Court rules NY police can search bags at subways....

[Section106]

Regarding the subway searches: in a perfect world, where we could live with our constitutional rights in tact forever, I would be a happy man. But, since I ride the subway every day to and from work, I'm ok with the searches. They are very infrequent, and if you don't want your bag searched, it's pretty simple: take the bus or get on at a different entrance.

What would happen if you refused to have your bag searched? I'm curious.

Would you be arrested as a terrorist or simply made to leave the subway?

[Kilmer17]

I hate it when they check my cart leaving Sams Club. But Im not suing to stop it.

[Larry]

I hate it when they check my cart leaving Sams Club. But Im not suing to stop it.

1) That's the number one reason why I don't shop at Sam's Club.

2) Sam's Club (probably) wasn't built with your tax dollars, and (probably) isn't subsidised with them. (Although I don't doubt that some of them are.)

3) People who shop at Sam's Club know they're going to be checked when they leave. (Although I'd say, if someone, after his first visit, demands his membership money back, he should get it.)

[Kilmer17]

1) That's the number one reason why I don't shop at Sam's Club.

2) Sam's Club (probably) wasn't built with your tax dollars, and (probably) isn't subsidised with them. (Although I don't doubt that some of them are.)

3) People who shop at Sam's Club know they're going to be checked when they leave. (Although I'd say, if someone, after his first visit, demands his membership money back, he should get it.)

Im just pointing out how ridiculous it is to get up in arms over a security check. You dont HAVE to ride the subway either.

[jwpanic]

Im just pointing out how ridiculous it is to get up in arms over a security check. You dont HAVE to ride the subway either.

actually, alot of people DO have to ride the subway. between unimaginable traffic, a complete lack of parking, and high taxes many people in new york don't own a car. a lot of my friends don't even have a drivers license.

[Kilmer17]

actually, alot of people DO have to ride the subway. between unimaginable traffic, a complete lack of parking, and high taxes many people in new york don't own a car. a lot of my friends don't even have a drivers license.

No they DONT.

That's the most convenient, the cheapest, etc. But they arent FORCED to ride it.

[Coooleeey]

I hate it when they check my cart leaving Sams Club. But Im not suing to stop it.

Someone probably already tried and lost. It's privately owned and as private owners they have the right to verify purchases in a way to deter theft. The airport checks match up well with this argument but not Sams Club, two different scenarios. You are trying to say we should be upset b/c blockbuster puts detectors by their doors in order to deter people from stealing movies.

As a DC metro rider I look out for strange stuff, maybe I'm a little paraniod. I would be upset if I had to be searched occasionally. They should install detectors of some sort of xray machines in order to check for bombs or heavy weaponry.

I'm totally against someone being arrested and charged for things found during a subway search. For instance lets say someone had some pot on them and were randomly searched in the subway. I don't agree with them being arrested or charged with possesion even though it is illegal the search was done against their rights. Look for weapons of mass destruction and let people move on...

[Coooleeey]

No they DONT.

That's the most convenient, the cheapest, etc. But they arent FORCED to ride it.

You're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

If you ride you are subject to random searches. If you don't you are subject to criticism for overuse of gasoline and hurting the environment. We can't have it both ways, either accept people have no choice in the city or force more affordable alternate solutions.

[Kilmer17]

The "right to privacy" doesnt extend to every situation all of the time.

If you dont want your bags or person searched, then dont ride the subway.

I'd argue it doesnt exist at all, but that's awholenother thread.

[Coooleeey]

The "right to privacy" doesnt extend to every situation all of the time.

If you dont want your bags or person searched, then dont ride the subway.

I'd argue it doesnt exist at all, but that's awholenother thread.

I agree you can't expect a right to privacy all the time, things would get out of hand.

Now that its public I'm sure people will be ready for searches and such. I don't 100% object to it but in my mind, from my daily metro riding, they could have explored other options before flat out violating peoples rights.

What is "it" that doesn't exist?

[Larry]

Im just pointing out how ridiculous it is to get up in arms over a security check. You dont HAVE to ride the subway either.

A lot of people aren't FORCED to have a job. Or to buy groceries. Or use electricity. That doesn't mean that the Constitution only applies to self-suffecient Amish farmers.

But the subway is a fundamental part of the lives of a great many citizens.

"Let them eat cake" isn't a good reason to claim that the government's only taking away rights from people who want bread.

[Kilmer17]

No rights were violated.

Not even a little bit.

"It" refers to the mythical "right to privacy" altogether. For ease of use though lets just focus on why the right to privacy doesnt apply to these searches. You do not have that right in this instance.

[Larry]

The "right to privacy" doesnt extend to every situation all of the time.

If you dont want your bags or person searched, then dont ride the subway.

I'd argue it doesnt exist at all, but that's awholenother thread.

And don't leave your apartment.

And don't use a telephone.

And don't speak to anyone.

Don't use cash.

Don't have a bank account.

Don't have a cell phone or a gun.

(Somebody tell me again that the terrorists hate us because they hate freedom.)

[Thiebear]

Random searches should be allowed where 20-50-100-300 people crowd together for public transportation.

It's being spelled out ahead of time if you wish to ride you must abide, so there should be no miscommunication.

[Larry]

No rights were violated.

Not even a little bit.

"It" refers to the mythical "right to privacy" altogether. For ease of use though lets just focus on why the right to privacy doesnt apply to these searches. You do not have that right in this instance.

1) The right to privacy is not "mythical". Among other things, it's the primary focus of the Fourth Ammendment.

Let's turn things around: In your opinion, when does the government not have the authority to search you?

[Larry]

Random searches should be allowed where 20-50-100-300 people crowd together for public transportation.

It's being spelled out ahead of time if you wish to ride you must abide, so there should be no miscommunication.

If the typical Manhattan sidewalk has 30 pedestrians ber block, then does the entire island of Manhattan become immune to the Constitution?

[Kilmer17]

1) The right to privacy is not "mythical". Among other things, it's the primary focus of the Fourth Ammendment.

Let's turn things around: In your opinion, when does the government not have the authority to search you?

The 4th deals with searches, not with privacy. But it applies here. The key wording is this-The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

The court has ruled that random searches do not violate this right.

My own opinion is that if you are in your house, and the Govt has no cause to believe you are breaking the law inside, you have the 4th Amendment protection.

Once you leave your own space, you grant the right to be searched to the Govt.

This is no different than boarding an airline.

[PokerPacker]

If the typical Manhattan sidewalk has 30 pedestrians ber block, then does the entire island of Manhattan become immune to the Constitution?

sure does. haven't you heard, there could be a criminal among those people .

[Destino]

No rights were violated.

Not even a little bit.

"It" refers to the mythical "right to privacy" altogether. For ease of use though lets just focus on why the right to privacy doesnt apply to these searches. You do not have that right in this instance.

Mythical? The constitution clearly puts limits on searches. Unless you can't read or refuse to there is no way you could miss 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, 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."

Mythical? That conclusion is similar to those stating that signs aren't protected speech because signs can't speak.

[Destino]

Once you leave your own space, you grant the right to be searched to the Govt.

This is no different than boarding an airline.

So then you just ignore the "secure in their persons" part and skip right to house?

I think "reasonable" is posted criteria for bording an aircraft. People are aware of it and can decide how they will behave accordingly. I think unreasonable is any time a place a cop chooses to search you just because he feels like it.

[Kilmer17]

So then you just ignore the "secure in their persons" part and skip right to house?

I guess as much as those who think this is an issue ignore the word "UNREASONABLE".

[Larry]

I guess as much as those who think this is an issue ignore the word "UNREASONABLE".

Somehow when the framers wrote that, I don't think their definition of "unreasonable" was "any person who sets foot outside his locked house".

[nelms]

Somehow when the framers wrote that, I don't think their definition of "unreasonable" was "any person who sets foot outside his locked house".

You are a joke. The government isn't searching you in your front yard. The government isn't searching you at the grocery store. The government isn't searching you at the gas station or the dry cleaners or video store or the 7-11 or the ...... You just don't get it, do you? The government is trying to protect YOU from the threat of terrorism at locations where massive amounts of people congregate. Do you really think the government really wants to do this to invade your privacy? Do you really think your private life is sooooo important that they want to waste the time, money, and resources to search your man purse?

The libs of this country never cease to amaze me.

[Kilmer17]

So then you just ignore the "secure in their persons" part and skip right to house?

I think "reasonable" is posted criteria for bording an aircraft. People are aware of it and can decide how they will behave accordingly. I think unreasonable is any time a place a cop chooses to search you just because he feels like it.

Im not advocating that in this thread either. But it's not unreasonable to be searched before boarding mass transit.

[Thiebear]

If the typical Manhattan sidewalk has 30 pedestrians ber block, then does the entire island of Manhattan become immune to the Constitution?

Can you tell me the average distance of a block vs.

The average distance in a bus.. for 30 people.

Edit: If you said (Concert at the Mall for example, I'd agains say sure), its a luxury event, to participate you should make sure your safe for those around you...

Or 10 blocks vs. 300 people in an airplane..

focus grasshopper.. your going out on a tangent that doesn't correlate.