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

[Sarge]

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.)

You forgot, "Don't use a public service where the safety of others comes into play"

[skins4eva]

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?

You could simply walk away...unless of course the refusual rises to the level of reasonable suspicion, which it probably would not since you have a right to walk away from an officer who asks you a question without raising reasonable suspicion...of course in the real world, they might stop you.

[skins4eva]

No they DONT.

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

Of course they are not forced, but for all intents and purposes, it is the only way to get to where you are going. I don't own a car, live on the UES and work on Wall St. It's too expensive to take a cab, the buses don't really go all the way down to wall from UES...the subway is the main mode of transport for most of the city, and the most efficient mode. During the transit strike, I walked to work, 6 miles both ways, so it's a little disingenious to suggest that people don't need to ride the subway.

[Section106]

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.

Just wait until a terrorist attacks a grocery store, or a mall, or a gas station, or a dry cleaners, or video store, etc... Where will it stop?

The government isn't protecting us from the threat of terrorism. That is a ludicrous statement. The government is using the threat of terrorism to abridge the Constitution and give more expansive powers to itself at the expense of personal freedom.

And I do think this government wants to invade our privacy. Have you read about Bushco's secret and unaccountable domestic spying program?

The Reeps of this country amaze me in that they would give up their rights because they're afraid. Cowards, every last one of them.

[Kilmer17]

Of course they are not forced, but for all intents and purposes, it is the only way to get to where you are going. I don't own a car, live on the UES and work on Wall St. It's too expensive to take a cab, the buses don't really go all the way down to wall from UES...the subway is the main mode of transport for most of the city, and the most efficient mode. During the transit strike, I walked to work, 6 miles both ways, so it's a little disingenious to suggest that people don't need to ride the subway.

You cite it perfectly. You NEED to, not HAVE to.

You dont have to work where you've chosen to work. You CAN walk 6 miles.

This is an important concept to grasp. So follow along.

If the Govt FORCES you to comply with a search for no reason except that they want to search you, that's a violation.

In this case though, the Govt is searching you BECAUSE YOU have chosen to do something, ride the subway. Similar events happen when you CHOOSE to fly in an airplane.

That's the difference.

[nelms]

The government isn't protecting us from the threat of terrorism. That is a ludicrous statement. The government is using the threat of terrorism to abridge the Constitution and give more expansive powers to itself at the expense of personal freedom.

Yeah, Bush really cares about that dime bag you're carrying in your man purse. :insane:

[skins4eva]

You cite it perfectly. You NEED to, not HAVE to.

You dont have to work where you've chosen to work. You CAN walk 6 miles.

This is an important concept to grasp. So follow along.

If the Govt FORCES you to comply with a search for no reason except that they want to search you, that's a violation.

In this case though, the Govt is searching you BECAUSE YOU have chosen to do something, ride the subway. Similar events happen when you CHOOSE to fly in an airplane.

That's the difference.

I'm not arguing that a distinction doesn't exist. I know that it does. I also believe that the searches are not unconstitutional. However, airplanes are run by private entities, which have an undeniable right to search whomever they allow onto their planes. The subway is run by a state government and is therefore a public actor. So the comparison, to me, is not the same. Secondly, air travel and public transportation are not really comparable. The same scrutiny that comes with air travel is not the expectation when one travels on the subway. Prior to the subway searches, one had an expectation of privacy in ones contents on the subway. However, courts in NY use a balancing act when determining whether a search or seizure is permissible.

I don't have to chose where I work? That's true. I can walk six miles--that's also true. But that's a very weak argument. What about people who can't physically walk six miles--should they not be subjected to searches on the subway because it would be a "forced" search due to the fact that the must ride the subway? Where's the distinction? The law looks to function not form.

[Section106]

Yeah, Bush really cares about that dime bag you're carrying in your man purse. :insane:

So you're saying you've got nothing. Nice use of the smiley though.

[Larry]

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.

Ah, at last. A second "conservative" chimes in.

First, the gratuitous personal insult.

Then his own opinion on the aplicibility of the US Constitution.

After our first spokesman declares that the Constitution doesn't apply whenever anyone sets foot outside his house, we then get a second opinion from someone who appears positively Libertarian: He thinks that as long as the Government isn't patting people down in their front yards or video stores, then yep, the Constitution's still good, no problem here. (Followed by the stunning reasoning that well, we're ignoring the Constitution for a good cause, and a few more insults.)

Heck, nelms, that was one of your better posts. It actually contained a point in between the insults. (Granted, it was a wrong point, but still, effort should be rewarded.)

[Larry]

So you're saying you've got nothing. Nice use of the smiley though.

Well, he's not really saying he's got nothing.

He's saying he's got nothing but insults.

[Redskins Diehard]

I'm not arguing that a distinction doesn't exist. I know that it does. I also believe that the searches are not unconstitutional. However, airplanes are run by private entities, which have an undeniable right to search whomever they allow onto their planes. The subway is run by a state government and is therefore a public actor. So the comparison, to me, is not the same. Secondly, air travel and public transportation are not really comparable. The same scrutiny that comes with air travel is not the expectation when one travels on the subway. Prior to the subway searches, one had an expectation of privacy in ones contents on the subway. However, courts in NY use a balancing act when determining whether a search or seizure is permissible.

Who searched you the last time you were getting on a plane? It wasn't the Delta Airlines Police. And what happens if you have unauthorized "stuff" in your posession? You face the possibility of criminal charges. Not like sneaking a beer into Fed Ex where a private entity searches you for its own benefit. The government is responsible for securing air transportation. The distinction I see is that in the air travel scenario it is the federal government involved, in this one it appears to be a local government.

[nelms]

Ah, at last. A second "conservative" chimes in.

First, the gratuitous personal insult.

Then his own opinion on the aplicibility of the US Constitution.

After our first spokesman declares that the Constitution doesn't apply whenever anyone sets foot outside his house, we then get a second opinion from someone who appears positively Libertarian: He thinks that as long as the Government isn't patting people down in their front yards or video stores, then yep, the Constitution's still good, no problem here. (Followed by the stunning reasoning that well, we're ignoring the Constitution for a good cause, and a few more insults.)

Heck, nelms, that was one of your better posts. It actually contained a point in between the insults. (Granted, it was a wrong point, but still, effort should be rewarded.)

I see that you didn't actually debate my point. Very typical of you.

[Larry]

I see that you didn't actually debate my point. Very typical of you.

I did debate your point. I even congratulated you on having one, and having the guts to actually state it.

Your point (that as long as the Constitution isn't being violated in your front yard, then it's OK with you, and your point that the government is ignoring the Constitution because they're protecting the Constitution) was so laughable that it didn't need a lot of debate. But I did respond to it. And I applaud your efforts.

Perhaps eventually you'll reach the point that you'll be able to state a point that makes sense.