC Films]

burned!!!

[Ladri.]

Have you ever read 1984? Are you really one of those people that would say "if you're innocent, then you've nothing to hide..."? I pity you.

Steve's right. We might as well have telescreens in every room of our houses if the government can search your bag without probable cause.

[Fisherking]

Or tap you telephone line, or read your e-mails, or...

[Nonsensical studios]

I think if we keep giving the government control over us, all sorts of things can happen!

[next-tarantino]

Have you ever read 1984? Are you really one of those people that would say "if you're innocent, then you've nothing to hide..."? I pity you.

And I you, sir. While you may think it's fine and dandy for everyone to go about their own business in total ignorant bliss, believing in the Americanized ideals of "freedom," the world we live in is much less forgiving than you'd like to think.

Yes, I've read "1984." And yes, I believe that with each passing day we grow closer to such a world. But I'd hardly say having your baggage searched before boarding public transportation is bringing us closer to the brink of fascism.



burned!!!

Hardly.



Steve's right. We might as well have telescreens in every room of our houses if the government can search your bag without probable cause.

Those two scenarios are worlds apart. You are all blowing this little occurrence way out of proportion.

And besides, such is life.

[ishakebabies]

Yeah, I got searched today for the first time ever.

They didn't even tell me I had the right to refuse.

I didn't refuse either, I can admit that I'm not ballsy enough to refuse a request from a man with a badge and a gun. Don't taze me bro.

[lordhazzard]

I dont think we have random bag searches in australia.

but (and because this is a film forum)
what if you had film props such as fake guns in your bags?
in australia you can get charged for not even having a orange tip on the end of the fake guns, even though fake guns without a permit are illegal anyway.

My view of this topic is that,
at least they're trying to put a anti-terrorist system in place.
its better than having no system, and then the media blames the government when theres a terrorist attack and there isn't a system.

so the government puts a system in place, even if it doesn't fully work,
the fact is, at least there is a system.

And what if, by the off-chance, a terrorist (thats speaks little english) walks into the subway with a bomb, and is asked for his bags to be searched and he doesn't realize or understands that its optional.
plus from his appearance and body language police would probably detain him for questioning if he refused.

I'm happy that i live in a country where we are not at as much risk of having a terrorist attack


.........not yet, at least.

[Steve Nelson]

And I you, sir. While you may think it's fine and dandy for everyone to go about their own business in total ignorant bliss, believing in the Americanized ideals of "freedom," the world we live in is much less forgiving than you'd like to think.

Yes, I've read "1984." And yes, I believe that with each passing day we grow closer to such a world. But I'd hardly say having your baggage searched before boarding public transportation is bringing us closer to the brink of fascism.


It's REALLY shameful that you don't think the American ideal of freedom is important in AMERICA! Isn't that WHY we're fighting terrorists...because they hate freedom? So...we're limiting our freedoms as we fight to protect our freedoms? Do you not see the paradox in your beliefs? When will we finally be safe? When cameras watch our every movement?

If you give them an inch, they will take a mile. What is going through bags one day could easily grow as time goes on, especially as beings such as yourself allow it to happen without question.

I hate to tell you, but there is no way on Earth that you could ever convince me that the breaking of the constitution is alright. But you can keep on trying to convince yourself if you'd like...

[BinBinProductions]

AMEN!

[Steve Nelson]

Oh, and by the way Mr. Next-Tarantino, as I stated above: illegal random bag searches are the first step; the next?

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9909638-7.html

If anyone should know how less forgiving the world REALLY is. It's you. You're just lucky cause you're an everyday white person from the USA...and these intrusions won't effect you negatively...yet. But once they do, you'll regret letting the government put what you thought was a leash around you...because you'll find out it was actually a noose.

[Steve Nelson]

Maybe I should add that the government was also caught illegally collecting the telephone calls of countless Americans WITHOUT a warrant. So, that's two strikes already (though I'm sure I left a few out) against breaking the constitution by the corrupt politicians. Why WOULDN'T they continue on this path? You're already paving the road for them, NT...they just have to strap on their boots.

[sonnyfromda02]

Maybe I should add that the government was also caught illegally collecting the telephone calls of countless Americans WITHOUT a warrant. So, that's two strikes already (though I'm sure I left a few out) against breaking the constitution by the corrupt politicians. Why WOULDN'T they continue on this path? You're already paving the road for them, NT...they just have to strap on their boots.

When one of my cousins was on trial, I couldn't make a phone call to any of my family members without a lot of interference and feed back on the line. As soon as he was found not guilty, the interference and feed back on the phones stopped. We always had our suspicions.

[next-tarantino]

It's REALLY shameful that you don't think the American ideal of freedom is important in AMERICA! Isn't that WHY we're fighting terrorists...because they hate freedom? So...we're limiting our freedoms as we fight to protect our freedoms? Do you not see the paradox in your beliefs? When will we finally be safe? When cameras watch our every movement?

If you give them an inch, they will take a mile. What is going through bags one day could easily grow as time goes on, especially as beings such as yourself allow it to happen without question.

I hate to tell you, but there is no way on Earth that you could ever convince me that the breaking of the constitution is alright. But you can keep on trying to convince yourself if you'd like...


There is no "breaking of the constitution," as you so eloquently put it. The Fourth Amendment states that:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

I would hardly call a simple search of your baggage "unreasonable" as you board public transportation. It is, in fact, entirely reasonable and is something I would honestly expect.

And besides, if you're going to get all up in arms about this, why not also protest this same activity as it takes place in airports? Is it not exactly the same thing?

While, yes, it is important to its citizens within its borders, the American idea of freedom is flawed. We aren't free to do what we wish in our own homes, and cameras already watch our every movement.

So, where is our freedom, really? Let me know when you find it, 'cause I'm anxious for a piece of it.

[next-tarantino]

Oh, and by the way Mr. Next-Tarantino, as I stated above: illegal random bag searches are the first step; the next?

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9909638-7.html

If anyone should know how less forgiving the world REALLY is. It's you. You're just lucky cause you're an everyday white person from the USA...and these intrusions won't effect you negatively...yet. But once they do, you'll regret letting the government put what you thought was a leash around you...because you'll find out it was actually a noose.

Maybe I should add that the government was also caught illegally collecting the telephone calls of countless Americans WITHOUT a warrant. So, that's two strikes already (though I'm sure I left a few out) against breaking the constitution by the corrupt politicians. Why WOULDN'T they continue on this path? You're already paving the road for them, NT...they just have to strap on their boots.


That's some brilliant picking-and-choosing.

Searching your baggage and collecting certain personal information via phone taps or what-have-you are not entirely the same thing.

Besides, as I stated above, the Constitution only limits "unreasonable" searches. Well, this only brings into question the idea of what is and is not "reasonable." The cops breaking down your door and tearing your house apart as a "search?" Unreasonable. Cops asking you to open your backpack so they can screen it for possible "weapons" or what-have-you as you board public transportation? Reasonable.

If you want to be part of an established nation, you have to accept the fact that there are things you're going to have to put up with that are not entirely favorable. Neither you nor I will ever have things the way we want them.

And I'm not trying to say that I think it's right to have my baggage "randomly" searched, but if it's what I have to deal with to live in this country, then so be it.

We are not free in this country. We never have been, and we never will be.

If you want freedom, I'm sure there's a fantastic deserted island just waiting for you.

[Steve Nelson]

There is no "breaking of the constitution," as you so eloquently put it. The Fourth Amendment states that:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

I would hardly call a simple search of your baggage "unreasonable" as you board public transportation. It is, in fact, entirely reasonable and is something I would honestly expect.

Did you take the time to read my other posts earlier in the thread? Apparently not.

Yes, you can quote the constitution. CONGRATULATIONS!! But do you have the ability to apply what it says to modern day situations instead of just reading it blindly into the wind? Yes, you do! You just need to think a little bit.

Ok, let's break this down. Bags are checked at airports, amusement parks, arenas, etc. (though our concern is only with government owned and operated places, as what privately owned/leased areas do is their own PRIVATE business). EVERY BAG THAT GOES THROUGH IS CHECKED. There is no bypassing this. And that is something done to ensure our safety, and it does.

Yet, when you get on the subway in NYC, some people randomly have their bags checked. Does this offer the same level of safety? Of course not, because not every bag is checked. And if bags are being RANDOMLY searched, how can we rest assured that the bags of terrorists have been checked (as that is the meaning behind checking these bags in the first place)? The truth is, we can't! And if a terrorist is well-informed (which if they sent him all the way to the USA, I'm sure they'd debrief him on MTA policy for bag checking), he would know that he could REFUSE the search and go into another entry of the subway...only to blow his bomb and kill tons of innocent people.

That's a great policy you support Next Tarantino. "Hey, let's pretend we're protecting the American people, and in the end, make so that only THEY can be hurt by this policy". It's is UNREASONABLE because it offers no assurance of stopping terrorism and only serves to invade the privacy of unsuspecting citizens, who may not be as well-informed as a terrorist on being allowed to say no (as the police do not tell you this when they take your bag).

And even more so, Airports are government owned places leased to private companies...it is hardly the same thing as the NYC Subway System. A completely public service.

It would be impossible to search the bags of EVERY person who came through the subway system. And this random search is a half-assed, unconstitutional, dangerous (because people like you actually believe it makes them safe), and ineffective. And if there is a terrorist STUPID enough to get caught in it, well, he probably would've asked the officers to help him detonate his bomb too.

While, yes, it is important to its citizens within its borders, the American idea of freedom is flawed. We aren't free to do what we wish in our own homes, and cameras already watch our every movement.

So, where is our freedom, really? Let me know when you find it, 'cause I'm anxious for a piece of it.

No, cameras do NOT watch our every movement. They may very soon, if Chertoff gets his way. But it has yet to be implemented yet.

You know, you should really take a hard look at what you're saying. "So, where is our freedom, really?" and then telling me you think it's ok for the government to break the constitution. Our Freedom is right here in front of us...but you're blindly letting the government strip you of it every second.

And honestly, I find it truly unAmerican when someone tries to make me accept a country with limited freedoms...as you are. You can just sit back and let it get worse, but I am going to stand up and not let my freedoms be taken from me. I just hope you don't turn me in when our government begins turning on us (see link below).

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1959 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1955)

(That bill ambiguously defines terrorism as a native force used to coerce the government or citizens of the USA into furtherance of social objectives. Does that mean MLK Jr. is now considered a terrorist? I don't want to hurt anyone, don't turn me in, please.)

[Steve Nelson]

That's some brilliant picking-and-choosing.

Searching your baggage and collecting certain personal information via phone taps or what-have-you are not entirely the same thing.


Yes, but they are both violations of the Constitution of the United States of America.

[jugglingfreak]

That's some brilliant picking-and-choosing.

Searching your baggage and collecting certain personal information via phone taps or what-have-you are not entirely the same thing.

Besides, as I stated above, the Constitution only limits "unreasonable" searches. Well, this only brings into question the idea of what is and is not "reasonable." The cops breaking down your door and tearing your house apart as a "search?" Unreasonable. Cops asking you to open your backpack so they can screen it for possible "weapons" or what-have-you as you board public transportation? Reasonable.

If you want to be part of an established nation, you have to accept the fact that there are things you're going to have to put up with that are not entirely favorable. Neither you nor I will ever have things the way we want them.

And I'm not trying to say that I think it's right to have my baggage "randomly" searched, but if it's what I have to deal with to live in this country, then so be it.

We are not free in this country. We never have been, and we never will be.

If you want freedom, I'm sure there's a fantastic deserted island just waiting for you.

Thank you, at least someone understands what the legal definition of "reasonable" means. They all have a right to refuse the search and choose alternate means of travel.

[Steve Nelson]

If you want freedom, I'm sure there's a fantastic deserted island just waiting for you.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever read. I live in the United States of America. And if you think for one second that I'm going to go somewhere else for freedom, you're gravely mistaken.

Maybe you should go live on the deserted island and take all those who would bow down to those in power with you. Me...and all the Americans? We're going to be free, because that is the reason this nation was established, and I'll be damned if that doesn't remain the goal of at least one US citizen (me)...if not all...while I walk this Earth.

[Steve Nelson]

Thank you, at least someone understands what the legal definition of "reasonable" means. They all have a right to refuse the search and choose alternate means of travel.

I CHALLENGE you to dissect my post above yours and deny my position.

[Ladri.]

Thank you, at least someone understands what the legal definition of "reasonable" means. They all have a right to refuse the search and choose alternate means of travel.

How are "random" bag checks reasonable? Haven't you ever heard of profiling? No bag check is random. The people doing the checking can specifically choose different people to check. I believe that's taking my rights away.

Why should somebody have to choose a alternate means of travel? Why can't they respectively say no and keep walking? Unless every bag is checked, it's pointless to check them at random as Steve said.

[next-tarantino]

Did you take the time to read my other posts earlier in the thread? Apparently not.

Yes, you can quote the constitution. CONGRATULATIONS!! But do you have the ability to apply what it says to modern day situations instead of just reading it blindly into the wind? Yes, you do! You just need to think a little bit.

Ok, let's break this down. Bags are checked at airports, amusement parks, arenas, etc. (though our concern is only with government owned and operated places, as what privately owned/leased areas do is their own PRIVATE business). EVERY BAG THAT GOES THROUGH IS CHECKED. There is no bypassing this. And that is something done to ensure our safety, and it does.

Yet, when you get on the subway in NYC, some people randomly have their bags checked. Does this offer the same level of safety? Of course not, because not every bag is checked. And if bags are being RANDOMLY searched, how can we rest assured that the bags of terrorists have been checked (as that is the meaning behind checking these bags in the first place)? The truth is, we can't! And if a terrorist is well-informed (which if they sent him all the way to the USA, I'm sure they'd debrief him on MTA policy for bag checking), he would know that he could REFUSE the search and go into another entry of the subway...only to blow his bomb and kill tons of innocent people.

That's a great policy you support Next Tarantino. "Hey, let's pretend we're protecting the American people, and in the end, make so that only THEY can be hurt by this policy". It's is UNREASONABLE because it offers no assurance of stopping terrorism and only serves to invade the privacy of unsuspecting citizens, who may not be as well-informed as a terrorist on being allowed to say no (as the police do not tell you this when they take your bag).

And even more so, Airports are government owned places leased to private companies...it is hardly the same thing as the NYC Subway System. A completely public service.

It would be impossible to search the bags of EVERY person who came through the subway system. And this random search is a half-assed, unconstitutional, dangerous (because people like you actually believe it makes them safe), and ineffective. And if there is a terrorist STUPID enough to get caught in it, well, he probably would've asked the officers to help him detonate his bomb too.



No, cameras do NOT watch our every movement. They may very soon, if Chertoff gets his way. But it has yet to be implemented yet.

You know, you should really take a hard look at what you're saying. "So, where is our freedom, really?" and then telling me you think it's ok for the government to break the constitution. Our Freedom is right here in front of us...but you're blindly letting the government strip you of it every second.

And honestly, I find it truly unAmerican when someone tries to make me accept a country with limited freedoms...as you are. You can just sit back and let it get worse, but I am going to stand up and not let my freedoms be taken from me. I just hope you don't turn me in when our government begins turning on us (see link below).

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1959 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1955)

(That bill ambiguously defines terrorism as a native force used to coerce the government or citizens of the USA into furtherance of social objectives. Does that mean MLK Jr. is now considered a terrorist? I don't want to hurt anyone, don't turn me in, please.)

Yes, but they are both violations of the Constitution of the United States of America.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever read. I live in the United States of America. And if you think for one second that I'm going to go somewhere else for freedom, you're gravely mistaken.

Maybe you should go live on the deserted island and take all those who would bow down to those in power with you. Me...and all the Americans? We're going to be free, because that is the reason this nation was established, and I'll be damned if that doesn't remain the goal of at least one US citizen (me)...if not all...while I walk this Earth.


Lol.

[Steve Nelson]

Lol.


A well-put rebuttal.

[katz]

Governments and figures of authority should always be questioned and challenged. It's the best possible way to protect ourselves and our rights. The "let it be" attitude some people are exuding is what we can't afford.

[Ladri.]

A well-put rebuttal.

I was going to say something witty to that but it was so well put I didn't have a comeback.

[Steve Nelson]

Governments and figures of authority should always be questioned and challenged. It's the best possible way to protect ourselves and our rights. The "let it be" attitude some people are exuding is what we can't afford.

Agreed. I'd like to help the ignorant people like next-tarantino and juggling freak, because their indifference is what will affect the rest of us...negatively.

[next-tarantino]

A well-put rebuttal.


I thought so.

You just can't seem to understand that, while you live in a country with an established government, you will never be 100% free. Ever.

I think you also need to take the time to comprehend what the words "reasonable," "violation," and "illegal" mean.


And while we're being condescending: WOW! You have the ignorance to believe that America is actually the "land of the free and home of the brave!" CONGRATULATIONS!






Agreed. I'd like to help the ignorant people like next-tarantino and juggling freak, because their indifference is what will affect the rest of us...negatively.

HAHA! Oh, boy. Do you do stand-up?

[katz]

We may not actually be free: but we at least strive to be free-and that is a whole lot better than nothing.

[Steve Nelson]

I thought so.

You just can't seem to understand that, while you live in a country with an established government, you will never be 100% free. Ever.

I think you also need to take the time to comprehend what the words "reasonable," "violation," and "illegal" mean.


And while we're being condescending: WOW! You have the ignorance to believe that America is actually the "land of the free and home of the brave!" CONGRATULATIONS!

Sir, don't act like I'm being condescending. You engaged in discussion with me and then "lol"-ed when you realized you were wrong, to act like you were cool and didn't need to respond to my posts. And then I said something, not condescending, but poignant to your last resort comment and now you're personally attacking me.

I still host my challenge for you or jugglingfreak to pick apart my argument as to why these bag searches are unreasonable. But if you'd like to keep repeating yourself without actively engaging my points...then continue my friend. We are in America...where you have freedom of speech.

And you know what, we may NEVER be 100% free...you're right. But if you're going to be so lazy as to accept whatever the regime in power throws out you, we'd be better off in this country without you here. We don't need cowards.

[next-tarantino]

Sir, don't act like I'm being condescending. You engaged in discussion with me and then "lol"-ed when you realized you were wrong, to act like you were cool and didn't need to respond to my posts. And then I said something, not condescending, but poignant to your last resort comment and now you're personally attacking me.

I still host my challenge for you or jugglingfreak to pick apart my argument as to why these bag searches are unreasonable. But instead you decided to "lol" my words.

And you know what, we may NEVER be 100% free...you're right. But if you're going to be so lazy as to accept whatever the regime in power throws out you, we'd be better off in this country without you here. We don't need cowards.


Oh, but you were being condescending. Not only was my "lol" was merely the first reaction I had to reading your post, it came after your condescending remark. I'm not wrong, not 100% anyway.

Yes, the idea of a "random" bag search my be a bit off. But, as I stated earlier, there are certain things you're just going to have to live with. And I don't think having your bag searched is going to be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

I wouldn't consider my statement a "personal attack." But, if you do, then you've got to take into consideration the fact that, well... you swung first.


Me a coward? You are very sorely mistaken. I just don't let every little thing get to me.

[Steve Nelson]

And while we're being condescending: WOW! You have the ignorance to believe that America is actually the "land of the free and home of the brave!" CONGRATULATIONS!

Another instance of stupid sentences. Yes, America IS land of the free...I never said home of the brave...we have yet to see if that is still true. In 1776, we were the first nation to free ourselves from the shackles of monarchy and show the ENTIRE world that we could all be free. You underestimate how important this occasion was.

During the Civil War, President Lincoln freed every slave in this country...eliminating institutional racism on a federal level.

In the 1960's, countless people contributed to the absolute resolution that would grant every citizen who stepped foot in this nation...no matter what color their skin or country their origin...freedom. And that is true. You go to Darfur and see how free it is to be a black person there. Go to Iraq, when Sadam was still in power, and tell me that the Shia sect of Islam was equal to the Sunni. Go to Iran where there is a large middle class of regular people, forced down by the radical government...and show me who has more freedom.

Yes, our country is the land of the free. And it is our responsibility not only to maintain our freedom, but perfect it as we go on. All we can do is keep trying...and hope Bush doesn't invade Iran before he leaves office.

[Steve Nelson]

Yes, the idea of a "random" bag search my be a bit off. But, as I stated earlier, there are certain things you're just going to have to live with. And I don't think having your bag searched is going to be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

Did I ever say it was the straw that broke the camel's back? No, I said it was one part of a bigger problem, a problem that must be dealt with on every level.

The idea of the randomness is "a bit off"? So, what are you saying with this? Are you admitting that you were wrong or are you trying to find some middle ground between the truth and not being proven wrong?

"There are certain things you're just going to have to live with"!?!?!?! No, there aren't. If it violates the constitution, I do not have to live with it...even if that means I may face reprucussions...I'd rather die free than live "safe". But you can do whatever you please...let the government take advantage of you...as long as you get permission from them first ;).

[Steve Nelson]

Me a coward? You are very sorely mistaken. I just don't let every little thing get to me.

A coward is a person lacking in courage, someone who would choose "safety" over "freedom". And you have done nothing to prove otherwise. It's not a personal attack, it's just a word that sums up how you have shown yourself to be, thus far.

[Nonsensical studios]

"To see what is right, and do nothing is cowardice" - Confucius (I think)

Look at any past civilization.
Notice any patterns?
All have collapsed because of Paranoia, Hate, Greed, Corruption.
They have collapsed because of Human Emotions.

Just putting it out there :learn:

[screamingdeathpunchpictures]

Today, as I entered the subway in NYC, I was stopped by the police. Every day, while riding the trains, you can hear "Backpacks and other large containers are subject to random search by the New York City Police Department" over the PA. And it just so happened that this morning, my backpack or other large container was randomly subjected to search by a few kind officers.

They give you the option to refuse entry and walk away. But if you refuse and proceed to enter, you can be arrested.

I knew I had nothing to hide, so, I let them go through my bag. Mainly because I didn't feel like refusing, thus, forcing myself to leave and go through a different entrance with no inspection station.

But what if I had things in my bag that I didn't want the police to see? Things that I have the right to have (though that is irrelevant). The fourth amendment of the constitution states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Although this whole incident was a simple situation of "No Harm, No Foul", I still feel irked. Maybe it's because of the police, but it could also be caused by me not acting in accordance with my own belief system.

I've stated my disdain for this policy of the NYPD before, yet, when push came to shove I gladly let them search my bag. Not to say that I should have called them fascists and ran through the turnstile. But, I could've easily denied their request and headed to a different entrance. Instead, I LET the constitution bend with my indifferent actions and laziness. And I will NEVER let it happen again.

My question for all of you is: What would you do if put in this position?
I've had friends who were participating in an entirely peaceful protest who were maced, teargassed, beaten and arrested by the police on bogus charges. They were stripped down to underwear and tshirts and then released at 3 am and told to get off department property within 15 minutes or be arrested for trespassing. I'm an activist as well, and an anarchist. I don't like cops. I've met some who are nice but when I see them I get angry. To many fucked up things have been aloud to happen under the guise of law and order. I would have pulled the 4th amendment on those bitches and then file a lawsuit against the city if I was arrested.

[screamingdeathpunchpictures]

IMO the catch-22 "if you reserve your right to not feel like a proven-with-no-trial criminal, you are under arrest," is a violation of rights. I can totally understand the MTA and PD requesting all customers acknowledge that by using a service, you agree to certain terms. I do not understand their automatic arrest of anyone refusing service after they have announced such conditions. This supports suspicion as evidence. I ride the subway several times a day like most people in NYC, and I want to feel safe on them too. I also want to feel like a dignified human being, and not some peon who must succumb to the will of the state or face sanction.

Anyone ever read/seen The Crucible? Same scenario. It amazes me how many Americans in my generation, the generation before me, and those under me, are completely willing to surrender all their human rights over appeals to their emotions and security.
This dude gets it! Cyber-five! *high fives computer*

[ishakebabies]

Okay, maybe America isn't the ideal example of liberty and freedom, maybe some of us are being idealistic when we say we want to live in a land of freedom AND security, but just because these things seem intangible doesn't mean we should stop striving to acquire them.

This may seem corny to refer to but you all know the John Lennon song, Imagine. Its such an idealistic song because some of these things seem impossible, but it's one of the best songs ever written. Point is, we all imagine and hope for a better tomorrow, that is what we strive for, that is what sets us apart as a species. We develop, we grow, we imagine, and we keep working for a better world. At the moment it doesn't seem like it's going to get better anytime soon but it doesn't mean we should stop trying to reach idealistic goals like freedom, liberty, security, the end of poverty and world hunger, the end of racism and sexism and class hierarchies. The day we stop trying to improve the human race is the day we failed. The day we stop trying to figure out freedom is the day we truly FAIL.

[ishakebabies]

Adding to my post above, I don't believe these random bag searches are effective. I am not sure whether these searches completely violate our freedoms, but they are ineffective, and dangerous. Instead of investing (or should I say wasting) so much of our homeland security money and tax money on this ineffective screening process, we should be figuring out a better way to deter terrorism or a better way to catch terrorists. Right now what really worries me is this false sense of security we have. It's very half-assed and something needs to be done. Something better. Yep, I let them search my bag, I'm not going to waste my time or the policeman's time by making a scene, their doing their jobs, if I wanted to protest I would really have to go higher up.
But I really do believe these searches are BS

[Scott]

Subways should have random cavity searches.









I'm speaking of the sandwich shops.

[next-tarantino]

Did I ever say it was the straw that broke the camel's back? No, I said it was one part of a bigger problem, a problem that must be dealt with on every level.

I never said that that is what you said. Surely you've heard what "they" say when you assume?


The idea of the randomness is "a bit off"? So, what are you saying with this? Are you admitting that you were wrong or are you trying to find some middle ground between the truth and not being proven wrong?

You've proven no one wrong. All I'm saying is that the idea of "random" and what NYC cops consider "random" can be two totally different things.

And I was not necessarily defending the idea of the random search, but more so the idea of the search itself.

Fine. Do away with the element of "random," and make it so that everyone has to have their baggage checked. That would make it much safer and less discriminatory.


"There are certain things you're just going to have to live with"!?!?!?! No, there aren't. If it violates the constitution, I do not have to live with it...even if that means I may face reprucussions...I'd rather die free than live "safe". But you can do whatever you please...let the government take advantage of you...as long as you get permission from them first ;).

See that's is where you are 100% wrong. If you want to continue being a citizen in good standing with this country, then yes, there are things you have to live with/abide by.

And no part of the Constitution has been violated. I'd ask you to look up the word reasonable, but instead I'll provide the definition for you.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law defines it thusly:
Main Entry: rea·son·able
Function: adjective
1 a : being in accordance with reason, fairness, duty, or prudence b : of an appropriate degree or kind c : supported or justified by fact or circumstance <a reasonable belief that force was necessary for self-defense> d : COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=mwlaw&q=commerciallyreasonable)
2 : applying reason or logic; broadly : RATIONAL 1 (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=mwlaw&q=rational) <a reasonable mind> —rea·son·able·ness noun —rea·son·ably adverbGranted, the idea of the "random search" may not be what Merriam-Webster would consider "fair," but again, that is not the point of this argument I am defending. I am simply saying that the idea of having one's personal effects examined before boarding any kind of public transportation is not only reasonable but justifiable as well.


A coward is a person lacking in courage, someone who would choose "safety" over "freedom". And you have done nothing to prove otherwise. It's not a personal attack, it's just a word that sums up how you have shown yourself to be, thus far.

So, because I don't get pissy and all riled up every time I encounter a minor inconvenience, I'm a coward? I think not.

Why not also start a thread about how ridiculous it is to have your baggage checked in airports? Or how, every day in every way the US government is finding some new means to get the better of its citizens? Or how I shouldn't have to show my ID when I walk into a bar? Or how I should be able to "bear arms" without any type of license? Or how I should be able to perform any activity in the safety of my own home without fear of "the fuzz?" Or how, because it says so in the Constitution, I should be able to "peaceably assemble" anywhere I choose without fear of consequence?

Better yet, why not actually get out there and actively do something about it?

Get over yourself.

[jugglingfreak]

I accept your challenge.. (I assume you meant this post as the one above mine was a one line post.)



Yes, you can quote the constitution. CONGRATULATIONS!! But do you have the ability to apply what it says to modern day situations instead of just reading it blindly into the wind? Yes, you do! You just need to think a little bit.

I would add, so do you..


Ok, let's break this down. Bags are checked at airports, amusement parks, arenas, etc. (though our concern is only with government owned and operated places, as what privately owned/leased areas do is their own PRIVATE business). EVERY BAG THAT GOES THROUGH IS CHECKED. There is no bypassing this. And that is something done to ensure our safety, and it does.

No, people still get items in all the time even though everyone is searched. Nothing is 100% effective.


Yet, when you get on the subway in NYC, some people randomly have their bags checked. Does this offer the same level of safety? Of course not, because not every bag is checked.

This starts the failure of your understanding. I tried pointing it out to you before, effectiveness of a law has nothing to do with it's constitutionality.

A law can be 100% constitutional and totally ineffective. You keep trying to argue the constitutionality of the law by bring up it's effectiveness as evidence. Wether it is effective or not is totally irrelevant to the constitutionality..


And if bags are being RANDOMLY searched, how can we rest assured that the bags of terrorists have been checked (as that is the meaning behind checking these bags in the first place)?

General saftey is the meaning behind it, but you are still arguing effective ness and have not provided on bit of proof toward unconstitutionality.


The truth is, we can't! And if a terrorist is well-informed (which if they sent him all the way to the USA, I'm sure they'd debrief him on MTA policy for bag checking), he would know that he could REFUSE the search and go into another entry of the subway...only to blow his bomb and kill tons of innocent people.

The fact that you can refuse and leave or find other modes of transportation is what makes it legally (and constitutionally) "reasonable".

It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the law. I agree it is ineffective, but it is constitutional.

That's a great policy you support Next Tarantino. "Hey, let's pretend we're protecting the American people, and in the end, make so that only THEY can be hurt by this policy". It's is UNREASONABLE because it offers no assurance of stopping terrorism and only serves to invade the privacy of unsuspecting citizens, who may not be as well-informed as a terrorist on being allowed to say no (as the police do not tell you this when they take your bag).

They are under no legal obligation to do so. That has been a part of search and seizure laws from the start. You as a citizen have a responsibility too.

Secondly, what you say is "unreasonable" is (again) point to effectiveness. That has nothing to do with what is considered legally reasonable and constitutional. The only thing required in this case to make it "reasonable" is the right to refuse and take alternate means of transport.


And even more so, Airports are government owned places leased to private companies...it is hardly the same thing as the NYC Subway System. A completely public service.


And the they have an obligation to public safety and can establish rules/laws to attempt to ensure that. No wether those laws/rules are effective is a different arguement.


It would be impossible to search the bags of EVERY person who came through the subway system.

It would be possible, just impracticable.


And this random search is a half-assed, unconstitutional, dangerous (because people like you actually believe it makes them safe), and ineffective.

I challenge you to find any post where I said it made anyone safe or that it was even effective.

It is, however, constitutional..

(and it is no any more or less dangerous than not having them..)

[stupid]
And if there is a terrorist STUPID enough to get caught in it, well, he probably would've asked the officers to help him detonate his bomb too.[/quote]

There are some stupid people in the world..



No, cameras do NOT watch our every movement. They may very soon, if Chertoff gets his way. But it has yet to be implemented yet.

It will never be possible..


You know, you should really take a hard look at what you're saying. "So, where is our freedom, really?" and then telling me you think it's ok for the government to break the constitution. Our Freedom is right here in front of us...but you're blindly letting the government strip you of it every second.

They haven't, it meets all legal definitions of a reasonable search. Definitions that have been around decades before 9/11.


And honestly, I find it truly unAmerican when someone tries to make me accept a country with limited freedoms...as you are.

You don't know the history of this country very well..

From the founding of this country, freedom applied to white men only and "landed" men at that (that means people who own land, for the younger people who might not know).

Slaves certainly didn't have freedom (and slavery was constitutional until the 13th amendment). Women were not allowed to vote (or own land at first). The native population was certainly stripped of the rights and lives.

Later as freedoms were being added to other people who previously didn't have them we were exterminating a race of people in pursuit of our "manifest destiny".

Women only gained the right to vote in 1920..

Then there was the Japanese internment camps in WWII..

This country has ALWAYS had "limited freedom" and you are fooling yourself if you think otherwise.


You can just sit back and let it get worse, but I am going to stand up and not let my freedoms be taken from me.

How are you going to do that? The only way to challenge the constitutionality of a law is in court. Note: The ACLU hasn't done much regarding this law, other than talk. Why haven't they challenged it in court yet?

Because they have no legal leg to stand on..

[next-tarantino]

Epic post.


Thank you. I am so grateful to see that there are other intelligent, well-read, and level-headed people here.


If I could hug you, I would... creepy though that may seem.

[Steve Nelson]

I challenge you to find any post where I said it made anyone safe or that it was even effective.


If it is ineffective and doesn't make anyone safe...then what is the reason for it? I want you to start your sentence with "A search that allows those being searched to deny said search and continue to a different entrance, thus doing nothing to prevent terrorism or keep anyone safe in any way (which are it's reasons for existence), has reason to exist because it..."

[Steve Nelson]

I never said that that is what you said. Surely you've heard what "they" say when you assume?

Well, you said it was...when my point from the beginning was that is was part of a larger issue. So, either you selectively read or you just blurt out irrelevant quips to cover up the gaps in your argument. I'm going with a combination of the two....but then again...I wouldn't want to start making assumptions about you based on the evidence provided...because that's not how courts are run or anything.

And I was not necessarily defending the idea of the random search, but more so the idea of the search itself.

Yea, well that's not the way it is. It is a RANDOM SEARCH. So, don't tell me you agree with the search, but won't necessarily defend the randomness of it. And then go on to say that I'm getting pissy, because YOU have decided to ignore the fact that YOU YOURSELF won't necessarily defend the randomness of it. Either get your facts straight or stop arguing with me.

Better yet, why not actually get out there and actively do something about it?

Who said I wasn't actively out there doing something about it? You should take your own advice about making assumptions...at least I was using a quote from one of your post directed at me that contradicted something I had already stated (meaning I had factual ground to base my assumption from).

You don't know the first thing about what I do in my personal life, so, please...don't ASSUME that you do.

Get over yourself.

Again with the erroneous insults, is this how you argued with your professors?

[jugglingfreak]

If it is ineffective and doesn't make anyone safe...then what is the reason for it? I want you to start your sentence with "A search that allows those being searched to deny said search and continue to a different entrance, thus doing nothing to prevent terrorism or keep anyone safe in any way (which are it's reasons for existence), has reason to exist because it..."

because the city legislature (composed of elected officials to represent the people of the city) passed it.."

end of story.

Yes, it may very well be just "feel good legislation" that doesn't really do anything, but it's still constitutional.

The persons responsible may actually feel it does some good.. Still doesn't change it's constitutionality.

All of that I posted and you still only argue over it's effectiveness which, I'll say again, is a completely separate issue from it's constitutionality.

You continue to use what "you" think is unreasonable. That can not be done in the case of laws. One persons "perfectly reasonable" is another persons "unreasonable". This is why we have to use the legal definition of "reasonable"

That is where the constitutionality of the law comes in. The right to refuse and take alternate means of transportation make the search voluntary and therefore fits the legal definition of "reasonable".

This definition of "reasonable" is what the courts have decided, as that is their job under the constitution.

Executive branch enforce the law, Legislative branch writes the laws and the judicial branch interprets the laws. This is the system set out by our constitution.

[Steve Nelson]

A search that allows those being searched to deny said search and continue to a different entrance, thus doing nothing to prevent terrorism or keep anyone safe in any way (which are it's reasons for existence), has reason to exist because the city legislature (composed of elected officials to represent the people of the city) passed it.."

So, what your saying is that the reason this law exists is because the city legislature passed it. That's not a reason, that is a cause (a cause which I'm not sure is true, can you show me this piece of legislature?). A reason gives way to cause. What is the reason for black people being free from slavery? The fact that they are people, not things to be owned. The cause for their freedom is Abraham Lincoln (among others) and the Emancipation Proclamation.

So, yes...for one reason or another the police conduct these searches, because they may have legislature to do so (please provide evidence). But the reason(s) (as we both agree on) cannot possibly be safety or effectiveness. SO WHAT IS THE REASON THAT THEY DO THESE SEARCHES!!?!?!? WHAT IS THE REASON THE LEGISLATURE WAS PASSED (if it ever was)!?!?


Yes, it may very well be just "feel good legislation" that doesn't really do anything, but it's still constitutional.

The persons responsible may actually feel it does some good.. Still doesn't change it's constitutionality.

Just because it makes people "feel good" doesn't give it constitutionality either. Our judicial system isn't run on feelings, it is run on evidence. And the only evidence I see is a lack there of from you trying to say there is reason to this policy.

You continue to use what "you" think is unreasonable. That can not be done in the case of laws. One persons "perfectly reasonable" is another persons "unreasonable". This is why we have to use the legal definition of "reasonable"

No, I'm getting my definition from the dictionary, AND here it is used in context (taken from the dictionary entry posted by Next-Tarantino):

"a reasonable belief that force was necessary for self-defense"

And I have yet to acquire a reasonable belief that this unwarranted search is necessary for the defense of me, the other citizens, the city, the nation, or the world. And it is undoubtedly too childish for the worries of the universe.

The corrupt politicians saying that it must be done is no REASON. The government can say whatever they want, it doesn't mean their words have any ground if it contradicts the constitution. That's why Bushy Poo got his little hand slapped when he tried to illegally acquire the phone calls of American citizens. But, it does give them power that they derive from the fear of cowards like Next-Tarantino.


That is where the constitutionality of the law comes in. The right to refuse and take alternate means of transportation make the search voluntary and therefore fits the legal definition of "reasonable".

This definition of "reasonable" is what the courts have decided, as that is their job under the constitution.

Executive branch enforce the law, Legislative branch writes the laws and the judicial branch interprets the laws. This is the system set out by our constitution.


What kind of logic do you use? So, what if the police said they were going randomly cavity search anyone riding the subway and then hold them for 10 days as they inspect their beings for blemishes indicating support for terrorism...oh, but you can deny the search if you'd like. As long as you leave the subway, you can always go in a different entrance. That isn't reasonable. Sure, it may make the search seem timid if it's voluntary, but it doesn't give it REASON. In fact, that is what makes it ineffective and unsafe, therefore defeating the apparently only two possible REASONS for existence.

GIVE ME A REASON OR STOP WASTING MY TIME.

[Steve Nelson]

To make is simple for you, give me a reason that isn't one of the following:

- It keeps us safe (Not true).
- It is effective (Once again, not true).
- Because the government says so (that is a CAUSE, not a reason).

And if you cannot, then stop telling me that this whole scenario is okay.

[jugglingfreak]

So, what your saying is that the reason this law exists is because the city legislature passed it. That's not a reason, that is a cause (a cause which I'm not sure is true, can you show me this piece of legislature?). A reason gives way to cause. "

Actually, you are correct it was not the legislature but NYC Transit.

BUt much to your chagrin, while looking for that, I found that NYCLU had sued in 2005 regarding the policy and LOST.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/03/nyregion/03search.html




[quote]What is the reason for black people being free from slavery? The fact that they are people, not things to be owned. The cause for their freedom is Abraham Lincoln (among others) and the Emancipation Proclamation.

Wow, you really do not understand the history of this country.

The "Emancipation Proclamation" was basically a "feel good" political piece.

The Emancipation Proclamation consists of two executive orders issued by United States President Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War. The first one, issued September 22, 1862, declared the freedom of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863. The second order, issued January 1, 1863, named the specific states where it applied.

It was widely attacked at the time as freeing only the slaves over which the Union had no power. The proclamation did not free any slaves of the border states (Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, and West Virginia), or any southern state (or part of a state) already under Union control.

It did serve to commit the Union to the ending slavery, which was controversial in the North.

Slavery was ended by the 13th amendment to the Constitution.


So, yes...for one reason or another the police conduct these searches, because they may have legislature to do so (please provide evidence). But the reason(s) (as we both agree on) cannot possibly be safety or effectiveness. SO WHAT IS THE REASON THAT THEY DO THESE SEARCHES!!?!?!? WHAT IS THE REASON THE LEGISLATURE WAS PASSED (if it ever was)!?!?


Well, NYC Transit feels that it does. We don't agree, but that's is their reasoning. As you can see, the court has upheld it's constitutionality.


Just because it makes people "feel good" doesn't give it constitutionality either.

It doesn't make it unconstitutional either. It takes an act of legislature to declare a "famous person day". What's the point of that except for "feel good" politics. Plus see above about the "Emancipation Proclamation" the most famous (powerless) "feel good" executive order..


Our judicial system isn't run on feelings, it is run on evidence. And the only evidence I see is a lack there of from you trying to say there is reason to this policy.

Actually, feelings do enter into the Justice System frequently as I will soon point out.


No, I'm getting my definition from the dictionary, AND here it is used in context (taken from the dictionary entry posted by Next-Tarantino):

"a reasonable belief that force was necessary for self-defense"

In that example, the "reasonable belief" can be if a person honestly felt his life was in danger, force was necessary.


And I have yet to acquire a reasonable belief that this unwarranted search is necessary for the defense of me, the other citizens, the city, the nation, or the world.

Other people disagree, which was the point of having to use the legal definition. As, show above, the court seems to think so as well.

And it is undoubtedly too childish for the worries of the universe.

They are only concerned with the Subway and it's passangers, not the universe.

The corrupt politicians saying that it must be done is no REASON. The government can say whatever they want, it doesn't mean their words have any ground if it contradicts the constitution. That's why Bushy Poo got his little hand slapped when he tried to illegally acquire the phone calls of American citizens.

The court agrees with the policy in this case, so..

But, it does give them power that they derive from the fear of cowards like Next-Tarantino.

Come on man, you don't need to stoop to name calling.. You're better than that.


What kind of logic do you use? So, what if the police said they were going randomly cavity search anyone riding the subway and then hold them for 10 days as they inspect their beings for blemishes indicating support for terrorism...oh, but you can deny the search if you'd like. As long as you leave the subway, you can always go in a different entrance. That isn't reasonable.

Sure, you can refuse and go elsewhere and use other means, as I'm sure most would in that case.


Sure, it may make the search seem timid if it's voluntary, but it doesn't give it REASON. In fact, that is what makes it ineffective and unsafe, therefore defeating the apparently only two possible REASONS for existence.

The reason, wether you or I agree with it, is still safety.

Joe: Why did you go to Filmschool?
Bob: So I would be a good film maker.
Joe: Filmschool doesn't necessarily make you a good film maker.

The reason Bob went to film school was to become a good film maker. Joe doesn't agree with it, but it doesn't change the reason.

[jugglingfreak]

To make is simple for you, give me a reason that isn't one of the following:

- It keeps us safe (Not true).
- It is effective (Once again, not true).
- Because the government says so (that is a CAUSE, not a reason).

And if you cannot, then stop telling me that this whole scenario is okay.


As stated above:

The reason is Safety. (You and I disagree with them, but that is their reason all the same.)
and it is a "deterrent" according to the courts.

NYC Transit is a part of the city government and they are the ones set to establish the policy for it. So yes, that is enough.

And the courts agree:http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/03/nyregion/03search.html

[next-tarantino]

Well, you said it was...when my point from the beginning was that is was part of a larger issue. So, either you selectively read or you just blurt out irrelevant quips to cover up the gaps in your argument. I'm going with a combination of the two....but then again...I wouldn't want to start making assumptions about you based on the evidence provided...because that's not how courts are run or anything.



Yea, well that's not the way it is. It is a RANDOM SEARCH. So, don't tell me you agree with the search, but won't necessarily defend the randomness of it. And then go on to say that I'm getting pissy, because YOU have decided to ignore the fact that YOU YOURSELF won't necessarily defend the randomness of it. Either get your facts straight or stop arguing with me.



Who said I wasn't actively out there doing something about it? You should take your own advice about making assumptions...at least I was using a quote from one of your post directed at me that contradicted something I had already stated (meaning I had factual ground to base my assumption from).

You don't know the first thing about what I do in my personal life, so, please...don't ASSUME that you do.



Again with the erroneous insults, is this how you argued with your professors?


I don't have to get my facts straight. I never said once that I was defending the idea of a "random" search. You merely assumed that's what I was doing.

I should have been more clear in my earlier arguments: the idea of the search is what I am defending. The idea that it is "random" is okay, but considering people are flawed, the element of "random" can be thrown out the window, and it generally is thanks to discrimination.

I'm not blurting out irrelevant "quips" to cover up the non-existent holes in my argument, you just infer and assume too much.


And yes, I would still say you were getting pissy. What else would you call this:



Yes, you can quote the constitution. CONGRATULATIONS!! But do you have the ability to apply what it says to modern day situations instead of just reading it blindly into the wind? Yes, you do! You just need to think a little bit.





Your arguments thus far are flawed, unsubstantiated, and arbitrary.

I sincerely hope you take the time to consider a make-up course in US government.




And for the record, yes I have argued with a professor like this before. If you let someone, whom you know is in the wrong, attempt to walk all over you, I do believe that could be considered cowardice. And we've already established that that label does not apply to me.






Come on man, you don't need to stoop to name calling.. You're better than that.


Apparently he isn't. Relying on tactics like that, as Steve has proven he has to do, is simply an affirmation of his inability to use critical reasoning.

Bravo.

[Steve Nelson]

As stated above:

The reason is Safety. (You and I disagree with them, but that is their reason all the same.)
and it is a "deterrent" according to the courts.

NYC Transit is a part of the city government and they are the ones set to establish the policy for it. So yes, that is enough.

And the courts agree:http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/03/nyregion/03search.html

If YOU don't agree with the reason then how could you support it? At the end of the day the courts have to answer to the people, and this policy was passed without the consent of the people or even the consent of those who speak for the people. As far as I can tell, this policy was passed by the police, which is not a department that speaks for the people.

As far as the ACLU vs. the NYPD goes, it truly is a shame that the case was overturned, but there are higher courts to which this can be appealed to (i.e.. the Supreme Court). Meaning the final word has yet to be spoken.

The fact is that this policy doesn't at all effect safety in the subway in regards to terrorism or any other matter, as those concealing weapons can easily just go into another entrance. That statement is not a feeling or opinion, but the only plausible assertion that one can draw from the given facts, as both you and I have agreed upon. I doubt anybody could deny this point, and if they could...well, I would like to see that happen. The fact that it doesn't effect safety undermines the entire reasoning behind it, therefore rendering it unreasonable, and since it lacks warrant...unconstitutional.

Courts are meant to get to the truth. And the truth shouldn't be shaded by the fears and concerns of those too weak to seek ultimate justice. I do not need a court to tell me this is unconstitutional...I know it is, and that is not my opinion, but pure undeniable fact drawn from systematic analysis of the policy in place. All that I need is a court to tell the police it is unconstitutional...and I won't shut my mouth until that day arrives or until the police stop illegally checking the bags of those in New York City.

[Nonsensical studios]

Courts are meant to get to the truth. And the truth shouldn't be shaded by the fears and concerns of those too weak to seek ultimate justice. I do not need a court to tell me this is unconstitutional...I know it is, and that is not my opinion, but pure undeniable fact drawn from systematic analysis of the policy in place. All that I need is a court to tell the police it is unconstitutional...and I won't shut my mouth until that day arrives or until the police stop illegally checking the bags of those in New York City.

I wholeheartedly Agree!

[Steve Nelson]

I don't have to get my facts straight. I never said once that I was defending the idea of a "random" search. You merely assumed that's what I was doing.

I should have been more clear in my earlier arguments: the idea of the search is what I am defending. The idea that it is "random" is okay, but considering people are flawed, the element of "random" can be thrown out the window, and it generally is thanks to discrimination.


Yes, I assumed this because you are affirming the constitutionality of this NYPD bag searching policy. My point is that the randomness is WHY it is unconstitutional. So, what issue do you disagree with me on exactly, if you wouldn't necessarily defend the randomness?

I'm not blurting out irrelevant "quips" to cover up the non-existent holes in my argument, you just infer and assume too much.

I pointed to an example of this in the post you are referring to. If you can prove me wrong, go ahead and be my guest...but just saying you aren't doesn't prove anything.

And yes, I would still say you were getting pissy.

Me getting pissy is not the issue at hand, I shall neither confirm nor deny this as it has nothing to do with constitutionality. Although you definitely perceive me as pissy because I am fervent in my belief and will not back down, where as you contradict yourself...saying this policy is Constitutional and then admitting that you're not defending the randomness of it...which is the very reason for it's lack of reason, thus rendering it unconstitutional.

And for the record, yes I have argued with a professor like this before.

Well, that's a shame. You shouldn't personally insult others because you can't find a decent argument to support all the crazy, mixed up feelings raging inside of you.

If you let someone, whom you know is in the wrong, attempt to walk all over you, I do believe that could be considered cowardice.

Yes, you are correct. And Jugglingfreak has already come to agree with me that the bag search policy doesn't keep us safe, which is the reason for its existence. I would be a coward if I DIDN'T speak out against it, regardless of what the courts have decided.

And we've already established that that label does not apply to me.

When did we establish that? I hate to keep calling you a coward, because you seem to take offense to it, but in my eyes you are a coward.

Apparently he isn't. Relying on tactics like that, as Steve has proven he has to do, is simply an affirmation of his inability to use critical reasoning.

Listen, Next-Tarantino, I am not calling you a coward to be a jerk. A coward is someone who sees something wrong and does nothing about it. You admit that the randomness isn't right and it seems like everyone so far agrees with that point. Sure, the courts overturned the case of unconstitutionality...but that doesn't change the fact that this random search is still morally wrong AND contradicts the constitution because it is ineffective at keeping us safe or deterring terrorists (the only reason that the policy is in effect, thus rendering it unreasonable).

FACT: Policy does not affect safety/deter terrorists.
FACT: Safety/deterring terrorists is reason for policy.
FACT: Without reason, policy is unconstitutional; according to the 4th Amendment.

CONCLUSION: Policy has no reason, so, therefore is unconstitutional.

FACT: Policy is unconstitutional.
FACT: Courts say policy is constitutional.
FACT: Cowards are people who know something wrong and do nothing.

CONCLUSION: This policy is unconstitutional and the courts have yet to affirm that statement. Anybody who knows this, and doesn't at least speak out against it (raising awareness), is a coward.

I would be a coward to shut my mouth and blindly accept this, as you are doing. Therefore you are a coward. And I am not calling you a coward to insult you and attempt to bring you down like you are to me. The title I have given you is relevant to the topic at hand. You are the sole reason why policies like this can exist in contradiction to the U.S. Constitution (not that you are alone).

Sure, this bag searching policy isn't the most horrible thing in the world. But nothing starts out that way. Do you think Hitler rounded up the Jews, Catholics, and other Holocaust victims and killed them all his first night in power? No, people would never approve of that. But if you slowly break off parts of the constitution in pursuit of safety or whatever (proven unsound) reason you have, eventually you'll be left with nothing but a crumbling pile of paper.

[Steve Nelson]

Here is the point that caused the judge to overturn the case:

"Judge Berman accepted their arguments that the search program "adds uncertainty and unpredictability" to a terrorist's planning and increases the chances that an attack will fail."

I highly doubt that a terrorist has ever gone on a successful mission WITHOUT uncertainty and unpredictability. In fact, I doubt the judge even came to his final conclusion without a fair amount of uncertainty and unpredictability. I doubt any person has ever proliferated through space-time without uncertainly and unpredictability. And if that judge can predict the future with certainly, well...he wouldn't be a judge. He'd probably be on Wall Street.

But I digress, where is the evidence that this policy has ever done anything to back up what the police are saying? There is plenty of evidence of how it has impeded on the rights of innocent civilians, though.

"Well, they can't release that information." That is untrue, America has frequently revealed terrorist plots and revealed to us the identity of those who went through with them (http://www.wnbc.com/news/13431721/detail.html?dl=mainclick), but got caught.

In the end, a well-informed and well-equipped terrorist is the common tool of groups like Al-Queda. They sent those involved in 9/11 to flight school, for instance. Any well-informed terrorist would know he could easily walk to another entrance and go in there, and proceed to kill innocent civilians who were under the impression that the police were keeping them safe. It's tragic.

[WesScog]

I support bag searches 100% to protect people from terrorists which we both know exist, AND that have successfully attacked public transit systems in the past, resulting in hundreds of deaths.

And I don't think Steve necessarily disagrees with the searches even, but what Steve has explained, is that the bag searches don't do any good, like he said you can walk away, and then re-enter somewhere else where they might not search you.

If they aren't searching all bags at EVERY entrance no matter what, then it's just a waste of Tax-Payer dollars that isn't protecting anyone in the long run, but simply offering the illusion of protection, since any real terrorist will simply walk away, and enter somewhere else.

We need REAL security rather than the ILLUSION of security.

It's unreasonable because they are just annoying random people instead of doing full security sweeps. That's what I have gotten from Steve, and I agree with it 100%.

[Steve Nelson]

I support bag searches 100% to protect people from terrorists which we both know exist, AND that have successfully attacked public transit systems in the past, resulting in hundreds of deaths.

And I don't think Steve necessarily disagrees with the searches even, but what Steve has explained, is that the bag searches don't do any good, like he said you can walk away, and then re-enter somewhere else where they might not search you.

If they aren't searching all bags at EVERY entrance no matter what, then it's just a waste of Tax-Payer dollars that isn't protecting anyone in the long run, but simply offering the illusion of protection, since any real terrorist will simply walk away, and enter somewhere else.

We need REAL security rather than the ILLUSION of security.

It's unreasonable because they are just annoying random people instead of doing full security sweeps. That's what I have gotten from Steve, and I agree with it 100%.

And it gives defense to the cops who would racially profile. And it's not that I would or would not support whatever legal bag checks they may put in place, but at least it wouldn't be breaking the constitutional guidelines that are supposed to define this nation. I am not speaking as a man with an opinion in this argument; I am just a voice for the truth and the Bill of Rights, which are without argument, rights that every person of this nation has...regardless of how frightened the public may be.

[jugglingfreak]

If YOU don't agree with the reason then how could you support it?

Because I can refuse and take alternate means.. Therefore, it meets the "reasonable" search clause.

I never said that I support the rule, just it's constitutionality.. I don't know how many more times I need to say it. I can disagree with a rule/law/whatever and still support it's constitutionality.

Perviously I brought up my state's "blue laws" on Alcohol sales and pointed out how the were pointless and ineffective, but still constitutional.


"As far as the ACLU vs. the NYPD goes, it truly is a shame that the case was overturned, but there are higher courts to which this can be appealed to (i.e.. the Supreme Court). Meaning the final word has yet to be spoken."

Yes, the NYCLU claimed that they were going to appeal "immediately" but it's been almost 3 years now and they haven't.

The fact is that this policy doesn't at all effect safety in the subway in regards to terrorism or any other matter, as those concealing weapons can easily just go into another entrance. That statement is not a feeling or opinion, but the only plausible assertion that one can draw from the given facts, as both you and I have agreed upon. I doubt anybody could deny this point, and if they could...well, I would like to see that happen. The fact that it doesn't effect safety undermines the entire reasoning behind it, therefore rendering it unreasonable, and since it lacks warrant...unconstitutional.

This is where your argument fails. The "reasonable" clause in the 4th amendment is satisfied by the right to refuse and take alternate means. That is the whole point. No matter how annoying or inconvenient it is, you still have the right to refuse, which is all that is needed to satisfy the "reasonable" clause.


Courts are meant to get to the truth. And the truth shouldn't be shaded by the fears and concerns of those too weak to seek ultimate justice. I do not need a court to tell me this is unconstitutional...I know it is, and that is not my opinion, but pure undeniable fact drawn from systematic analysis of the policy in place.

No, it IS your opinion. Even when the Supreme Court rules on something it is referred to as "opinion". It is not "undeniable" fact, because I have pointed out how it meets the clause of "reasonable" and is therefore constitutional.

Please, do a little research into "search and seizure" law. It will do you good for understanding this, as well as fully understanding your rights (remember police are under no legal obligation to inform you that you can even refuse this search, there are other things they don't have to inform you of as well..)

All that I need is a court to tell the police it is unconstitutional...and I won't shut my mouth until that day arrives or until the police stop illegally checking the bags of those in New York City.

You going to be waiting a looong time.

[jugglingfreak]

And it gives defense to the cops who would racially profile. And it's not that I would or would not support whatever legal bag checks they may put in place, but at least it wouldn't be breaking the constitutional guidelines that are supposed to define this nation.

They meet the legal requirement of "reasonable" by offering the right to refuse, if you give up that option, you have consented. Nothing unconstitutional about it.

I am not speaking as a man with an opinion in this argument; I am just a voice for the truth and the Bill of Rights, which are without argument, rights that every person of this nation has...regardless of how frightened the public may be.

You need to fully understand the Bill of Rights first.

I

[jugglingfreak]

There may be more to this than I thought.

First, here is were the authority comes from:

http://www.mta.info/nyct/rules/rules.htm

Authorization and Purpose.

A) The provisions of sections 1203-a(3) and 1204(5-a) of the Public Authorities Law provide the New York City Transit Authority and Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority with the power to make rules governing the conduct and safety of the public in the use and operation of the transit facilities of those authorities.

B) These rules are established by the New York City Transit Authority and Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority to promote safety, to facilitate the proper use of the transit facilities of the authorities, to protect those transit facilities and their passengers, and to assure the payment of fares and other lawful charges for the use of their systems.

C) These rules may be amended or added to, from time to time, at the sole discretion of the New York City Transit Authority or Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority in accordance with law.

So, they are granted by New York city law to create what ever rules that they see fit. There's the legislation.


Second, The police officers are from Metropolitan Transportation Authority Police Department. They are fully empowered officers under the NYS Public Authorities Law, but I'm not sure if they would count as "Private Security".

Private Security (IE. Security guards, like at the mall) are NOT subject to 4th amendment search rules.

I suspect they are still considered "Public" offices as they are endowed by a public authority.

Which leads me to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_searches
(Yes, it is wikipedia, but they have links to the relevant Supreme Court cases..)


In the U.S., the simplest and most common type of warrantless searches are searches based upon consent. No warrant or probable cause is required to perform a search if a person with the proper authority consents to a search.

A consent search requires the individual whose person or property is being searched to freely and voluntarily waive his or her Fourth Amendment rights, granting the officer permission to perform the search. The person has the right to refuse to give consent, and except in limited cases may revoke consent at any point during the search. In addition, the prosecution in any trial using the search results as evidence is required to prove that the consent was voluntary and not a result of coercion.

However, in contrast to Miranda rights, officers conducting a consent search are not required to warn people of their right to withhold consent in order for consent to be valid, as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte. Nor are they required to conduct a search in a way that gives the individual an opportunity to revoke consent, as determined in United States v. Dominguez, where the court rejected the argument that “officials must conduct all searches in plain view of the suspect, and in a manner slowly enough that he may withdraw or delimit his consent at any time during the search.”



There are also links at the bottom of the wikipedia page to legal website that explain it more in depth.

[Steve Nelson]

Because I can refuse and take alternate means.. Therefore, it meets the "reasonable" search clause.


Let's say someone randomly is brought on a quick, impromptu visit to NYC and they have a gigantic dildo in their bag. The person is a closet homosexual and none of his friends on the trip know. The police check the man's bag without telling him he can decline and he never goes to NYC and this was a spontaneous travel...so...he didn't know all the rules (as they're not available ANYWHERE in the subway system except on that sign at the postings). The cops whip out the dildo and chuckle slightly to themselves. The guy's friends are disgusted. This is an unfair situation to be put into and impedes upon the personal privacy this man has a right to. It doesn't like any definition of the word "reasonable" to me.

And please stop telling me there are other means of transportation. You could go and tell black people during the early 1800's. "Well, you could just get the fuck out of here and go somewhere where slavery isn't legal". And yea, while you CAN do that...why should anyone be put in that situation to begin with? And anyways, that's the lazy man's solution. I'd prefer to fix the problems in our world...not run away from them.

If I can afford the fare, I shouldn't be judged on my race, national origin, or religious beliefs. The random search gives the police to freedom to do that if they would like AND now NO ONE can stop them. Sounds like a conflict of interests to me!

[Steve Nelson]

I mean, c'mon man, think about the rhetoric you're spewing..."because the search is voluntary and allows you to take another route...it's reasonable". No...that's called being the NYPD being bullies to us, that's not reasonable.

Let's bring it back to basics for you. Say there's a 5 hour road to ANYWHERE you need to go. But underneath that road is a 30 minute road to the exact same places. Now, yesterday I spent about 18 hours at work (though commonly it's around 10-12)...so, we add the 10 hours of travel that you say I could easily take and that's 28 hours...but 22 on the light side.

That leaves me with 2 hours of sleep, which is not healthy...and negative 4 hours on bad days (that could cause the universe to collapse on itself). I don't feel safe riding my bike (which I don't even have anyway) across a bridge...or through bad neighborhoods. I also don't have that kind of stamina, as I'm a sprinter and am not getting any younger here. I cannot afford a taxi to go that distance.

Logic deems that taking mass transit is the only safe, affordable, and logical way for ME to travel. And having that stripped of me because of profiling by the police is UNFAIR and UNREASONABLE.

[Steve Nelson]

Now, seeing as this search is both unfair (racial profiling...even if it's voluntary...it is still a breeding ground for racial profiling), lacking in logic (searches do nothing to stop terrorism as a terrorist can decline offer and enter elsewhere), and ineffective (terrorist will have no problem blowing themselves up...they're just going to have to walk another block). I don't see what definition of reasonable you could POSSIBLY be using, I would like to see our legal definition...as I looked on google and couldn't really find anything. BUT I did find this:

The major evil against which the Fourth Amendment protects is the physical entry of the home. The Fourth Amendment requires that searches of the home be reasonable. This reasonableness requirement generally requires that police obtain a warrant based upon a judicial determination of probable cause prior to entering a home. The Fourth Amendment prohibition against entering a home without a warrant applies equally whether the police enter a home to conduct a search or seizure or for some other purpose. There are, however, a few well-defined and carefully circumstances in which a warrant will not be required.
Exigent Circumstances: One such exception is exigent circumstances: Exigent circumstances are situations where real immediate and serious consequences will certainly occur if a police officer postpones action to obtain a warrant. The following situations may give rise to exigent circumstances: 1) hot pursuit of a fleeing felon; 2) fear of imminent destruction of evidence; 3) the need to prevent a suspect's escape; and 4) a risk of danger to the police or others. The Fourth Amendment also does not stop police officers from making warrantless entries and searches when they reasonably believe that a person inside is in need of immediate aid. The "risk of danger exigency" most frequently justifies warrantless entries in cases where law enforcement is acting in something other than a traditional law enforcement capacity. The "risk of danger" exigency, however, only applies in situations involving the need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury either of police officers themselves or of others.
Automobile Exception: With regards to automobile searches, under the automobile exception, a warrantless search of a vehicle is justified if the police have probable cause to believe it contains contraband or evidence of a crime.
Probable Cause: Probable cause exists when the information on which the warrant is based is such that a reasonable person would believe that what is being sought will be found in the location to be searched. Probable cause must attach to each place to be searched.
Particularity: Also, when obtaining a search warrant, the Fourth Amendment requires that it particularly describe the place to be searched. But the description of the place to be searched does not need to be perfect.



None of these points that give weight to warrant-less searches and seizures are the reasons why the police are performing the searches. And from all this data and all the various definitions of reasonable, I am left...beyond a reasonable doubt...to deem the City of New York guilty of breaking the 4th amendment!

Now, I'm not in the position to do anything with my findings...legally. Except appeal to the NYCLU to take my case, but I think I'd rather spread the word, first.

[Steve Nelson]

I suspect they are still considered "Public" offices as they are endowed by a public authority.

Which leads me to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_searches
(Yes, it is wikipedia, but they have links to the relevant Supreme Court cases..)

Well yes, public land leased to public organizations deems the land public. Now, is it considered consent if I spent 80 bucks on my ticket, decline the search, and am kicked out of the subway? No, that's not asking for consent, that's putting someone in an UNFAIR and UNREASONABLE situation...especially if they are put in that position because of their race. If you were allowed to decline and just walk through the turnstile...then I would agree with you. But that ain't how it is.

You can keep pulling up all your mumbo-jumbo, but I will keep shooting it down. No laws can override the BILL OF RIGHTS. The police are being bullies and acting immorally to save their own asses if a terrorist event happens...they're not actually doing anything. And they are violating the rights of the people here in NYC.

You know, jugglingfreak, you seem like a bright person. And I know that you know the police have no REASON to be doing this. And without reason it violates the 4th Ammendment...by whatever definition of reasonable you use (fair, with reason, logical, etc.), the NYPD are lacking in it.Why are you defending these actions that not only can hurt people but give them a false sense of security (which can also be dangerous). It's truly a shame.

[jugglingfreak]

Logic deems that taking mass transit is the only safe, affordable, and logical way for ME to travel. And having that stripped of me because of profiling by the police is UNFAIR and UNREASONABLE.

That's the issue, you are still using what YOU consider to be unreasonable.

In cases of law (in particular, the 4th amendment) the only thing at issue is the search at hand and what "reasonable" regarding that search.

It has nothing to do with with your travel arrangements (or lack thereof), only with the search itself.

In this case, it is a search with consent. When you allow your bag to be searched, you consent to that search and you waive the right to 4th amendment protection.

No one is under obligation to tell you of the right to refuse consent (as already decided by the US Supreme Court).

You have the option to decline the search.

[Steve Nelson]

That's the issue, you are still using what YOU consider to be unreasonable.

In cases of law (in particular, the 4th amendment) the only thing at issue is the search at hand and what "reasonable" regarding that search.

It has nothing to do with with your travel arrangements (or lack thereof), only with the search itself.

In this case, it is a search with consent. When you allow your bag to be searched, you consent to that search and you waive the right to 4th amendment protection.

No one is under obligation to tell you of the right to refuse consent (as already decided by the US Supreme Court).

You have the option to decline the search.

It's not an issue of consent when there are consequences if you say "no" and continue on your way like any other person around you. Why am I being subjected against?

[Steve Nelson]

Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person)" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs.


There is your precious wikipedia explaining how "reasonable" comes into play in the 4th amendment.


I assume you've seen me on Indy Mogul, so, am I suspicious looking person? 5-11 blond kid dressed nicely carrying a backpack and laptop case? Is there a reasonable belief that I would have weapons on me...no there are not. And I would like to see the police officer try to say there was.

[jugglingfreak]

It's not an issue of consent when there are consequences if you say "no" and continue on your way like any other person around you. Why am I being subjected against?

For that statement to be accurate the police will have had to single you, and only you out for the bag check and no one else, ever. I don't think that is the case.

It is consent, you can refuse and take alternate means. The subway is not a "right" you have. The New York Transit Authority has the power to make rules governing the conduct and safety of the public in the use and operation of the transit facilities of those authorities.


It's against the rules to play a radio (with out headphones) on the subway, why aren't you fighting for that right? The music is hurting anyone or causing a safety issue, but you don't seem to have issue with that.

[jugglingfreak]

There is your precious wikipedia explaining how "reasonable" comes into play in the 4th amendment.

"Precious"? I noted that it was from wikipedia and therefore suspect but it had the supreme court decisions linked.


I assume you've seen me on Indy Mogul, so, am I suspicious looking person? 5-11 blond kid dressed nicely carrying a backpack and laptop case? Is there a reasonable belief that I would have weapons on me...no there are not. And I would like to see the police officer try to say there was.

It is a consensual search, no suspicion is needed. They ask and you consent or you refuse and take alternate means.

[jugglingfreak]

None of these points that give weight to warrant-less searches and seizures are the reasons why the police are performing the searches. And from all this data and all the various definitions of reasonable, I am left...beyond a reasonable doubt...to deem the City of New York guilty of breaking the 4th amendment!


No, you consented to the search (check the court cases, you do not have to "verbally" consent. If you open your bag for them, that's consent).

For them to guilty of breaking the 4th amendment they would have had to:

1) search the bag without your knowledge
2) search the bag with your express refusal



Now, I'm not in the position to do anything with my findings...legally. Except appeal to the NYCLU to take my case, but I think I'd rather spread the word, first.

I think most people in NY are already aware as it has been in effect since 2005 and the NYCLU has already tried and lost.

[Steve Nelson]

2) search the bag with your express refusal

This is where you miss the point juggling freak, at that point in time, I had done nothing wrong and was not suspicious looking. Therefore, I had the RIGHT to continue on with my daily activities as anyone else would, because none of us were breaking any rules (well, who ever knows about anyone else...I know I wasn't though...no radio on my shoulder, no playing guitar for money without a permit), just mindin' our own business. Then I'm stopped by the police, they tell me to hand my bag over. I do so in fear of being arrested, because I know this is a new policy of theirs with potentially serious consequences. And the sign verifies my belief. After not breaking any rules or looking suspicious, the policy THREATENED me with arrest if I continued just like anyone else would with their bags of legal goods in a pace that whistled legality without letting them invade my personal privacy. Now you may say..."Well, anyone could be put in that position, it just happen to be you." Yes, you are right. But that doesn't make it any more okay. Was the Holocaust okay because it happened to more than one person? No. Whether or 1 person or 39,000 people were searched...it still amounted to nothing more than stabs in the dark. It is to say, New York City was punched in the face out of nowhere by Al Queda. Now blood is dripping into our eyes and we are blindly trying to make Al Queda pay. Which so far has only resulted in random attacks upon the civil rights of the innocent, civilians who use the subway system New York City, familiar with it or unfamiliar with it (and some wars and stuff, nothing that gets in the way of going to the mall!). Yet, reports from the Middle East indicate that the situation with terrorists is getting worse.

Now, bear with me for a slight excursion; these random shots in the dark will never amount to anything. You forget how cunning our enemy is. You may think you are smarter because of your education or your lack of desire to blow yourself up, but that means nothing...you look down on them only because of their beliefs (not necessarily religious beliefs at that, though it always looks that that would be inherent with any belief a "terrorist" would hold). If you wish to challenge their competency, I say look at 9/11. Look at the bombings in England and in Spain.

The terrorists were able to work around a complex system of surveillance equipment and vigilant eyes in order to carry out their objective. And we think we can outsmart them with a bag searching policy that would simply deter them to a different entrance? They will easily find another entrance that's unguarded and proceed to blow themselves up, rendering them impossible to care about any legal ramifications. In the end, the only victims are the civilians who everyday or for the first time ever take a trip on the shuttle after a long day of shopping in Times Square. They are the ones whose rights are stripped of them. And I am one of those people. And I can say, yes, I had nothing to hide and really was not harmed in this incident. But I'm a middle class white boy from New Jersey. This new policy allows for racial profiling by police officers with no ramifications.

And you sit here and tell me that is reasonable. I think not. Irresponsible, yes...but not reasonable.

I don't argue with you consumed by any feelings of anger, hate, or dislike. I am trying to express how I felt violated. It may have not done me any harm, but it frightens me that this can go on at any level, however large or small. And what frightens me more is that there are people who think it's okay that this goes on.

Sure, life may not be fair...but at least our policies and laws should be...for everyone. Random people have feelings too. Remember that next time you look at the statistics of victims. We'd prefer to carry on with our business just like you, without being subjected to arrest if bring our bags through the turnstile and protect our privacy in accordance with the constitution at the same time. We are more than just numbers or faceless civilians in your argument. We are those who have seen the sky of freedom slowly start to crumble unto the people below, only to be faced with people who think they know it all and that this is nothing more than a safe precipitation. You haven't seen it and you will probably never understand it until you do. I've done all that I could to show it to you, but it is up to you to recognize it. This is because your brain might be telling you what to think, but in the end it is your heart which reflects how you feel. And if you want to call me pissy or condescending...be my guest. But I know what I saw, and I know how it made me feel. No words you could put together in that big brain of yours could ever change that.


- Steve Nelson
Representative of the Random Community

[jugglingfreak]

This is where you miss the point juggling freak, at that point in time, I had done nothing wrong and was not suspicious looking.

Irrelevant, This policy was instituted, the public notified (as you say, signs posted in the stations). The is a consensual search policy, no "suspicion" needed.

Therefore, I had the RIGHT to continue on with my daily activities as anyone else would, because none of us were breaking any rules (well, who ever knows about anyone else...I know I wasn't though...no radio on my shoulder, no playing guitar for money without a permit), just mindin' our own business.

No one is guaranteed a ride on the subway, the subway is not a "right".

Then I'm stopped by the police, they tell me to hand my bag over. I do so in fear of being arrested, because I know this is a new policy of theirs with potentially serious consequences.

You admit prior knowledge of the policy, therefore you new that this was a possibility but it didn't upset you when it was happening to other people, just when it happened to you (and the policy has been in effect since 2005, not really "new")

And the sign verifies my belief. After not breaking any rules or looking suspicious, the policy THREATENED me with arrest if I continued just like anyone else would with their bags of legal goods in a pace that whistled legality without letting them invade my personal privacy.

More notification of a policy you already knew existed and that you could possibly be searched. You are only threaten with arrest if you attempt to cross the turnstile after being asked to be searched, you could refuse and leave..

Consensual, no suspicious behavior needed.


Now, bear with me for a slight excursion; these random shots in the dark will never amount to anything. You forget how cunning our enemy is. You may think you are smarter because of your education or your lack of desire to blow yourself up, but that means nothing...you look down on them only because of their beliefs (not necessarily religious beliefs at that, though it always looks that that would be inherent with any belief a "terrorist" would hold). If you wish to challenge their competency, I say look at 9/11. Look at the bombings in England and in Spain.

I don't doubt their cunning, it's totally irrelevant to the discussion.

The terrorists were able to work around a complex system of surveillance equipment and vigilant eyes in order to carry out their objective. And we think we can outsmart them with a bag searching policy that would simply deter them to a different entrance? They will easily find another entrance that's unguarded and proceed to blow themselves up, rendering them impossible to care about any legal ramifications. In the end, the only victims are the civilians who everyday or for the first time ever take a trip on the shuttle after a long day of shopping in Times Square.

Effectiveness has nothing to do with legality or constitutionality.

They are the ones whose rights are stripped of them.

No one is guaranteed a ride on the subway, the subway is not a "right".

And I am one of those people. And I can say, yes, I had nothing to hide and really was not harmed in this incident. But I'm a middle class white boy from New Jersey. This new policy allows for racial profiling by police officers with no ramifications.

If it could be proven that the "random" to specifically target one race/ethnicity, there would be ramifications. There are laws in place to handle that, this does not trump those laws.

And you sit here and tell me that is reasonable. I think not. Irresponsible, yes...but not reasonable.

Actually, once consent is given the 4th amendment is waived for that search so "reasonable" doesn't really enter in to it anymore. Don't waive your right by consent. Refuse and find alternate means of transportation.

I don't argue with you consumed by any feelings of anger, hate, or dislike.

Nor do I.

I am trying to express how I felt violated. It may have not done me any harm, but it frightens me that this can go on at any level, however large or small. And what frightens me more is that there are people who think it's okay that this goes on.

I feel violated by a prostate exam, but it is consensual and legal.

Sure, life may not be fair...but at least our policies and laws should be...for everyone.

They are.. You have the right to refuse.

Random people have feelings too. Remember that next time you look at the statistics of victims. We'd prefer to carry on with our business just like you, without being subjected to arrest if bring our bags through the turnstile and protect our privacy in accordance with the constitution at the same time.

That's the point, you can refuse and keep your 4th amendment rights intact. Public transportation or not, No one is guaranteed a ride on the subway, the subway is not a "right".

We are more than just numbers or faceless civilians in your argument. We are those who have seen the sky of freedom slowly start to crumble unto the people below, only to be faced with people who think they know it all and that this is nothing more than a safe precipitation.

I don't "know it all" and have never claimed to. I just know the legality of this rule.

You haven't seen it and you will probably never understand it until you do. I've done all that I could to show it to you, but it is up to you to recognize it. This is because your brain might be telling you what to think, but in the end it is your heart which reflects how you feel.

I have seen more than you realize.. I'm 38, I don't like to bring age into because it usually done to dismiss some solely for that reason. I only bring up to point out I have had quite a bit of life experience.

And if you want to call me pissy or condescending...be my guest.

Never crossed my mind..

But I know what I saw, and I know how it made me feel. No words you could put together in that big brain of yours could ever change that.

I believe you and you were obviously upset over it and feel strongly about. That is your right.

It does not change it's legality or constitutionality.

[Weker1]

Well I am a push over in a way, I'd let them look hower ever I have An OCD Issue and my stuff has to be handled in the right way, and has to be in the right order and as such there is a fear that A, they break something, B, nothing get's put back right C, I get bothered by them going through my stuff make them un sure about me resuilting in me being Questioned, Irritable and underarrest.
I'm sure I am overthinking it but that is what I'd fear.

[chainedflesh]

We can cite reasons for a search such as "reasonable suspicion" however, the reason bombs and weapons slip through is because the person carrying them was not suspicious. That is why they do random bag searches... to help eliminate that problem.

Of course with the statement posted at the terminal about bags being subject to a random check, you are actively entering into a contract if you choose to use the bus or rails. Specifically the bus lines and rail lines are not public property. They are city property maintained by private businesses and as such anyone entering them are jsubject to the regulations imposed by the city or maintaining corporation.

In terms of refusing a bag check you are in a catch-22. To refuse generates reasonable suspicion to apprehend and search the bag.

[jugglingfreak]

In terms of refusing a bag check you are in a catch-22. To refuse generates reasonable suspicion to apprehend and search the bag.

This is not true. In the case United States v. Fuentes, the court found the “[m]ere refusal to consent to a stop or search does not give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause.”

Saying "No" and calmly turning around and leaving is perfectly acceptable.

Freaking out, bolting and running for the exit would generate reasonable suspicion

[chainedflesh]

This is not true. In the case United States v. Fuentes, the court found the “[m]ere refusal to consent to a stop or search does not give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause.”

Saying "No" and calmly turning around and leaving is perfectly acceptable.

Freaking out, bolting and running for the exit would generate reasonable suspicion


Apples and oranges. That is used in context of a person who has not entered into an agreement of search conditions.

By choosing to use public transportation with these prerequisites in place you have already consented to the search.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has stated that “[t]he constitutional right to withdraw one’s consent to a search would be of little value if the very fact of choosing to exercise that right could serve as any part of the basis for finding the reasonable suspicion that makes consent unnecessary.”

[jawahunter]

As a Canadian I find it very difficult talking about issues like this that happen in the states because I know a lot (not all) of us have a certain point of view towards the American constitution and how your own government treats it.

The main reason is because since the constitution was drafted it was pretty much ignored to increase the power and authority of those who had created it.

Case in point, many founding fathers owned slaves or slave plantations. Some may have let their slaves go (ie Franklin) but many kept them (ie Washington) meanwhile while supposedly upholding a document that states that all "men" are free.

The reason you were searched is very very simple and if it's been brought up before I apologize. As you put it you are a blonde haired well dressed male carrying a back pack and computer bag. You look the typical stand up citizen. And that's EXACTELY why you were searched. Reason being the police (and the current government) has been known to profile "bad" people as people of different races than white. Primarily Mexicans and Arabs. If the police were to go around only searching Mexicans and Arabs there'd be a HUGE debate and protest against it. By searching individuals such as yourself they are protecting themselves from any backlash of racial profiling by being able to use you of an example that the searches are indeed "random". If you feel your constitutional rights have been violated well... there's nothing you can do. That whole Patriot Act stripped you away of most of those rights and as a country you voted the people responsible for the law back in to power. It's an unfair world out there and really being bothered for a few minutes should be the least of your worries. You've got much more going on to concern yourself with.

[MitchellStafiej]

Hell I had cops call me today because of mini improv everywhere prank I had going. They threatened me with charges going all the way up to murder. It was annoying, if my parents find out I'll be murdered myself!

I was once stopped by police because I was drinking with a few friends and when I saw the police in the distance I put my beer bottle down. When they came to us they told me to pick up the bottle. I refused and they couldn't do anything about it. They threatened me but I kept saying no, I know the law and I wasn't in possession of the beer upon their arrival.

Mitch

[lio112]

I was once searched by a policeman, I had a tub of fake blood in my bag. It was really weird.

You have a right to refuse a search its really up to the indavidual. If I needed to get somewhere I'd let them search me but if it was a shop I'd walk out and go somewhere with better service.

[ctvfilms]

well, I carry a knife around, for safety purposes, so, I don't think the NYPD would like this too much.

[AaronHeld]

a terrorist or criminal won't be stopped by the law, the only people effected by surveillance and security is the law abiding citizen, a criminal mind always finds a way to do his mission or be caught or die trying. now how did 9/11 happen(hate to bring it up, because of the chances of theory talks) but they found away around the security in surveillance(according to the reports) can't it happen again? so any efforts to make America safer are really just breaching our liberty's and privacy.

it doesn't make sense punish us all for the mistakes of a few who don't follow the laws? and can find a way around surveillance and search...

sorry if this has been mentioned theres a lot of pages on this.

I'd decline politely their just doing their job, but you have a job to refuse if you feel a breach in your privacy if you have nothing to hide then you can't be charged if they "arrest" you, you can't be charged unless you have done something illegal they can hold you but really thats a waste of their own time.

[cubes]

Do you people really think the searches are "random"? Not hardly, they target specific looking or suspicious activity, and yes some seemingly innocents are thrown in to maintain the randomness. They can't call it what it is, profiling. But if it keeps some idiot from killing thousands then so be it. I believe in the constitution 100%, but as violences evolves, so must the measures to counter it. What you see as inconvienence, I see as a small scarifice to ensure safety.

[Poppyl90]

i always have something to hide......

[Steelersk36]

Ummm bump much?