Quote:

So what do you suggest I do? Refuse the search, leave the station, and end up late for work?

State. It's obviously a nonsense ruling, but as it stands it's the law of the land.

http://www.nyclu.org/pdfs/mta_searches_suit_080405.pdf

The state governments are bound by the US 4th amendment due to the 14th amendment 's equal protection clause. But it won't be enforced without a federal ruling.

Everyone who consents to these searches betrays the freedoms that our ancestors shed their blood to protect, while giving up your dignity and human rights at the same time.

The searches are obviously mean to spread fear and eliminate the notion of rights, not to protect anyone.

Quote:

I'm not saying there is a 4th Amendment problem with what the Port Authority is doing in the PATH system, but state governments are bound by the the 4th Amendment just like the federal government.

Quote:

You're probably right. I must've been confusing them with the Federal government. (The organization that is supposed to protect our rights, instead of take them away.)

I know this sounds redundant, I've posted it before, "the only thing they are protecting is their overtime". Wise up folks.

There was a lawsuit several years ago regarding the 4th amendment and it was rejected by the court. So live with it or take the ferry where they don't look through your things:

http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/law/20060828/13/1959

There's no question everybody would be just as up-in-arms and blame law enforcement for a major failure if something DID happen. Except that idiots don't realize the types of things they are trying to prevent are nearly impossible to prevent.

Law enforcement's mere presence is more of a deterrent than the searches.

Quote:

Right. I'm going to stay home from work just because I don't want the police to look in my bag and see my *gasp* lunch and shoes.

I would say no just because it pisses me off. I don't break any laws but it is scary to me to give enforcement even MORE power. I've seen it abused frequently.

I believe the official policy of the Port Authority is that should you decline a search, which you are totally within your rights to do, you cannot board at that station ad that time and the specific bag you refuse to be allowed searched is never to allowed back on the PATH in the future. (This policy is more or less unenforceable since maybe you just have two identical bags, but I digress).

Unwarranted searches are allowed for specific and finite circumstances like entering a baseball stadium or subway system. The troubling trend is a slow expansion of what has been considered specific and finite, particularly now that searches are conducted without specific threats being made.

Another unilateral expansion of policing powers is the non-probable cause search beyond the entrance of the system. This has always been a gray area in that precise direction has not been ruled on. However, when the PA first instituted their bag search policy, it was only applicable before entering the system, at which point users could choose to opt in and ride or opt out and leave. In theory, once you were in the system, you could not be searched without probable cause. However, I have heard that they have once again expanded their own powers by declaring that they can search a bag once you are the system or be asked to leave.

I have heard that in the New York Subway system, the ACLU's threat of legal action has helped dictate the rules of engagement on bag searches. Specifically, only threats to public safety can be scrutinized during bag searches-- so if you bag has explosives or weapons, this is a problem, but that even if they open up your bag and find a kilo of cocaine, they will ignore it because its not a specific terroristic threat. In essence, this preserves the Fourth Amendment protections while also providing for public safety. This is only rumor, so I wouldn't try trafficking drugs through the subway based on this.

I eagerly await the day when we all just walk around nude with clear plastic bags with our stuff in it. We will be safer; well safer until they come up with the rectal bomb.

Pardon my crass, but the last bomber had it in his underwear, what will a bag search really do?

Those searches are a complete waste..just like those three stuopid questions they ask at the airport as if someone with evil-intent can't lie. If someone with malicious intentions really wanted to rid the PATH, they could easily circumvent the searches.

I think this is just a way for the cops to get overtime!

Also, to what "court decision" are you referring? State court or federal court? Do you have the citation handy? I'd like to read it.

Quote:

I didn't ask to leave instead of being searched, so I don't know if they would have let me.

That said, refusing the search didn't cross my mind since I needed to get to work and I don't care if the police see my turkey sandwich and work shoes.

Sorry, to clarify...

The court decision that allows them to search you on your way into the train gives you the choice to refuse the search, leave, and board the train at another station. They can only search something large enough to be seriously dangerous (not the exact wording though it's about that vague).

The claim I heard was that people were not being allowed to walk away, or were being bullied into searching with threats, or were having things like pockets searched, which is not allowed by the court decision.

The court decision is obviously unconstitutional, but it's basically the rules under which the police are (supposed to be) operating currently.

Was anyone not given the choice to refuse the search (and thereby denied entry into that station, but with civil rights somewhat intact).

My bag was searched at Exchange Place a few weeks ago during the morning rush. The officer asked me to open my bag, poked around in it, and let me go on my way. It took 30 seconds or less.

I assume that the Port Authority has made use of the PATH system conditional upon one's assent to the search of their bags. If so, the current search regime doesn't seem to violate any 4th amendment principles of which I'm aware.

Anyone have any info (even anecdotal) of anyone's person being searched?

Searching without probable cause violates the 4th amendment.

I personally don't mind the searches. I've been searched twice at Grove, though before I passed through the turnstyles.

Both times it was a bag I was carrying and it was no worse than going to the airport.

It was quick and I didn't miss my train.

Better safe than sorry in my opinion. Plus its nice seeing some police presence.

I heard (from only one source so far) that searches are taking place at the PATH inconsistently with the (questionable) court decision. Today and yesterday, evening rush, in the city.

For example searching past the turnstyles, threatening people with biting dogs. During the evening rush.

I hope that these rumors are unfounded or isolated, the last time I heard of something like this (a few years ago) it turned out to be confirmed by many sources, as shocking as it sounds.