As if you need a reason to stay away from NYC


PDA






gunsmith
August 12, 2006, 02:27 PM
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060811/2006-08-11T203422Z_01_N11455727_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-SECURITY-NEWYORK-DC.html


Court rules NY police can search bags at subways

Aug 11, 4:34 PM (ET)

By Christine Kearney

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Random bag searches by New York police at subway stations are constitutional and an effective means of combating terrorism, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday.

"In light of the thwarted plots to bomb New York City's subway system, its continued desirability as a target, and the recent bombings of transportation systems in Madrid, Moscow, and London, the risk to public safety is substantial and real," the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals said in its ruling.

The court disagreed with the New York Civil Liberties Union, which last year sued the city claiming that the random bag searches police have conducted since July 2005 bombings on the London underground rail system were unconstitutional and would not deter an attack on America's largest subway system.

The NYCLU had argued the searches were ineffective as police had too few checkpoints and invaded privacy rights. But the court said the testimony of three counterterrorism experts showed the value of the searches.

"The expert testimony established that terrorists seek predictable and vulnerable targets, and the program generates uncertainty that frustrates that goal, which in turn, deters and attack," the court said.

Among the experts who testified were Richard Clarke, a former White House counterterrorism chief, who said he believed most U.S. transit systems were "under protected."

The judges noted the importance of the experts' belief that the unpredictability of the searches "deters both a single-bomb attack and an attack consisting of multiple, synchronized bombings, such as those in London and Madrid."

While the court agreed the searches compromised riders' privacy, "the kind of search at issue here minimally intrudes upon that interest" because the random searches were limited to bags that could contain explosives and last only seconds.

The judges noted that New York's subway system had been a "prime target" in the past, including a 1997 plot to bomb Brooklyn's Atlantic Avenue subway station and 2004 plot to bomb the Herald Square subway station in Manhattan.

"Because this program authorizes police searches of all subway riders without any suspicion of wrongdoing, we continue to believe it raises fundamental constitutional questions," said New York Civil Liberties Union lawyer Chris Dunn.

New York City's law department noted the court's decision followed Thursday's news of a terrorist plot in Britain to detonate bombs on passenger planes traveling to the United States.

"The program -- whose constitutionality two federal courts have now recognized -- enhances the safety of millions of New York City subway riders," said Kate O'Brien Ahlers, spokeswoman for the city law department.

If you enjoyed reading about "As if you need a reason to stay away from NYC" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Bill St. Clair
August 12, 2006, 06:08 PM
This is very bad news, because it isn't just about backpack searches on New York City subways. We're a few car bombs away from nationwide random automobile searches. Papieren bitte.

Werewolf
August 12, 2006, 06:35 PM
James Madison understood...

Standing Wolf
August 12, 2006, 10:41 PM
...the court said the testimony of three counterterrorism experts showed the value of the searches.

Government looks after the interests of government first, last, and always.

taliv
August 12, 2006, 10:48 PM
we have random car searches now

mountainclmbr
August 12, 2006, 11:16 PM
The Govt types hate the Constitution. It limits their power, not enough if you ask me. The deep thinking liberals have convinced themselves through mental acrobatics that the words of the Constitution actually mean the opposite of what they say. They like this interpretation very much. When we kill terrorists the liberals scream. When Communist countries kill millions of their own citizens the liberal "progressives" will usually say it was necessary for harmony. It is all about control of the productive class to provide for the unproductive.

gunsmith
August 12, 2006, 11:52 PM
I'm right.
Thank God that I live in NV and it's perfectly legal to carry a loaded handgun in yer car.

benEzra
August 12, 2006, 11:53 PM
Hmmm. Methinks the Federal appeals judges need to learn to read.

U.S. Constitution, Amendment IV:

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.

So much for being secure in your person and effects.

Of course, they're probably using the Gonzalean interpretion of the 4thA that splits the first part from the second part, thereby doing away with the requirement for a warrant, and stating that any search that someone in authority considers "reasonable" is allowed. Which is BS, and opens an immense can of worms...

alan
August 13, 2006, 12:03 AM
Bill St Clair:

How long do you think it will be before "bitte" is gone, like a spring mornings dew?

Creeping Incrementalism
August 13, 2006, 12:30 AM
Searching everyone going through a public area is blatantly against the 4th amendment. The fact that the check is quick and only is of certain size bags does not make it okay! But considering how blatantly the 2nd Amendment is infringed, among others, I'm not surprised about this ruling, only depressed. I just hope this doesn't spread..

MrZ
August 13, 2006, 12:43 AM
I absolutely agree with this.

It is PUBLIC transportation, not PRIVATE transportation.

I would much rather have somebody get their feelings hurt than have some dirtbag blow the begeezis out of a subway car filled with innocent people.

Defense attorney: "Your honor, my clients 4th amendment rights were COMPLETELY ignored"

Prosecutor: "Dude...he had a back pack filled with FORTY pounds of dynamite, with "DIE INFIDEL" written on EVERY stick!"

Judge: "Was there probable cause or a warrant issued to search Mr. Mohmuds' back pack"

Defense attorney: "Absolutely not your honor. The officer in question used discriminatory and unlawful profiling based on the fact that my client looks like what he believed to be a muslim male."

Prosecutor: "POLICE INTUITION based on experie..."

Judge: /bangs gavel loudly on desk "There is NO such law that allows for "police intuition". This is obviously a violation of this mans rights...of course, he is not AMERICAN, but he is still afforded the same rights as the rest of us while he is here. COURT rules in favour of the DEFENSE!!!!"
/bang gavel

Prosecutor: "Your honor that's BULLSH..."

Judge: "CASE CLOSED!!!"

gunsmith
August 13, 2006, 12:49 AM
in NY.

This will not catch one single terrorist period.
It's impossible to search every entrance.

rangermonroe
August 13, 2006, 01:11 AM
When is it right to say, "No. MYOFB. " and walk away unmolested?

MrZ
August 13, 2006, 01:13 AM
1/75 SUCKS...

That is all.

WeedWhacker
August 13, 2006, 03:53 AM
sometimes I hate it when I'm right. Thank God that I live in NV and it's perfectly legal to carry a loaded handgun in yer car.

I know you're in Reno, and far away from Clark county, but around the 4th of July, Clark county LEOs were either doing searches on each vehicle entering Clark from neighboring Nye county, or searching incoming cars which had also made stops at fireworks shops (Nye county allows bigger fireworks than Clark). Makes my blood boil.

Let's not even start talking about Clark county's "blue cards". Blue cards, yellow stars, all the same to me.

Bill St. Clair
August 13, 2006, 07:31 AM
benEzra:
Hmmm. Methinks the Federal appeals judges need to learn to read.


U.S. Constitution, Amendment IV:

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.

Unfortunately, the word "unreasonable" is a chink in the armor that gets bigger every day. "Compelling state interest" and all that, as if a state can have an interest in anything.

And MrZ's trial transcript is exactly how it should go. Liberty and security are often at odds. I'll take liberty every time, no matter how dangerous it may be. If the U.S. government practiced more liberty and less security, there wouldn't be as many terrorists motivated to attack us.

alan, even the Nazis kept the "bitte" in their communications. The "or else" remains unspoken. To quote Pink Floyd: "You have to be trusted by the people that you lie to, so that when they turn their backs on you, you'll get the chance to put the knife in."

El Tejon
August 13, 2006, 09:34 AM
I believe all of NYC is unreasonable. Hmmm, wonder if I can have the city declared unconstitutional?:D

Turkey Creek
August 13, 2006, 10:27 AM
I've said it a million times- The law is whatever some clown in a black robe says it is!

benEzra
August 13, 2006, 02:21 PM
I absolutely agree with this.

It is PUBLIC transportation, not PRIVATE transportation.

I would much rather have somebody get their feelings hurt than have some dirtbag blow the begeezis out of a subway car filled with innocent people.
If you don't like the 4th Amendment, then work to have the 4th Amendment repealed. But selectively ignoring the Bill of Rights is a really, really bad idea no matter how you slice it.

Probable cause has always been required in order to search someone in public. Until now.

And it's not the 4th Amendment rights of some terrorist that I'm concerned about' it's OUR 4th Amendment rights that are going down the tubes here.

What's the difference between this, and randomly stopping cars on the highway to search them for drugs, bombs, or guns? Or randomly stopping pedestrians on the sidewalk? Or setting up millimeter-wave cameras or backscatter radar on sidewalks to catch people carrying stuff in their pockets that they shouldn't?

______

"They hate for our freedoms. If we give up our freedoms, they won't hate use anymore." :scrutiny:

MrZ
August 13, 2006, 04:05 PM
Let's look at that 4th amendment again...

U.S. Constitution, Amendment IV:

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.

Note the word "unreasonable". In MY opinion, it is NOT unreasonable for our LEO's to search carry on bags for those using PUBLIC transportation.

Note the words "but upon probable cause". In MY opinion there absolutely IS probable cause to search those bags.

The Probable cause: Muslim extremists have vowed to continue to attack our country, and have done so twice already. Said extremists have already conducted two similar types of attacks, one in London, and one in Madrid, both of which were executed by infiltrating explosives aboard the train in backpacks/bags carried aboard by said muslim dirtball extremists.

So, again, in MY opinion, any searches conducted by LEO's of bags/backpacks entering public transportation is absolutely constitutional. There IS probable cause to do so, and it is NOT unreasonable due to our current world situation.


"I've said it a million times- The law is whatever some clown in a black robe says it is!"

Sad but true...

cassandrasdaddy
August 13, 2006, 05:21 PM
Probable cause has always been required in order to search someone in public. Until now.

i believe your mistaken the cops are allowed to search you for weapons for their safety dring a stop

Tory
August 13, 2006, 06:27 PM
we have random car searches now [QUOTE]

Do tell. When and where? :scrutiny:

If you mean sobriety checkpoints, those are not vehicle searches.

[QUOTE] ["]Probable cause has always been required in order to search someone in public. Until now.["]

i believe your [sic] mistaken the cops are allowed to search you for weapons for their safety dring [sic] a stop

What you refer to is a "Terry frisk," which is not a full search. It is simply a pat-down for weapons. There is a difference.

HINT: Spell-checkers and punctuation were developed for a reason.

Werewolf
August 13, 2006, 06:47 PM
The Probable cause: Muslim extremists have vowed to continue to attack our country, and have done so twice already. Said extremists have already conducted two similar types of attacks, one in London, and one in Madrid, both of which were executed by infiltrating explosives aboard the train in backpacks/bags carried aboard by said muslim dirtball extremists.Emphasis mine...

Then search muslims. I.E. young to middle aged men of middle eastern extraction! NOT little ole ladies or young suburban mothers or even NYC gang bangers!

It is entirely reasonable to search muslims. All muslims may not be terrorists but 99.5% of all terrorists are muslim.

It is not reasonable to search anyone else just so some liberal pansy can feel enlightened and point that enlightenment out to all the rest of us by trying to convince otherwise rational people that searching everyone else is fair ALL IN THE NAME OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.

Freedom isn't free. There's a price to be paid and quite often that price is sheep not feeling as safe as they'd like.

another okie
August 13, 2006, 07:01 PM
"Probable cause" relates to the warrant, not the search. The search just has to be reasonable.

I do not know how A.G. Gonzales interprets the Fourth Amendment, but the idea that the Fourth does not require a warrant for every search is correct. It only requires that a search be reasonable. The purpose of a warrant, when the Fourth Amendment was written, was to protect the police from lawsuits over the search.

In the early days of our republic, procedure was that the police (or sheriffs, or constables, or U.S. marshals) just did the search if they believed it was reasonable. If you believed your rights had been violated, you could sue them. If they had a warrant you couldn't sue them, since they were acting under judicial orders. Gradually it became more and more common to seek warrants for protection against lawsuits, and so many of us grew up thinking warrants were required for a search.

And the Supreme Court currently says that's true, except in certain circumstances, such as an emergency or officer safety. Sometimes it does that by saying those things are not "searches," though they obviously are.

But if you actually read the Fourth Amendment for what it says, rather than what we have read into it for one hundred years, you can see how this worked. We have the right to be free of unreasonable searches. We have the right to only have a warrant issue under probable cause. But those are two separate clauses.

It's a little like trying to get people to read what the 2nd Amendment actually says rather than what they want it to say.

Bill St. Clair
August 13, 2006, 08:19 PM
The other issue with warrants in times gone by was that an officer who entered a house without a warrant was likely to get shot, and, if the DA even brought charges, the castle owner was likely to get off scot free. As it should be.

cassandrasdaddy
August 13, 2006, 08:31 PM
for the granmmar help but are the cops doing a full search on the subway? or just checking bags for weapons. for their safety and mine. heck they publicize em so you know not to carry your dope on the train anymore and to deep conceal any illeagal carry weapons.i could see barking if they were patting everyone down thoroughly but the logistics preclude that.

cassandrasdaddy
August 13, 2006, 08:36 PM
do you tell muslims by looking? if you have a secret method please let the authorities know. we have a girl here where i live who can tell someones an illeagal alien as their cars pass at 70 miles an hour relative and she selfishly refuse to help immigration with her unique skill. if you have a way similar to detect religion it would be awesome.

solareclipse
August 14, 2006, 03:32 AM
been 10 years (give or take a month) since i was in NY. time to go for that golden "40 years ago" mark :barf:

Vairochana
August 14, 2006, 03:50 AM
What is 1/75 and what are the Clark County Blue Cards?

Cheers

.41Dave
August 14, 2006, 04:01 AM
It is entirely reasonable to search muslims. All muslims may not be terrorists but 99.5% of all terrorists are muslim.

Yeah, like Timothy McVeigh, and George Habash, and all those muslim IRA guys in Northern Ireland, and the Tamil Tigers, and Aum Shinrikyo, and The Lord's Resistance Army, and God's Army, and the Nagaland Rebels, and the JDL, and the UDA, and the Red Army Faction, and the Shining Path... Oh, wait...

Finch
August 14, 2006, 04:35 AM
Not sure about 1/75th but blue cards are the cards you recive when you register a handgun in Nevada. It states some basic information about the firearm and it's owner. You are required to register each and every handgun you own. Pretty lame...

crazed_ss
August 14, 2006, 04:44 AM
Emphasis mine...

Then search muslims. I.E. young to middle aged men of middle eastern extraction! NOT little ole ladies or young suburban mothers or even NYC gang bangers!

It is entirely reasonable to search muslims. All muslims may not be terrorists but 99.5% of all terrorists are muslim.

It is not reasonable to search anyone else just so some liberal pansy can feel enlightened and point that enlightenment out to all the rest of us by trying to convince otherwise rational people that searching everyone else is fair ALL IN THE NAME OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.

Freedom isn't free. There's a price to be paid and quite often that price is sheep not feeling as safe as they'd like


Your post comes off extremely hypocritical considering the quotes in your sig.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this Land, it will be in the Guise of Fighting a Foreign Enemy. - James Madison

So let me get this straight.. you're againstTyranny and Oppression UNLESS the people being oppressed are Arabs.. then it's all good because they're the enemy..

rangermonroe
August 14, 2006, 07:12 AM
What is 1/75 and what are the Clark County Blue Cards?

1st Batallion 75th Ranger Regiment

I think that was a personal jab at me, although I cannot fathom why.

Vairochana
August 14, 2006, 07:52 AM
not really "The High Road" is it?

Werewolf
August 14, 2006, 07:59 AM
So let me get this straight.. you're againstTyranny and Oppression UNLESS the people being oppressed are Arabs.. then it's all good because they're the enemy..Absolutely...

Giving the enemy a free pass in the name of political correctness is stupid.

crazed_ss
August 14, 2006, 08:28 AM
Is it your belief that Arabs in general are "the enemy"?

Werewolf
August 14, 2006, 10:32 AM
Is it your belief that Arabs in general are "the enemy"?Terrorists attacking the US are overwhelmingly Arabs - at least I am unaware of any non-Arabs attacking the US. Those Arabs that support Arab terrorists either directly or indirectly are also the enemy.

This article in Newsweek (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14322931/), an interview with Sheik Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr al-Thani, foreign minister and deputy prime minister of Qatar would seem to support the notion though that those in Arab countries that would be considered the people do in fact support attacks against the US. AND that makes them the enemy.

benEzra
August 14, 2006, 11:12 AM
(MrZ)

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.

Note the word "unreasonable". In MY opinion, it is NOT unreasonable for our LEO's to search carry on bags for those using PUBLIC transportation.
PUBLIC transportation, PUBLIC sidewalk, PUBLIC road, PUBLIC building, PUBLIC park, PUBLIC bridge, PUBLIC side of the road, PUBLIC land. So, you think that the 4th Amendment only restricts searches that occur on private property?

What you seem to be advocating is a regime under which anyone, anywhere on public property, can be searched without a warrant or probable cause specific to that person.

Note the words "but upon probable cause". In MY opinion there absolutely IS probable cause to search those bags.

The Probable cause: Muslim extremists have vowed to continue to attack our country, and have done so twice already. Said extremists have already conducted two similar types of attacks, one in London, and one in Madrid, both of which were executed by infiltrating explosives aboard the train in backpacks/bags carried aboard by said muslim dirtball extremists.
You misunderstand the term "probable cause." Probable cause refers to your justification for searching THAT person, not your justification for searching people in general. If I am walking down a sidewalk, a police officer is NOT allowed to search me or my belongings unless he can eludidate a specific reason why he thinks I personally am concealing something illegal. The fact that x percent of people in the city are carrying something illegal does not provide probable cause for him to search me, and any officer who did so would be slapped down by the courts and by his own department's legal counsel.

Here's the definition of probable cause: "Facts or evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed and that the person arrested is responsible."

You forget that the reason the Fourth Amendment was adopted to start with was the practice of the British doing exactly what you advocate--sweeping for illegal activity by randomly searching innocent people in hopes of finding the guilty. That's precisely what the Fourth Amendment was intended to prevent.

"Probable cause" relates to the warrant, not the search. The search just has to be reasonable.

I do not know how A.G. Gonzales interprets the Fourth Amendment, but the idea that the Fourth does not require a warrant for every search is correct. It only requires that a search be reasonable.
Please provide evidence for the contention that the 4th Amendment was intended to allow for searches without probable cause specific to an individual.

The purpose of a warrant, when the Fourth Amendment was written, was to protect the police from lawsuits over the search.

In the early days of our republic, procedure was that the police (or sheriffs, or constables, or U.S. marshals) just did the search if they believed it was reasonable. If you believed your rights had been violated, you could sue them. If they had a warrant you couldn't sue them, since they were acting under judicial orders. Gradually it became more and more common to seek warrants for protection against lawsuits, and so many of us grew up thinking warrants were required for a search.
But one should remember that the Bill of Rights was written to protect the people from the government, NOT the government from the people. The Fourth Amendment is about limiting the power of the police to search.

But if you actually read the Fourth Amendment for what it says, rather than what we have read into it for one hundred years, you can see how this worked. We have the right to be free of unreasonable searches. We have the right to only have a warrant issue under probable cause. But those are two separate clauses.
So, what you're advocating is a system under which the police don't even need a warrant to search your house, as long as THEY think the search is "reasonable," and they don't even need probable cause to search your person or vehicle if you are not on private property?

MrZ
August 14, 2006, 12:16 PM
" So, you think that the 4th Amendment only restricts searches that occur on private property?"

No. The 4th amendment only restricts searches that are "unreasonable", regardless of whether the property is private or public. That's what it says verbatim.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."


It is my opinion that conducting bag searches of folks using public transportation is FAR from "unreasonable".

"You misunderstand the term "probable cause." Probable cause refers to your justification for searching THAT person, not your justification for searching people in general."

Nope. Look at the 4th again...

"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."

The 4th is not limited to an individual, hence the use of the word "persons". Their is no "by name" requirment.

If LEO's wanted to stop and conduct a thorough search of EVERY individual using public transportation, they could do so according to the 4th amendment.

A warrant could be sworn out by a member from the intel community who gets intel about a potential attack, time is irrelevant as the 4th mentions NOTHING about a time standard for probable cause. The warrant lists the NY city subway terminals as the "place", 18-29 year old males of middle eastern or chechen descent as the "persons", and it could list their person and anything in their possession as the "things" to be searched. All of which complies with the 4th amendment as it was written.

Mr. James
August 14, 2006, 04:33 PM
A warrant could be sworn out by a member from the intel community who gets intel about a potential attack, time is irrelevant as the 4th mentions NOTHING about a time standard for probable cause. The warrant lists the NY city subway terminals as the "place", 18-29 year old males of middle eastern or chechen descent as the "persons", and it could list their person and anything in their possession as the "things" to be searched. All of which complies with the 4th amendment as it was written.

But that's not what they did in New York, is it now, MrZ? There was no warrant. There was no naming of places and persons, even in the manner you describe. Even if this would be sufficient, there was no limit of the searches to "18-29 year old males of middle eastern or chechen descent," was there?

It is truly pathetic that some will defend this.

PATH
August 14, 2006, 04:45 PM
Random searches to catch bad guys? Giggle! Giggle!:neener:

Look there are thousands of subway entrances and exits. It is all show for the masses. So a bad guy enters the system at 215th Street on the Broadway Local. It is a lightly used station. He then travels to 42nd Street and goes ka-boom!!!!:what:

God! These terrorists are not idiots. If someone wants to bomb the system you need to catch them long before they are getting on the damn system.

What about all the homeless people living in the tunnel system of the NYC subway? Terrorists could mix right in!

Gang, it is all about blowing smoke up peoples arses! Random bag searches are useless except as a supposed morale builder!;)

makarova
August 14, 2006, 05:11 PM
Those NYC bag searches are voluntary! You get to refuse and walk away if you want. Of course, if that makes you late for work, thats just the price we ALL pay for the war on terror:D What do you want to bet, if somebody actually did refuse and attempt to leave, they would be searched anyway? So help me if I didn't live so far away, I would try if after I called the ACLU.

Bill St. Clair
August 14, 2006, 05:11 PM
And even if bag searches COULD find bombs, they only cause the suicide bomber to set off his bomb at the search location instead of on the train. A few lives and some equipment saved, I guess, but no less terror served.

MrZ
August 14, 2006, 06:46 PM
"There was no warrant. There was no naming of places and persons, even in the manner you describe. Even if this would be sufficient, there was no limit of the searches to "18-29 year old males of middle eastern or chechen descent," was there?"

/shrug

Because the searches they conducted are not unreasonable. The 4th does'nt specify that reasonable searches can't be conducted without a warrant.

"These terrorists are not idiots."

Yes, they are idiots. They insist on waging war in the west which will accomplish what? Nothing. The countries most of those idiots come from have standards of living that are pretty much still in the stone age. They should be fighting their own governments instead of killing civilians in western societies. But they can't because their own governments would hunt them down and kill them like the pathetic fools they are...

They waste millions of dollars, MILLIONS, on terror related training and logistics, where as that same cash would go a MUCH much longer way if they pumped it into their own countries local economies. Roads, schools, and clinics, doctors, teachers, and engineers would help the muslim cause moreso than their idiotic "jihad" ever will.

So yes, they ARE idiots.


" If someone wants to bomb the system you need to catch them long before they are getting on the damn system."

Not necessarily true. While there is no way you can 100% prevent such an action from occuring, you can make it harder for them, and random bag searches can indeed make it harder for them.

Jeff
August 14, 2006, 10:16 PM
Valid Searches and Seizures Without Warrants (emphasis mine)

While the Supreme Court stresses the importance of warrants and has repeatedly referred to searches without warrants as ''exceptional,'' 1 it appears that the greater number of searches, as well as the vast number of arrests, take place without warrants. The Reporters of the American Law Institute Project on a Model Code of Pre- Arraignment Procedure have noted ''their conviction that, as a practical matter, searches without warrant and incidental to arrest have been up to this time, and may remain, of greater practical importance'' than searches pursuant to warrants. ''[T]he evidence on hand . . . compel[s] the conclusion that searches under warrants have played a comparatively minor part in law enforcement, except in connection with narcotics and gambling laws.'' 2 Nevertheless, the Court frequently asserts that ''the most basic constitutional rule in this area is that 'searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment--subject only to a few specially established and well-delineated exceptions.'' 3 The exceptions are said to be ''jealously and carefully drawn,'' 4 and there must be ''a showing by those who seek exemption . . . that the exigencies of the situation made that course imperative.'' 5 While the record does indicate an effort to categorize the exceptions, the number and breadth of those exceptions have been growing.



excerpt from footnote 3: Searches conducted without warrants have been held unlawful "notwithstanding facts unquestionably showing probable cause," Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20, 33 , for the Constitution requires "that the deliberate, impartial judgment of a judicial officer . . . be interposed between the citizen and the police . . . ." Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 481 -482. "Over and again this Court has emphasized that the mandate of the [Fourth] Amendment requires adherence to judicial processes," United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 51 , and that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment 18 - subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions. 19


Sounds pretty un-Constitutional to me.

carpettbaggerr
August 15, 2006, 12:22 AM
And to me. And to almost everyone I know. And to almost every American, except a few on the Supreme Court.

Much like Kelo v. New London.

boilingleadbath
August 15, 2006, 01:57 AM
They (the terrorists) may very well have adopted an idiotic means of action, but that does not preclude basic reasoning skills.

Why, Mr. Turning commited suicide over allegations that he was gay, for a random but well related example.

PATH
August 15, 2006, 02:55 AM
Mr.Z, believe what you want.;) :)

gunsmith
August 16, 2006, 02:05 AM
And last I checked was still considered NV, as a matter of fact I voted for Ensign today!

Vegas has registration, the rest of the state is smarter then Vegas:neener: :neener:

Come on up here bro! to hot down there anyway!!!...I'll buy the cold beverage.

MrZ
August 16, 2006, 04:58 AM
Sadly, the constitution has been bastardized by those who lack the intestinal fortitude and the moral integrity of the individuals who wrote it, at the risk of their lives.

"I've said it a million times- The law is whatever some clown in a black robe says it is!" Turkey Creek

The above statement holds true. While the supreme court is charged with determining what is "constitutional", it doesn't take the supreme court to understand the written english in our constitution.

They have been wrong before, and they are wrong in this case regarding the 4th amendment.

mhdishere
August 16, 2006, 09:30 AM
OK folks, here's a first-hand account, I live in NJ, work in NYC and ride the subways five days a week. I've seen the bag searches although never been searched myself.

These searches accomplish nothing, nada, zip, zero.

You can refuse and exit the station. They won't force you to be searched.

If someone with intent to commit mayhem is tagged for a search, he can refuse and enter the subway system some other way. If you've never been on the subways you have no idea how porous the system is. From where I'm sitting right now I can list at least a half-dozen completely separate entrances to the subway within a five-minute walk, if a checkpoint is set up at one place I can easily get in thru another, and there's not likely to be checkpoints at both AND I'm not likely to get picked for a search at both anyway.

I have seen people go up to the cops and OFFER their bags for searching (which the cops will then do).

As far as how successful they've been, there have been a few drug arrests (idiots who forgot they had dope in their bag and let it be searched), a few disorderly conduct arrests (people who objected loudly to being searched). That's it, no bombs, no poison gas.

The program is a feel-good measure to show the sheep that the city is "doing something", it doesn't accomplish a thing.

Werewolf
August 16, 2006, 09:47 AM
I have seen people go up to the cops and OFFER their bags for searching (which the cops will then do). OK! That is just plain :barf: sickening. But for NYC - a hot bed of Tory sympathizers during the revolution not really surprising - sheep after all breed sheep.

rangermonroe
August 16, 2006, 10:43 AM
a few disorderly conduct arrests (people who objected loudly to being searched).

Oh, Dear God!

The day has arrived. :mad:

romma
August 16, 2006, 12:50 PM
stands for, and cherishes our freedoms... As long as they define what freedom is. :barf:

benEzra
August 16, 2006, 03:09 PM
As far as how successful they've been, there have been a few drug arrests (idiots who forgot they had dope in their bag and let it be searched)
Apparently, it's also a convenient way to get around probable cause requirements in order to do drug searches.

If the Powers that Be were serious about balancing the 4th Amendment with the perceived need to stop terrorists, they'd make any contraband found subject to the exclusionary rule unless the person searched actually turned out to be a terrorist.

As it is, it seems to me that terrorism is merely a convenient excuse to avoid that pesky 4th Amendment.

a few disorderly conduct arrests (people who objected loudly to being searched).
Now THAT is scary...

NoPhilly
August 16, 2006, 04:28 PM
As it is, it seems to me that terrorism is merely a convenient excuse to avoid that pesky 4th Amendment.

That's what I think as well.

A person could duct-tape a farly large amout of explosives to his body. How will searching his bag stop that? :confused:

mhdishere
August 17, 2006, 09:02 AM
benEzra,
Actually that's not applicable, these people consented to the search. You can refuse (as I plan to do if I'm ever asked, just on general principles).

My annoyance with this program is two-fold, one is the people who say "If you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to worry about" and the second is that it does absolutely nothing to prevent a terrorist attack. People aren't giving up liberty to gain freedom, they're giving up liberty to gain a good feeling about being safe unless they actually think about it, then they realize they're not gaining anything.

Ok, rant off.

Mr. James
August 17, 2006, 09:21 AM
My annoyance with this program is two-fold, one is the people who say "If you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to worry about" and the second is that it does absolutely nothing to prevent a terrorist attack. People aren't giving up liberty to gain freedom, they're giving up liberty to gain a good feeling about being safe unless they actually think about it, then they realize they're not gaining anything.

Precisely so.

If you enjoyed reading about "As if you need a reason to stay away from NYC" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!