Discussion relating to the past and present operations of the NYC Subway, PATH, and Staten Island Railway (SIRT).

Moderator: GirlOnTheTrain

  by One of One-Sixty
 
Challenge Filed on Behalf of Five New Yorkers, Including a 9/11 Survivor

NEW YORK -- In response to the New York Police Department's unprecedented policy of subjecting millions of New Yorkers to suspicionless searches, the New York Civil Liberties Union today filed a lawsuit to halt the practice.

"This NYPD bag search policy is unprecedented, unlawful and ineffective," said Donna Lieberman, Executive Director of the NYCLU. "It is essential that police be aggressive in maintaining security in public transportation. But our very real concerns about terrorism do not justify the NYPD subjecting millions of innocent people to suspicionless searches in a way that does not identify any person seeking to engage in terrorist activity and is unlikely to have any meaningful deterrent effect on terrorist activity."

The lawsuit filed today in federal court argues that the NYPD is violating the Fourth Amendment rights of commuters by adopting and enforcing a policy of randomly searching possessions of those seeking to enter the subway system. Since the police adopted this policy two weeks ago, officers have searched the purses, handbags, briefcases and backpacks of thousands of people, all without any suspicion of wrongdoing.

The NYCLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of five New Yorkers who are deeply concerned about the civil liberties and safety implications of the bag search policy:

· Brendan MacWade survived the World Trade Center attacks of 9/11. He was recently searched by the NYPD at the Chambers Street station.

· Partha Banerjee is concerned that if he is searched some of the political materials he carries in his bag might prompt retaliation, and he also worries that his skin color might cause police to single him out for searches.

· Joseph Gehring, an attorney, a lifelong Republican, and son of a police officer, is concerned that a search of the papers he keeps in his bag might violate the confidential privilege he shares with his clients.

· Norman Murphy goes out of his way to avoid being searched by police because he considers it a violation of his civil liberties

· Andrew Schonebaum's bag was searched recently, prompting him to join the lawsuit to express his concerns.

In addition to violating the constitutional rights of millions of subway riders, the NYPD policy appears to be ineffective as a security measure, the NYCLU said. At any given time, the NYPD is not conducting searches at the majority of subway entrances. They are giving advance notice about searches at subway entrances where searches are being conducted, and allowing people selected for a search to refuse to comply and walk away. In addition, the NYPD is not basing the searches on any suspicious activity of individuals.

As common sense would suggest, the NYPD's program is virtually certain to fail at catching any person trying to carry explosives into the subway system or deterring such an effort, the NYCLU said. Indeed, given the way the department has implemented its search program, the only people being searched are users of the subway system who have exhibited no suspicious activity.

Although the NYPD claims they are conducting searches on a random basis, the large number of people entering the transit system and the lack of control over that traffic results in people being selected for search in a discretionary and arbitrary manner, which creates the potential for impermissible racial profiling.

"We have no objection to reasonable searches, but we cannot and will not stand by while the police department seeks to expunge the Fourth Amendment from the Constitution with a program that subjects millions of people to suspicionless searches and that serves virtually no public-safety purpose," said Christopher Dunn, Associate Legal Director of the NYCLU and lead counsel on the case.

Long-established constitutional principles hold that individuals retain the right to move about on public streets and thoroughfares freely and without police intrusions and that, as a general matter, police officers may not search individuals on sidewalks and thoroughfares in the absence of individualized suspicion.

The NYCLU lawsuit, which names as defendants Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly and the City of New York, was filed today in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Assisting on the case are Arthur Eisenberg, Legal Director of the NYCLU, and staff attorneys Jeff Fogel and Palyn Hung.

  by Robert Paniagua
 
I actually read about that in the newspapers. It was expected that the ACLU (or in this case, the NYCLU) would "get involved". Although I do agree with the searches, I can't say the same thing for what the NYCLU says.

Any other views?

  by Allan
 
Too bad they don't publish the addresses of the 5 people they quote. I would send each one of the a case of Depends.

  by pgengler
 
Robert Paniagua wrote:I actually read about that in the newspapers. It was expected that the ACLU (or in this case, the NYCLU) would "get involved". Although I do agree with the searches, I can't say the same thing for what the NYCLU says.

Any other views?
This topic has been covered in a few other places on the board (here, for one, and it generally doesn't end well. That being said, there's no reason a civil discussion can't be had on the matter.

I disagree with you, Mr. Paniagua, and agree with the NYCLU. The subway system is a public place, and people who use it be able to expect that anything they carry in a bag (out of plain sight) would remain that way, unless there's a reason to search them.

The random searches don't add much in security (even searching 25% of people leaves a 75% chance someone with a bomb could get by, and they could just decline to be searched and go somewhere else), and are an encroachment on our Constitutional protection against "unreasonable searches." I feel that these searches are unreasonable because people's belongings are being searched on no other basis than the fact that someone might try to bring a bomb onto a train.

I also think this leads to a slippery slope. The London attacks used homemade explosive devices, so should we accept "random" police searches of our homes since some people might be making bombs that they might use in an attack? I bet there'd be a lot of opposition to that, and I can't understand why people think that these searches (which are sometimes 'forced' under the threat of "consent to a search or miss work" for people whose sole method of transportation is the subway) are any different.

(EDIT: For a longer-winded version of my views on it, check here (my site).)

  by 4 Express
 
pgengler wrote:
Robert Paniagua wrote:I actually read about that in the newspapers. It was expected that the ACLU (or in this case, the NYCLU) would "get involved". Although I do agree with the searches, I can't say the same thing for what the NYCLU says.

Any other views?
This topic has been covered in a few other places on the board (here, for one, and it generally doesn't end well. That being said, there's no reason a civil discussion can't be had on the matter.

I disagree with you, Mr. Paniagua, and agree with the NYCLU. The subway system is a public place, and people who use it be able to expect that anything they carry in a bag (out of plain sight) would remain that way, unless there's a reason to search them.

The random searches don't add much in security (even searching 25% of people leaves a 75% chance someone with a bomb could get by, and they could just decline to be searched and go somewhere else), and are an encroachment on our Constitutional protection against "unreasonable searches." I feel that these searches are unreasonable because people's belongings are being searched on no other basis than the fact that someone might try to bring a bomb onto a train.

I also think this leads to a slippery slope. The London attacks used homemade explosive devices, so should we accept "random" police searches of our homes since some people might be making bombs that they might use in an attack? I bet there'd be a lot of opposition to that, and I can't understand why people think that these searches (which are sometimes 'forced' under the threat of "consent to a search or miss work" for people whose sole method of transportation is the subway) are any different.

(EDIT: For a longer-winded version of my views on it, check here (my site).)
This may not be the best method availible but it's all we have, so we're just going to have to deal with it for now until we get better security.

  by pgengler
 
4 Express wrote:This may not be the best method availible but it's all we have, so we're just going to have to deal with it for now until we get better security.
I don't really see why we need this, though, from a security perspective. Security could be tighter, as it is technically possible to search the bag of every passenger boarding every train (now, would people stand for that? That's a different discussion.). Even searching 25% of people means that 75% of the time, people will board without a hassle, whether they're a commuter or someone with a bomb.

These measures are in place mostly to make people feel better, not to have any security impact, which makes the encroachment on civil liberties even worse, in my opinion.

(On a related note, I thoroughly enjoyed reading about how the searches were considered a "success" on the first day they were implemented. No one detonated a bomb today? Our new measures must be working, even if no one detonated a bomb on the subway yesterday (without the searches), or the day before, or the day before that ...)

  by 4 Express
 
pgengler wrote:
4 Express wrote:This may not be the best method availible but it's all we have, so we're just going to have to deal with it for now until we get better security.
I don't really see why we need this, though, from a security perspective. Security could be tighter, as it is technically possible to search the bag of every passenger boarding every train (now, would people stand for that? That's a different discussion.). Even searching 25% of people means that 75% of the time, people will board without a hassle, whether they're a commuter or someone with a bomb.

These measures are in place mostly to make people feel better, not to have any security impact, which makes the encroachment on civil liberties even worse, in my opinion.

(On a related note, I thoroughly enjoyed reading about how the searches were considered a "success" on the first day they were implemented. No one detonated a bomb today? Our new measures must be working, even if no one detonated a bomb on the subway yesterday (without the searches), or the day before, or the day before that ...)
Well, you can always give the MTA a suggestion about security.

  by RedSoxSuck
 
It seems that the NYCLU and some of you are confusing the two issues at play here. They are (1) whether or not the searches, as they are currently being carried out, are effective in stopping terrorism, and (2) whether or not the searches are constitutional. It seems to me that part of the claim of the NYCLU is that they are unconstitutional because the are ineffective, which I believe is flawed logic.

I think that while discussing this matter, we should make an effort to be very clear as to which of the issues we are debating.