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

[Hemingway's Ghost]

If the police have to search my backpack in order to keep the ragheads from blowing up my fellow citizens, then have at it. If I want to go to the convention, I have to be willing to give a little.

Wonderful, but the MBTA Police's policy is that anyone's bags are subject to search, not merely those attending the convention. Anyone's: any single person on the train, regardless of whether or not the DNC is in town.

Mine is hardly the "damn the torpedoes" attitude you seem to think it is. I ask you, however, what exactly it is we're defending overseas when we pitch down the toilet something as fundamental to the American notion of life as the Fourth Amendment?

[Puppage]

Aren't demonstrators in Boston going to be limited to a fenced off "Free Speech Area"

Well, that's all well & good but, are they going to check their belongings.ie backpacks?

[Liberty Wins]

There has got to be a better way than to grant judges lifetime tenure.

Most states make their judicial system submit to the electoral process, from circuit court judges all the way up to state supreme court judges.

We need a consitutional amendment to do the same at the federal level. After a few years on the bench, even the most level-headed individuals are likely to think they're God.

[BikerNYC]

Who would get to vote for them? The people in the judicial district in which they serve? I bet the makeup of the Federal Court in Manhattan, with its large percentage of former big firm lawyers, would change.

[JimRed]

On another thread about this topic I questioned the judge's political affilation (before it had been revealed). Another FReeper opined that he was adhering to the fourth amendment to the Constitution.

The word "unreasonable" is the sticky point. After reading the plans for disruption posted on the left wing websites, you can tell me that it is unreasonable to search their bags? I don't think so!

[NJ_gent]

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

This one always cracks me up. Let's think about this for all of half a second: a group of farmers, lawyers, and businessmen get together and sign an open declaration of treason against the most powerful empire the world has ever seen, which controls the most powerful military the world has ever seen, and whose penalty for treason is death, but yet the Constitution is not a suicide pact. I understand that you didn't coin the term, and I don't blame you, but the mentality that the Constitution is anything but a suicide pact is so completely, laughably absurd that it actually scares me to have seen the SCOTUS tell us it honestly believes that's the case. If one stood in 1770 and looked ahead to the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution without understanding the reasons why these documents were written and signed, one would have likely seen the founding fathers as suicidal idiots. The last thing most could have imagined prior to the end of hostilities (in ~1814) would be that this group of militia would be able to take on the Crown's army and live to tell the tale.

Yet the Constitution is seen today as being somehow not a suicide pact. That's just so... sad.

[JimRed]

See my #85. Unreasonable is the key word attached to search and seizure. When disruption attempts have been announced openly, it is unreasonable NOT to take precautions.

[babyface00]

Wonderful, but the MBTA Police's policy is that anyone's bags are subject to search

Actually, according to the article:

"NYPD cops blasted a federal judge's ruling aimed at stopping them from searching demonstrators' bags outside the Republican National Convention"

Also from the article: "prohibits blanket searches of bulky bags and backpacks".

Assuming tha article is accurate, the police are searching a specific group of people, in a specific place (who likely require a permit to demonstrate), and who have specific characteristics (bulky bags and backpacks).

That doesn't seem to violate the "unreasonable search and seizure" clause to me, especially when you consider the violence threatened by opposition groups.

[OXENinFLA]

The word "unreasonable" is the sticky point. After reading the plans for disruption posted on the left wing websites, you can tell me that it is unreasonable to search their bags? I don't think so!

yup..............

[NJ_gent]

"After all, it's about a little something called the Fourth Amendment . . ."

And yet if you attempted to enforce your Fourth Amendment rights via your Second Amendment rights, you'd likely end up dead. Oh well, at least Virginia is getting sensible about its gun laws.

[ex 98C MI Dude]

I stand by my damn the torpedos statement, as you again proved it true.

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.

The key is unreasonable searches. Very few people would consider such a search unrerasonable, considering the threat we are under at this point. I'll grant you that it isn't pleasant, but it is neccessary for the preservation of a (relatively) free state.

[NJ_gent]

"wait, are we for the police today? or against them?"

Personally, my position on the police depends entirely on the actions of the particular officer or officers in question. In this case, most people seem to be more concerned with the actions of the judge, rather than the police. The only thing the police have really done here is say that they believe this ruling leaves an opening for a terrorist attack. That's certainly undeniable, but the methods they're proposing to close that opening are constitutionally dubious. I don't see anyone here saying much at all about the NYPD's position, but I can't imagine anyone here thinking that their intentions here are anything less than sincere with respect to the safety of those in the area. The problem with that is that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and even the most sincere efforts are sometimes illegal or unconstitutional. Whether they are in this case remains to be seen, as I'm sure this case is far from concluded.

[NJ_gent]

"but is willing to risk a little than risk it all."

And when 56 men signed an open declaration of treason against the most powerful empire on Earth, whose penalty for treason was death, on August 2, 1776, were they risking a little, or were they risking everything?

[NJ_gent]

"I ask you, however, what exactly it is we're defending overseas when we pitch down the toilet something as fundamental to the American notion of life as the Fourth Amendment?"

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.

[bushfamfan]

It's obvious the Demonrats and their cronies would love for the GOP convention to be attacked to eliminate their competition. This judge is obviously hoping for some of that with this insane ruling. Insane because you can bet that the Demonrats are going to have all protective measures, searches and streets closed down for their protection from protest-we know terrorists wouldn't actually have an attack on their great allies. Things are going to get ugly in NY. That's fine because it only shows what freaks and thugs are the core of the Demonrat party. Bring it on! Florida should've been chosen as the convention site, but the RNC was foolish to put it in a state and city full of fools.

[ex 98C MI Dude]

Different circumstance than what we have here. They firmly believed that if they didn't risk it all, they would lose it all. They were right.

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

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

[SaveTheChief]

...prohibits blanket searches of bulky bags and backpacks in the absence of a "specific threat."

They can do this at a ballgame but not at the Republican Convention?? Something's rotten in New Amsterdam.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

That doesn't seem to violate the "unreasonable search and seizure" clause to me, especially when you consider the violence threatened by opposition groups.

I was talking about Boston's plans for the DNC, not New York City's plans for the RNC.

[Poohbah]

Given that MoveOn and ANSWER have planned to divert police resources with false alarms...

I am willing to attest to the judge's overt act in open court, per Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution.

[babyface00]

I was talking about Boston's plans for the DNC

Sorry. My mistake. Trying to keep up with too many threads (and work) at once.