Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

As if you need a reason to stay away from NYC

Discussion in 'Legal' started by gunsmith, Aug 12, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. gunsmith

    gunsmith member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2003
    Messages:
    5,906
    Location:
    Reno, Nevada
    http://reuters.myway.com/article/20...55727_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.
     
  2. Bill St. Clair

    Bill St. Clair Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    274
    Location:
    Upstate New York
    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.
     
  3. Werewolf

    Werewolf Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,192
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    James Madison understood...
     
  4. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    Government looks after the interests of government first, last, and always.
     
  5. taliv

    taliv Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    22,064
    we have random car searches now
     
  6. mountainclmbr

    mountainclmbr Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,289
    Location:
    On top of a mountain in Colorado
    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.
     
  7. gunsmith

    gunsmith member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2003
    Messages:
    5,906
    Location:
    Reno, Nevada
    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.
     
  8. benEzra

    benEzra Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    8,536
    Location:
    Down East in NC
    Hmmm. Methinks the Federal appeals judges need to learn to read.

    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...
     
  9. alan

    alan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,594
    Location:
    sowest pa.
    Bill St Clair:

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

    Creeping Incrementalism Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2005
    Messages:
    984
    Location:
    S.F. Bay Area
    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..
     
  11. MrZ

    MrZ Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Messages:
    107
    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!!!"
     
  12. gunsmith

    gunsmith member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2003
    Messages:
    5,906
    Location:
    Reno, Nevada
    the COTUS has been declared null & void

    in NY.

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

    rangermonroe Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Messages:
    250
    Location:
    savannah, ga
    When is it right to say, "No. MYOFB. " and walk away unmolested?
     
  14. MrZ

    MrZ Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Messages:
    107
    1/75 SUCKS...

    That is all.
     
  15. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    795
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    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.
     
  16. Bill St. Clair

    Bill St. Clair Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    274
    Location:
    Upstate New York
    benEzra:
    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."
     
  17. El Tejon

    El Tejon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    18,083
    Location:
    Lafayette, Indiana-the Ned Flanders neighbor to Il
    I believe all of NYC is unreasonable. Hmmm, wonder if I can have the city declared unconstitutional?:D
     
  18. Turkey Creek

    Turkey Creek Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    356
    Location:
    MO
    I've said it a million times- The law is whatever some clown in a black robe says it is!
     
  19. benEzra

    benEzra Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    8,536
    Location:
    Down East in NC
    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:
     
  20. MrZ

    MrZ Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Messages:
    107
    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...
     
  21. cassandrasdaddy

    cassandrasdaddy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,203
    always? really?

    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
     
  22. Tory

    Tory member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    911
    Really?

     
  23. Werewolf

    Werewolf Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,192
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    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.
     
  24. another okie

    another okie Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,850
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    "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.
     
  25. Bill St. Clair

    Bill St. Clair Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    274
    Location:
    Upstate New York
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page