Posted on 07/20/2004 4:40:29 AM PDT by 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
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
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 !
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.
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.
Betcha the judge is a Democrat and is secretly hoping terrorists strike while the President's there.
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!
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.
Hey, no problem. So instead of inspecting back packs, etc, just disallow them totally.
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.
WTF? I just had my bag checked going to see Kenny Loggins. Is he a greater terrorist target than the POTUS?
Insanity.
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"
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.[Emphasis mine.]I would affirm the conviction.
You watch. There will be FReepers on this thread screaming that it would be a threat to the Constitution to allow searches....
Sheesh.........
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.
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.
What's this clown's problem? This story is literally front-page news, and he has no comment?
Sounds good to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.