Posted on 07/25/2005 6:52:04 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
"UNCONSTITUTIONAL"
Jul 25, 2005 4:00 pm US/Eastern
Commuters in New Jersey were under a new level of scrutiny Monday as police started random baggage searches in response to two sets of bombings in London earlier this month.
Commuters at Penn Station in Newark seemed unruffled.
``I think it's the way the world is today. I think it's pretty standard going forward, unfortunately,'' said Maria Parisi, of Brielle, a fashion designer, as she waited for a train to New York.
Authorities pledged the inspections would be done randomly to prevent racial and ethnic profiling, but the American Civil Liberties Union maintained the searches were unconstitutional.
``One thing for sure is you're giving up your privacy rights in exchange for nothing. This is not going to make us safer or deter terrorism. It is not an effective police practice,'' said Deborah Jacobs, executive director of the ALCU's New Jersey chapter.
She said no decision has been made on whether to pursue a challenge to the policy, but that the chapter will have a complaint form on its Web site by Wednesday.
NJ Transit spokeswoman Penny Bassett Hackett said officers searched bags at the Trenton and Secaucus stations during the morning rush, and would be at other stations as the program continued.
``The inspections have gone very well. We've had 100 percent cooperation from our customers,'' she said.
People who refuse to open bags are not allowed to ride NJ Transit buses and trains, or the PATH light rail to New York. Police, however, could not detain people solely for refusing, under rules announced last week by the state.
(Excerpt) Read more at 1010wins.com ...
I know it's a tired cliche but ACLU get A CLU
Unconstitutional, No. Pointless and idiotic, Yes. If a terrorist is stopped and searched he simply refuses and moves on to the next station.
PreCISEly, Ms. Jacobs, and the solution is to allow profiling instead of these pointless, useless random searches.
The Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable" searches, in light of the attacks in London, this is certainly reasonable. A person does not have to consent to the search; however, the transit authorities do not have to allow them to board either.
Airports have been conducting searches at various levels for decades, this is no different.
the point people are missing is that you are free to walk around carrying whatever you want- but if you want to get on public transportation then they have the right to ask what you are bringing on board.
You have to foollow that and other rules...
no spitting, eating, or bombs.
What's unreasonable is what's at stake.
Nobody is forcing you to take public transit.
Case dismissed.
The place where these violations would start are, of course, in New Jersey.
Ummmmm Leather !!!! Tasty!
In the mean time the ACLU and some out of state bloggers went balistic.
Privacy rights? That sounds like an ACLU-type interpretation of the 9th Ammendment. It should instead be descibed as a possible unreasonable search.
That said, if you don't want to be searched, then don't get on the airplane or the subway. It's your choice. There's no unalienable right to ride the subway.
If you don't know what the difference is between a private airline company and a publicly owned subway, you shouldn't be commenting on this thread. I suppose you have no right to walk down a public street either.
The unalienable right to take public transportation, now that's freedom huh!
Take your boots and stick them up yours.
Let posterity forget that goosestepping morons were our countrymen.
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.