I just saw on the news (king5) that the washington state patrol will be doing "random searches" of vehicles prior to boarding the ferries. Even though this is a violation of the state constitution. Anybody hear any more on this? How will the determine what means "random", what happens if they find a gun or ammo, how long will they detain you for interviewing? Seems like a very dangerous idea.
Random Searches
- Thread starter Tierhog
- Start date
- Status
Preacherman
Member
Trouble is, you're using someone else's property when you use the ferry. If they make it a condition of passage that you must consent to a search of your vehicle, property or person before you board, or while under way, then you have the right to refuse the search, but they have the right to refuse to transport you. It's the same way with the TSA and airline security. You have the right to refuse the intrusive (and essentially useless, from a security point of view) searches at the airport: but if you refuse 'em, you ain't flyin' that day... 
I always thought that the ferry system here in washington was owned and operated by the state, that makes it public property, just like the highways. Does that mean that I would be subject to random search by driving on a public road? How about a toll road? I am not trying to be a smart a** but just because I have to pay to use something shouldn't mean I have to give up my rights. Airlines are privately owned, as are stores and cruise ships, so I can understand that they have the right to run their business the way they think, but public transportation that I help support by taxes should not violate the law. I am not a constitutional scholar, nor am I particularly bright on political matters, but this just seems wrong.
Old Dog
Member
Newsflash, guys ... they've been doing this. Try taking the Seattle-Bainbridge Island or Seattle-Bremerton ferries ... quite often, the WSP is out there (with other agencies, too, I might add) and lots of dogs. If you are legally transporting your firearms and ammo, absolutely no problems. If you have a CPL and are packing, no problem. The guys go through the lines and even if a dog alerts on your vehicle or you're lookin' mighty suspicious, things are gonna be sorted out in plenty of time for you to catch your ferry.
Anyone remember the guy of middle-Eastern descent nabbed up here coming in on the ferry from B.C., with a trunkful of explosives not all that long ago?
Plus, taking out a Seattle ferry would not only kill a few thousand folks at a time, but it would clog the shipping lanes in the sound. I for one am not gonna bent out of shape if I have to pop my trunk or let the guys look in my backseat (as long as they clean up the dog hair afterwards).
Anyone remember the guy of middle-Eastern descent nabbed up here coming in on the ferry from B.C., with a trunkful of explosives not all that long ago?
Plus, taking out a Seattle ferry would not only kill a few thousand folks at a time, but it would clog the shipping lanes in the sound. I for one am not gonna bent out of shape if I have to pop my trunk or let the guys look in my backseat (as long as they clean up the dog hair afterwards).
Preacherman ~
Washington state ferries are not private property.
Legally, they are equivalent to state highways and should be accompanied by the same freedom from search that is guaranteed while you are driving your car down the public thoroughfare.
Tierhog ~
They did those searches for awhile after 9/11, then stopped when the public outcry got too great. Somewhere in my files I have copies of correspondence I sent to the governor, to the bureaucrat in charge of the ferry system, to the chief bottlewasher in the state's cop shop, and to one of the main reporters who was following the story. I might have even saved responses from a couple of them.
Probably time to dig the letters up again, or write new ones.
*sigh*
Lord, I'm tired.
And I'll bet you -- naw, never mind, no bet, it'd be stealing -- that we will shortly have several allegedly "freedom-minded" High Roaders commenting that the 4th Amendment doesn't matter that much when there's physical danger involved.
pax
The American people must be willing to give up a degree of personal privacy in exchange for safety and security. -- Louis Freeh
Washington state ferries are not private property.
Legally, they are equivalent to state highways and should be accompanied by the same freedom from search that is guaranteed while you are driving your car down the public thoroughfare.
Tierhog ~
They did those searches for awhile after 9/11, then stopped when the public outcry got too great. Somewhere in my files I have copies of correspondence I sent to the governor, to the bureaucrat in charge of the ferry system, to the chief bottlewasher in the state's cop shop, and to one of the main reporters who was following the story. I might have even saved responses from a couple of them.
Probably time to dig the letters up again, or write new ones.
*sigh*
Lord, I'm tired.
And I'll bet you -- naw, never mind, no bet, it'd be stealing -- that we will shortly have several allegedly "freedom-minded" High Roaders commenting that the 4th Amendment doesn't matter that much when there's physical danger involved.
pax
The American people must be willing to give up a degree of personal privacy in exchange for safety and security. -- Louis Freeh
borderguy, Old Dog ~
Does either one of you know when they started the searches up again?
As I said, they did quit for awhile, because so many folks screamed about it.
pax
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
Does either one of you know when they started the searches up again?
As I said, they did quit for awhile, because so many folks screamed about it.
pax
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
FPrice
Member
Tierhog...
"Seems like a very dangerous idea."
Well, if someone can come up with a fool-proof way of identifying terrorists without inconveniencing us law-abiding honest citizens that person would become a billionaire fairly quickly I would imagine.
But, until that time the folks who are responsible for operating such systems and providing some measure of safety and security to the public are going to continue to fall back on the old, standard methods.
"Seems like a very dangerous idea."
Well, if someone can come up with a fool-proof way of identifying terrorists without inconveniencing us law-abiding honest citizens that person would become a billionaire fairly quickly I would imagine.
But, until that time the folks who are responsible for operating such systems and providing some measure of safety and security to the public are going to continue to fall back on the old, standard methods.
Old Dog
Member
Pax, I don't know when they started this again ... I did a round trip on the Seattle-B.I. run last month, and WSP was out there (with the USCG and at least one other agency).
Is there a 4th Amendment issue here? Hmmm... If WSP pulled me over on I-5 or Hwy 3 simply to search my vehicle ... yeah. This ferry thing, I'm sure has been wrestled with at a much higher level than an internet forum. As I said, I think there are some valid security concerns with this mode of transport, much more so than using public roads. Am I giving up my freedoms letting the dogs walk by my vehicle or letting someone look in my trunk or backseat (after I give them permission, which, if I don't, I'm simply not allowed on the boat)?
The process doesn't seem to inconvenience anyone (since it's done during the lengthy waiting times anyway) unless someone would be forced to miss their boat ...
Yeah, it's a nagging question, but perhaps I've simply become, as a member of the armed forces lo this past quarter-century, to giving up some of my rights to make sure that others are safe.
Is there a 4th Amendment issue here? Hmmm... If WSP pulled me over on I-5 or Hwy 3 simply to search my vehicle ... yeah. This ferry thing, I'm sure has been wrestled with at a much higher level than an internet forum. As I said, I think there are some valid security concerns with this mode of transport, much more so than using public roads. Am I giving up my freedoms letting the dogs walk by my vehicle or letting someone look in my trunk or backseat (after I give them permission, which, if I don't, I'm simply not allowed on the boat)?
The process doesn't seem to inconvenience anyone (since it's done during the lengthy waiting times anyway) unless someone would be forced to miss their boat ...
Yeah, it's a nagging question, but perhaps I've simply become, as a member of the armed forces lo this past quarter-century, to giving up some of my rights to make sure that others are safe.
priv8ter
Member
Hmmm...
I take the Edmonds-Kingston Ferry a lot to go visit my mom. As far as I can tell, they have NEVER stopped having the dogs walking the rows of cars, sniffing around.
But now....they are actually going to start searching cars physically again.
greg
I take the Edmonds-Kingston Ferry a lot to go visit my mom. As far as I can tell, they have NEVER stopped having the dogs walking the rows of cars, sniffing around.
But now....they are actually going to start searching cars physically again.
greg
TallPine
Member
So what about all the trucks that pass over major bridges every hour of every day ...? Going to search every one of them, too? I don't think so.
A suicide bomber blowing up a truck in the middle of an interstate bridge over the Mississippi would be so simple and about as catastrophic as a bomb on a ferry.
At some point we are just going to have to learn to live with these dangers.
A suicide bomber blowing up a truck in the middle of an interstate bridge over the Mississippi would be so simple and about as catastrophic as a bomb on a ferry.
At some point we are just going to have to learn to live with these dangers.
Fool proof way....
I agree, it would be nice if you could wave a magic wand and all the bad guys go away, but that's not going to happen. To give up your rights out of fear just goes against everything my Dad taught me. Besides, if we were a little more diligent about who we let into this country...I mean its a lot easier to keep the fox out of the chicken house than it is to go in and fight him as well as the chickens.
I have to strongly disagree with you Old Dog, "The process doesn't seem to inconvenience anyone..." To be subjected to random physical searches is a huge inconvienience, it disrupts my plans, scares the children, (after all it is for the children right), it embarasses me (my cars a dump), makes my dog nervous and is generally a pain in the a**. How soon until they decide that my safety is so important that they will come to my home and do random searches there?
The police do NOT protect me nor do they ensure my security, I do that. And I always will, as long as the dirts under me and not over me.
I agree, it would be nice if you could wave a magic wand and all the bad guys go away, but that's not going to happen. To give up your rights out of fear just goes against everything my Dad taught me. Besides, if we were a little more diligent about who we let into this country...I mean its a lot easier to keep the fox out of the chicken house than it is to go in and fight him as well as the chickens.
I have to strongly disagree with you Old Dog, "The process doesn't seem to inconvenience anyone..." To be subjected to random physical searches is a huge inconvienience, it disrupts my plans, scares the children, (after all it is for the children right), it embarasses me (my cars a dump), makes my dog nervous and is generally a pain in the a**. How soon until they decide that my safety is so important that they will come to my home and do random searches there?
The police do NOT protect me nor do they ensure my security, I do that. And I always will, as long as the dirts under me and not over me.
Tierhog
I am truly sorry that the War inconveniences you.
Perhaps the thought of terrorists driving on board the ferry with a van full of explosives is something you don't concern yourself with. After all, you will defend yourself and your children. God forbid your upset dog should accidently void in the backseat.
I am truly sorry that the War inconveniences you.
Perhaps the thought of terrorists driving on board the ferry with a van full of explosives is something you don't concern yourself with. After all, you will defend yourself and your children. God forbid your upset dog should accidently void in the backseat.
Old Dog
Member
I dunno, Tierhog ... they've got these searches down and get 'em done pretty quickly. My kids always thought getting our vehicle searched at the gate (almost every freakin' day, lengthy, thorough, painful -- and I know I'm a good guy) of the base in Bahrain was kind of interesting, although yeah, my wife would get kinda embarassed about her messy car. Sorry to hear that your right to not be inconvenienced trumps the rights of everyone else to not be killed. By the way, the 4th Amendment protects us against unlawful (there's that key word) search and seizure.
FPrice
Member
pax...
"You're right.
Safety is more important than freedom."
Did I say that?
I guess your rahther humorousscrutiny: ) response is supposed to highlight the imagined mutually exclusive states of safety and freedom.
Position 1: You can't be safe and have any personal freedoms.
POsition 2: You can't have all your personal freedoms if the state makes any effort to protect us against terrorists.
I wonder where you would place your efforts, if any, in trying to hamper terrorists in planning/carrying out their next attack.
"You're right.
Safety is more important than freedom."
Did I say that?
I guess your rahther humorous
scrutiny: ) response is supposed to highlight the imagined mutually exclusive states of safety and freedom.Position 1: You can't be safe and have any personal freedoms.
POsition 2: You can't have all your personal freedoms if the state makes any effort to protect us against terrorists.
I wonder where you would place your efforts, if any, in trying to hamper terrorists in planning/carrying out their next attack.
FPrice
Member
Tierhog: "To be subjected to random physical searches is a huge inconvienience,..., scares the children,..."
Typical anti-gun soccer Mom: To allow anybody to carry a gun scares my children.
Is there any similarity here?
Typical anti-gun soccer Mom: To allow anybody to carry a gun scares my children.
Is there any similarity here?
Your right, I was stupid
I will now let the thought of the bad guys override my life. I will advocate that all drivers take a BAC test before allowed to drive, after all one of them may be a drunk driver. I will concern myself about the faulty wiring in your home and insist that building inspectors check your house regularly, in case you have done something not allowed. I will give up everybodies rights just to protect the nervous few. I know, lets set up an interstate passport system and make travelors apply 4 weeks in advance of any travel plans. How about random strip searches in Pike Place, in case someone has a bomb, or God forbid a gun. how about we have an officer on every street corner checking ID'd and fingerprints, after all we must be protected from the bad guys...at any cost. Thanks for setting me straight on that WT. I will now go hide under my bed with my nervous dog.
I will now let the thought of the bad guys override my life. I will advocate that all drivers take a BAC test before allowed to drive, after all one of them may be a drunk driver. I will concern myself about the faulty wiring in your home and insist that building inspectors check your house regularly, in case you have done something not allowed. I will give up everybodies rights just to protect the nervous few. I know, lets set up an interstate passport system and make travelors apply 4 weeks in advance of any travel plans. How about random strip searches in Pike Place, in case someone has a bomb, or God forbid a gun. how about we have an officer on every street corner checking ID'd and fingerprints, after all we must be protected from the bad guys...at any cost. Thanks for setting me straight on that WT. I will now go hide under my bed with my nervous dog.
dav
Member
Pax, YES!
Almost everyone else on this thread <explitive deleted>
Why are you other people here if you have no understanding of what freedom and our constitution mean?
Almost everyone else on this thread <explitive deleted>
Why are you other people here if you have no understanding of what freedom and our constitution mean?
Old Dog
Member
listen up, DAV
I'll tell you why I'm here:
Just so you know, I do have an pretty thorough understanding of "what freedom and our Constitution mean." As an aside, I've recently spent a year of my life undergoing the "inconvenience" of trying to help another nation's people try and achieve freedom. And not from the comfort of my deskchair armed only with a computer keyboard, either.
The 4th Amendment, as noted, specifies that we should not have any freedoms abridged and we are not to be subject to unlawful (again, that is the KEY word) search and seizure.
The passing annoyance of getting a vehicle quickly scanned before boarding a ferry with thousands of other people is hardly an unlawful search, nor does it constitute an abridgement of ANY of my rights.
There is the ideal, and then there is the real world. It would be ideal that these pesky "infringements" on our rights not be necessary. But, sadly, this is the real world. At least from where I sit.
If you think that you, and maybe a few more of your freedom-loving gun-packing friends can protect a ferry full of a couple thousand motor vehicles and a few thousand passengers, without any governmental assistance, have at it.
I'll tell you why I'm here:
Just so you know, I do have an pretty thorough understanding of "what freedom and our Constitution mean." As an aside, I've recently spent a year of my life undergoing the "inconvenience" of trying to help another nation's people try and achieve freedom. And not from the comfort of my deskchair armed only with a computer keyboard, either.
The 4th Amendment, as noted, specifies that we should not have any freedoms abridged and we are not to be subject to unlawful (again, that is the KEY word) search and seizure.
The passing annoyance of getting a vehicle quickly scanned before boarding a ferry with thousands of other people is hardly an unlawful search, nor does it constitute an abridgement of ANY of my rights.
There is the ideal, and then there is the real world. It would be ideal that these pesky "infringements" on our rights not be necessary. But, sadly, this is the real world. At least from where I sit.
If you think that you, and maybe a few more of your freedom-loving gun-packing friends can protect a ferry full of a couple thousand motor vehicles and a few thousand passengers, without any governmental assistance, have at it.
I think it is very telling that when the issue is freedom, so many people respond as though the issue is merely convenience.
Old Dog, thanks for your service.
Now tell me: what, exactly, were you trying to preserve by serving?
I cannot find it in my files, but I do recall one of the President's spokespeople commenting that the President had taken an oath to protect the United States, an oath he took very seriously.
That's great, except the oath he took was not to protect the States. The oath he took was to protect the Constitution of the United States -- the same oath you yourself swore.
You cannot honorably claim that your service means that you are allowed to trample the Constitution or to urge its trampling under the guise of "protecting people." That would be a violation of the oath you took.
There is a fairly strict standard in the 4th Amendment. That standard, by the way, is not whether the search is "unlawful." The phrase "... but in a manner to be prescribed by law..." is language from the 3rd Amendment, not the 4th.
The exactly language of the 4th Amendment is:
In a random search, probable cause is utterly lacking. Without more cause than a mere desire to travel, if such a search were taken before a judge, a warrant could not lawfully be issued for any particular one of these searches. So the issue becomes whether it is "reasonable" to randomly search people who are merely going about their lawful occasions and peacefully travelling upon a public thoroughfare.
Frankly, given the sorry state of freedom in America in these post-9/11 days, I hold out no hope that the court would rule that such random searches are "unreasonable." They would do as you and others have done, and immediately hare after such tangents as whether I am inconvenienced by having agents of the state paw through the contents of my private automobile.
But I say again, the issue is not mere convenience. The issue is whether or not I, as a private individual, have a right to be secure in my person, home, papers, and effects -- or whether the state busybodies may nose their way through my private belongings on a mere whim.
pax
If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too. -- W. Somerset Maugham
Old Dog, thanks for your service.
Now tell me: what, exactly, were you trying to preserve by serving?
I cannot find it in my files, but I do recall one of the President's spokespeople commenting that the President had taken an oath to protect the United States, an oath he took very seriously.
That's great, except the oath he took was not to protect the States. The oath he took was to protect the Constitution of the United States -- the same oath you yourself swore.
You cannot honorably claim that your service means that you are allowed to trample the Constitution or to urge its trampling under the guise of "protecting people." That would be a violation of the oath you took.
There is a fairly strict standard in the 4th Amendment. That standard, by the way, is not whether the search is "unlawful." The phrase "... but in a manner to be prescribed by law..." is language from the 3rd Amendment, not the 4th.
The exactly language of the 4th Amendment is:
The 4th Amendment says that there is no law which may lawfully be passed allowing unreasonable or warrantless searches and seizures.
In a random search, probable cause is utterly lacking. Without more cause than a mere desire to travel, if such a search were taken before a judge, a warrant could not lawfully be issued for any particular one of these searches. So the issue becomes whether it is "reasonable" to randomly search people who are merely going about their lawful occasions and peacefully travelling upon a public thoroughfare.
Frankly, given the sorry state of freedom in America in these post-9/11 days, I hold out no hope that the court would rule that such random searches are "unreasonable." They would do as you and others have done, and immediately hare after such tangents as whether I am inconvenienced by having agents of the state paw through the contents of my private automobile.
But I say again, the issue is not mere convenience. The issue is whether or not I, as a private individual, have a right to be secure in my person, home, papers, and effects -- or whether the state busybodies may nose their way through my private belongings on a mere whim.
pax
If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too. -- W. Somerset Maugham
Frosty ~
"Well, if someone can come up with a fool-proof way of identifying terrorists without inconveniencing us ..."
You said that our safety from terrorists was more important than our freedom from warrantless (and unwarrantable!) searches.
pax
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding. -- Louis D. Brandeis
Yes, you did.
"Well, if someone can come up with a fool-proof way of identifying terrorists without inconveniencing us ..."
You said that our safety from terrorists was more important than our freedom from warrantless (and unwarrantable!) searches.
pax
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding. -- Louis D. Brandeis
FPrice
Member
pax...
"Yes, you did."
Well, I guess if YOU say so, then that's what I said.
Ahhh, these exchanges become so pointless after a while.
"Yes, you did."
Well, I guess if YOU say so, then that's what I said.
Ahhh, these exchanges become so pointless after a while.
Mr. James
Member
With the exception of pax's posts, this thread may be the most depressing thing I've read on The High Road.
As a former Bainbridge resident, and past daily commuter on WSF, I find the whole notion of random searches disgusting and violative of our basic freedoms. "Ihre papieren, bitte!"
The blythe acceptance of same by members of this forum is ... well, the mind boggles.
We're one step closer to the Nerf State - where we'll wrap everything and everyone in foam rubber so the nasty, scary, pointy, jagged world can't hurt us.
God bless.
As a former Bainbridge resident, and past daily commuter on WSF, I find the whole notion of random searches disgusting and violative of our basic freedoms. "Ihre papieren, bitte!"
The blythe acceptance of same by members of this forum is ... well, the mind boggles.
We're one step closer to the Nerf State - where we'll wrap everything and everyone in foam rubber so the nasty, scary, pointy, jagged world can't hurt us.
God bless.
- Status