NY being sued because of subway bag searches

[Mustaine]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050804/ap_on_re_us/transit_security_lawsuit

all lawyers should be shot.

all people bringing BS lawsuits to trial should be shot

all people who say they have been harmed emotionally by a security search should be shot

[RTSigma]

I like how people sue the department because they feel the searches don't help.


IF YOU SUE FOR MONEY THEN THE STATE DOESN"T HAVE THE MONEY TO SUPPORT EFFECTIVE SEARCHES.


People who do this should be beaten!

[Sandman]

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.

[Chairboy]

Aw geez, someone's always bringing that dang "Bill of Rights" thing into the conversation.  It's so dang inconvenient.

[Skydancer]

Lawyers pfffft

Talking of New york did anyone see that the British govt is a tad P O d with the NYPD. Apparently they've published details of how the bombs in london were made! Doesn't seem a very bright thing to do!

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Sandman
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.

and were in there does it say they have the RIGHT to ride the subway?

It doesn't.  No one is being FORCED, it is strictly volutary.  If you do not wish to have your bag searched don't ride the subway.

AND

Dont forget about this little dandy "against unreasonable searches "

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
and were in there does it say they have the RIGHT to ride the subway?

It doesn't.  No one is being FORCED, it is strictly volutary.  If you do not wish to have your bag searched don't ride the subway.

AND

Dont forget about this little dandy "against unreasonable searches "

One could argue that if it is public transportation and subsidized with public funds, you do indeed have a right to use it.

Reasonable or not is subjective.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Sandman
One could argue that if it is public transportation and subsidized with public funds, you do indeed have a right to use it.

Reasonable or not is subjective.

and were does it say that in the constitution?  

does a person have a RIGHT to carry a bag on a subway train?  Couldnt the transportation authority say "no bags allowed"  To me that would certainly solve the problem but a volutary bag search wich isn't "unreasonable" at all seems to be a nice little comprimise dont you thing?

[lasersailor184]

I think I heard a judge make a ruling on this (a while back).


They can search random bags to try to prevent an attack.

They can't search random bags to try to catch a criminal.  I.E. They can't randomly search bags for evidence.

[jEEZY]

Is it unreasonable to search people at the airport? Why is this any different? I belive the crux of the lawsuit centers on the selection of certain ethnic groups for searching--aka profiling. Is profiling per se unreasonable? (the Sup. Ct. sez no) That is the question asked by the law suit. I think that the ACLU will not like the answer, nor the precedent it sets for NY courts.

Oh btw, you do not have a right to ride public transportaion--that is clearly established. So you probably dont have a right to carry a bag full of explosives on the train either.  

In other areas, cops generally have to have probable cause to search you or your car without a warrant. However, my experiance has been that if the cops want to know what you got they are going to search you. Truely, the 4th amendment, as it stands now, is only effective when you are sitting at home.

[Sandman]

Airplanes are private property.

[lasersailor184]

Not if my government is paying for them.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Sandman
Airplanes are private property.

but subsidised by the fed govt while passengers are screened by federal workers and AIRPORTS are in some cases federal property.

Again it does not say in the constitution that one has the right to ride a subway.  denying somone subway privilages is not denying them any civil right (unless you did it under fowl circumstances IE race/religion)

what this boils down to is this group and a FEW subway riders don't like the way the NYPD is doing this and want it done differently.  I guess they feel lawyers know better than trained profesionals....

EDIT:  on their same argument one could say that bag searches and metal detectors at public schools are unconstitutional.

[Charon]

Lawsuits like these are a mechanism by which you establish things like the extent of a right. They are a valid, and intergal part of the process. [edit: they add specific clarity, though you may or may not like what that clarity is You can bump it up through appeals to get a higher degree of final clarity.]

Charon

[Maverick]

It is true that most airliners are private property. However, very few airports are. Certainly the airspace above 15,000 is federally managed. All navigation aids with the exception of some NDB's are governmentally owned and maintained. The Controllers in the tower as well as enroute are also not private. So in short you might own the jet but what are you going to do with it if you can't fly in the upper airways and get weather briefs or talk to the tower?