Cops rip judge: 'It's giving an open door to terrorists'

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/213958p-184246c.html ^ | 7-20-04 | R. GEARTY and M. McPHEE

[OXENinFLA]

NYPD cops blasted a federal judge's ruling aimed at stopping them from searching demonstrators' bags outside the Republican National Convention, saying the decision gives "an open door to terrorists."

Manhattan Federal Judge Robert Sweet's decision - made public yesterday - prohibits blanket searches of bulky bags and backpacks in the absence of a "specific threat."

"In this day and age of terrorism, it's an extremely dangerous step in a very dangerous time in New York City," said an outraged Michael Palladino, president of the Detectives Endowment Association.

"It's giving an open door to terrorists, and further handcuffing police at a time that they should be given a little bit more latitude," Palladino said. He said he plans to urge Mayor Bloomberg to appeal the ruling.

Sweet's decision also limits how many streets the NYPD can close around Madison Square Garden, and prohibits cops from penning protesters behind metal barricades.

The ruling does not prevent the use of hand-held metal-detecting wands around the perimeter of the convention.

..............Snip

[Squantos]

Uninvited , pro or con should not get closer than the perimeter of the property to either convention for security reasons IMO. Barriers and badges and lots of crash fire trucks with water cannon filled with dye to mark the "peaceful protestors" who break and bum rush a secure venue for later arrest. Stomp and drag has it's place when sedition and inciting to riot replaces free speech and right to assemble in peacerful protest.

BTW........ Does Spiderman have a web page?


Stay safe !

[Hemingway's Ghost]

You would rather have someone stroll in wearing clothes made by DuPont than have a sworn police officer know what is in your bag. That is the height of foolishness, and if your view prevails, could get people killed.

My problem: "sworn" police officers will be so intent in knowing what's in everyone's bag, or so busy conducting pointless searches of the law-abiding American citizens on the train, that they'll miss the person who "strolls [on the train] wearing clothes made by DuPont"---by which I figure you mean to imply plastic explosives and the like.

You state: "Very few people would consider such a search unrerasonable, considering the threat we are under at this point." Precisely. The War on Terrorism has skewed public perception of reasonability. Figuring that everyone who boards a train is a potential terrorist merely because they're boarding the train is unreasonable. And once people grow accustomed to this lowered expectation of public privacy, the Fourth Amendment will be even more meaningless than it is now.

I'll grant you that it isn't pleasant, but it is neccessary for the preservation of a (relatively) free state.

What you're arguing for, in other words, is a suspension of the Fourth Amendment until the current unpleasantness fades in the rearview mirror. I don't agree with this at all. We're fighting for our way of life: the Fourth Amendment, as written, is a large part of our way of life.

As an American citizen, I'm not going to pitch my American way of life down the toilet simply because some of my more cowardly countrymen prefer an illusion of safety to freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Two hundred and thirty years ago those people were called Tories, and I don't care to join their modern equivalent.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Many are far more concerned with saving their skin than they are with protecting the rights and liberties that better men fought and died to secure for them. I keep wondering why they don't simply move to China where they'd be far safer from terrorists.

Time and time again I've seen this on FR: conservatives who compromise conservative principles (i.e., that the Constitution is not a living document, and it means what it says) when it's politically expedient or "safe" to do so.

[Junior]

Betcha the judge is a Democrat and is secretly hoping terrorists strike while the President's there.

[Boogada]

Well it's pretty obvious now that the Democratic party is alligned with the forces of anti-american jihadism. I bet they took money from the terrorists, probably some turban-wearing guy named Akbar, to use to buy off the judge so that they can get their braindead hippie minions to smuggle bombs into the RNC and blow up the entire Republican party! The Democrats are in it with the Muslims and they won't stop until the whole world is bowing down before a green flag with a donkey on it and some chicken-scratches refering to the greatness of Allah and his activist judges. They must be stopped!!

The entire judiciary should be vacated, and we should move to a system of bona fide Republican tribunals. Book 'em and cook 'em!

[ex 98C MI Dude]

Oh man, you ARE intent on making a mountain out of a molehill!

Okay, so lets try this on for size. The police will be forced to get a search warrant to search the bag of someone they believe is acting in a suspicious manner. In the interveneing time, the bag explodes, spewing nails and other debris over a large area, killing US citizens. Hemingway's Ghosts sits back with a satisfied smirk and says "At least the 4th Amendment is safe!" That is just plain pig-headed tomfoolery.

You would rather let the terrorist through than leave your backpack at home. You are dangerous.

[BSunday]

Hey, no problem. So instead of inspecting back packs, etc, just disallow them totally.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

The police will be forced to get a search warrant to search the bag of someone they believe is acting in a suspicious manner. In the interveneing time, the bag explodes, spewing nails and other debris over a large area, killing US citizens. Hemingway's Ghosts sits back with a satisfied smirk and says "At least the 4th Amendment is safe!" That is just plain pig-headed tomfoolery.

The police already have the power to detain and search someone they believe is acting suspiciously: they don't need a warrant to do so. I have no problem whatsoever with the MBTA police detaining and searching a swarthy-looking Middle Eastern man who boards the commuter rail sweating like a pig, acting nervously, and carrying a large duffel bag.

However, the simple act of boarding a commuter train is not behaving suspiciously, and does not in and of itself constitute the grounds necessary for detention and search. I'm not about to give up my rights as an American citizen for a false illusion of security. Feel free to do otherwise, my friend.

[NJ_gent]

I haven't really commented much on the particulars of this case, but I'll toss some thoughts down here. First of all, I don't think it's unreasonable to secure a perimeter of reasonable size around the location of the convention, and to search any baggage being taken into that secured perimeter. Now, I do think that what counts as a 'reasonable' perimeter would depend entirely on the area, traffic patterns, threat information, and other such factors. Outside of that perimeter, I don't see a compelling reason to do blanket searches, but normal search rules with regards to suspicious persons or vehicles do certainly apply.

"To open your backpack for inspection hardly puts the whole foundation of the nation in jeopardy, and is hardly risking everything."

No, but a ruling too broadly in favor of the NYPD would allow for the potential for abuse in later cases. Police could use an overly broad ruling to harass, say, anti-abortion protestors who protest outside an abortion clinic. Obviously, no one wants things to end up too broadly one way or the other.

"Are the police demanding the right to come into your home without a search warrant? No. They want to be able to search backpacks of persons who are out in public. Not all persons, mind you, just the ones carrying backpacks or other bulky containers."

Few police states became such overnight. First it's bulky backpacks of people out in public, and a few slippery slopes later you're always aware of the ever-present possibiliy of a random police search. In fact, random checkpoints to check for reasons to arrest people was the topic of a thread posted here just last night. To get to the point of having a police state, you generally need a catastrophic event to scare people into believing it's necessary for survival. We've had such an event. That's why I, and many others, scrutinize the actions of the government and law enforcement so carefully in this time. I don't want to prevent the police from doing their job, I just want to make sure they remember that their job is to secure the rights of citizens.

"To compare this to the signers of the Declaration is just too rich for words."

I made no such comparison - merely pointed out that those who risk everything are often better men than they're given credit for being; at least while they're alive.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

WTF? I just had my bag checked going to see Kenny Loggins. Is he a greater terrorist target than the POTUS?

Insanity.

[NJ_gent]

Some social 'conservatives' are the poster child for what I like to call: "Conservatives of Convenience". They're for small government, unless that government is doing something they want done - then they want it big; real big. They're all for fiscal discipline, unless they see something they want to buy, like a bunch of votes with a $530 Billion Medicare package. They're all for law and order, unless that means obeying a law or judge's ruling they dislike. And they're all for the Bill of Rights, unless something has frightened them, in which case you may as well put that silly thing through a shredder for all they care.

And so on, ad infinitum.

[BSunday]

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.

Searching bags around a major political event would not imo be considered "unreasonable"

[Fixit]

That's an interesting point, except for the fact that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were drafted in 1789, about six years after the end of the Revolutionary War.

If you put forth that the Articles of Confederation were a suicide pact, I would not argue such a proposition.

I have to ask if you bothered to check out the court case I linked to in my post. If you had, you'd have seen:

This Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means the removal of all restraints from these crowds and that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.

I would affirm the conviction.

[Emphasis mine.]

[Indie]

You watch. There will be FReepers on this thread screaming that it would be a threat to the Constitution to allow searches....

Sheesh.........

[tahiti]

"Interesting though, that the language in the second amendment;...is far more strongly worded than that of the fourth;"

I understand your point.

Let me offer the following explanation to the contrary.

Just as the first part Second Amendment states the reason for the Second Amendment (A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State) the first part of the Fourth Amendment does the same. (The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,)

The second part of the Second Amendment then states what the mechanism will be needed to secure a free state: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The second part of the Fourth Amendment then states what the mechanism will be needed to prevent unreasonable searches and seizures: "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."

That being the case, I would say there isn't "quite a hole" in the wording of the Fourth Amendment.

Government needs to have a warrant, supported by oath or affirmation (probable cause) before government can search a citizen's person/property or seize a citizens property.

Thus, all searches and seizures by "federalized" security personel at airports are unconstitutional.

Any "blanket" search of citizens by government employees, (police, SS, IRS, DEA, TSA, FBI, BATF, etc) on public or private property without a warrant is unconstitutional.

Any "blanket" search by a private property owner by private property owner personel is perfectly legal because the constitution has no jurisdiction on private property over actions by private citizens.

[NJ_gent]

"That's an interesting point, except for the fact that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were drafted in 1789, about six years after the end of the Revolutionary War."

Which was also about 23 years prior to the start of the War of 1812. The English still referred to the folks here as colonists, the American states were still considered (albeit renegade) properties of the British empire, and all 'Americans' were still considered to be under Crown rule. Harassment by the British military continued until reaching a point of war in 1812. The threat of military invasion by Britain was constant. In 1812, Washington DC was burned to the ground, including the White House, and the office of the War Department. Death by execution was as real a threat in 1789 as it was in 1776, as it was in 1812.

The highlighed portion is redundant. Liberty is freedom within the bounds of social justice. Freedom is me being allowed to punch a guy in the face. Liberty is me not being allowed to do so, because he has a right not to be punched in the face. Or, more poetically, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." - Oliver Wendell Holmes Chief Justice, US Supreme Court

"There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

In this opinion, the court misconstrued (in my opinion) the very nature of the Constitution. The Constitution is the semi-practical, legal embodiment of a sentiment expressed throughout the colonies with phrases such as:

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death" - Patrick Henry, 1775

"Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood." John Adams, 1765

"There! His Majesty can now read my name without glasses. And he can double the reward on my head!" John Hancock, 1776 (signing of the Declaration of Independence)

But then again, I think New Hampshire's state motto says it best:

Live Free or Die

[NJ_gent]

"I'm not going to pitch my American way of life down the toilet simply because some of my more cowardly countrymen prefer an illusion of safety to freedom"

That's quotable stuff right there.

[Zhangliqun]

I used to go to see the NE Patriots play back in the 80's and they always searched us for beer cans and bottles, backpacks included.

[NYCVirago]

Patrolmen's Benevolent Association President Pat Lynch declined comment on the ruling.

What's this clown's problem? This story is literally front-page news, and he has no comment?

[secretagent]

The judge, for consistency sake, also should strike down New York's gun laws, (Amendmendt II) so citizens can open carry to deter crimminals and terrorists from preying on unarmed citizens.

Sounds good to me.