I know its a new rule that they can search anyone at anytime they feel like it...but is it a law?
The subway has thousands of entrances that terrorists can get thru with no detection. Does Bush think manning only a handful of entrances is going to stop a terrorist?
Soon the govt will have the right to stop me anytime anywhere to seach my bag for NO APPARENT REASON. I was just WALKING for godsake! What is this...communist China?
MEANWHILE, MEXICAN AND CANADIAN BORDERS ARE WIDE OPEN!! WHO'S MANNING THE BORDERS?
2007-03-13 11:20:21 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Actually, the searches in the New York City subways are not based on a specific city law or ordinance.
The Supreme Court has ruled that random searches by police in public places are constitutionally acceptable. The police do not need to articulate a reasonable suspicion, or a reason why they're searching you, so long as you were randomly selected, as opposed to being singled out for a reason, such as race, or even something like long hair or having any other specific characteristic.
If you choose to use the subways, you are deemed to be consenting to such a possible search.
2007-03-14 00:23:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
My father is a high-ranking police officer in NYC and while I don't usually agree with him on anything, I have to say that I think these searches are very reasonable. Wouldn't you rather have them search your bag randomly so you could feel safer about bombs and subway terrorists? It's nothing personal against you, they're just trying to make mass transport safer for the public. While this may not be the most convenient way to do it, I think it's better than nothing. But I'm only 15 and that's just my opinion.
2007-03-13 12:43:16 · answer #2 · answered by Dr Fernando 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was an illegal search. They didn't have a warrant, and they had no reasonable suspicion that you were about to do something illegal. Its the same thing when a cop pulls you over and asks to search your vehicle. They need a warrant unless you are in possession of illegal items that are clearly visible in your vehicle. In reality, like the excessive screening at airports, it is nothing more than government propaganda that they are "securing" the country. It is based on the simple fact that you are more likely to use the subway or catch a flight than you are going to cross the border. It has nothing to do with security.
Statistically, you are still more likely to be shot dead by a member of law enforcement than you are to die from a terrorists attack (also, TEN times more likely to accidentally drown than die of a terrorist attack). Stats taken from 1995-2005.
While there is no problem with the border with Canada being open (Canadians aren't the problem, ILLEGAL Mexicans are costing SW states millions of dollars that should be spent on the needs of the LEGAL citizens of their state) the federal government has failed to protect the sovereignty of this country by not securing the southern border.
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.
ADDED NOTE:
Using the argument that you are consenting to be searched when you use the subway (tax-payer funded transit), then also you are not free from a random police search if you are pulled over on the road (ALSO tax-payer funded transit). The parallel being backpack and vehicle both personal property.
A car filled with explosives is just as likely to occur as a backpack filled with explosives. Even worse, a van filled with explosives could theoritically cause more death and destruction than a backpack filled with explosives (as seen in the Middle East). So, in the name of safety, should the police pull over more vans because of the greater potential danger?
Live free or die. Only cowards live in a police state.
2007-03-13 11:53:00 · answer #3 · answered by wedge5242548 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, it's a law. Actually a city ordinance.
Just like they can require you to consent to a search as part of your getting on an airplane, they can require you to consent to a search as part of you using the subway system.
The 4th Amendment is not implicated becaue you consented to the search by choosing to ride the subway system. You had the right to refuse the search, by leaving the subway system.
As long as they are not being racially discriminatory by searching members of only specific races -- as long as the search is random, it's been held by the courts to be constitutional.
2007-03-13 12:47:25 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you will possibly be able to desire to be one unlucky woman. Of the 339 questions you asked, approximately 330 of them are this comparable question. How oftentimes do you get stopped? you have the best to stay off the subway. you besides mght have the best to stay silent. might I propose you utilize that stunning till you are able to think of of yet another question? the reason there are random searches is because of the fact the bleeding hearts say no profiling. in case you do no longer like it, vote for judges who won't legislate from the bench.
2016-10-18 07:36:27 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you have no rights I hate to say, they can simply state reasonable suspicion for an excuse to search someone. here in Arkansas they ask to search your car if you say no they put you in cuffs and get a search warrant. you obviously gave them permission to look even if it was under protest.
2007-03-13 11:35:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wouldn't you rather that then for someone to have a bomb in their bag that was overlooked- while they were riding with you?
2007-03-13 12:17:41 · answer #7 · answered by julie j 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋