Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ACLU: Bag Searches Unconstitutional
1010WINS ^

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS: counterterrorism; mta; rail
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-125 next last
Ok Deborah Jacobs what's your answer....
1 posted on 07/25/2005 6:52:04 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

I know it's a tired cliche but ACLU get A CLU


2 posted on 07/25/2005 6:55:30 PM PDT by Barte45 (Conservative Christian @ Heart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
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.

Unconstitutional, No. Pointless and idiotic, Yes. If a terrorist is stopped and searched he simply refuses and moves on to the next station.

3 posted on 07/25/2005 7:01:05 PM PDT by va4me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
I hate it when I am forced to agree with the ACLU.

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.
4 posted on 07/25/2005 7:03:56 PM PDT by The Lumster (Constitution...we don't need no stinkin constitution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
``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.

PreCISEly, Ms. Jacobs, and the solution is to allow profiling instead of these pointless, useless random searches.

5 posted on 07/25/2005 7:04:16 PM PDT by Constitutionalist Conservative (Have you visited http://c-pol.blogspot.com?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
How can they say this is unconstitutional?

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.

6 posted on 07/25/2005 7:04:49 PM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

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.


7 posted on 07/25/2005 7:05:40 PM PDT by Mr. K (Some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
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.

What's unreasonable is what's at stake.

8 posted on 07/25/2005 7:06:30 PM PDT by skr (Almighty God, thank you for the liberty you have bestowed upon this nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Nobody is forcing you to take public transit.

Case dismissed.


9 posted on 07/25/2005 7:11:55 PM PDT by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Lumster

The place where these violations would start are, of course, in New Jersey.


10 posted on 07/25/2005 7:20:00 PM PDT by henderson field
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: agitator
So here they are, lick them clean slaves


12 posted on 07/25/2005 7:27:19 PM PDT by agitator (...And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: agitator
So here they are, lick them clean slaves


13 posted on 07/25/2005 7:27:19 PM PDT by agitator (...And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: agitator

Ummmmm Leather !!!! Tasty!


14 posted on 07/25/2005 7:29:52 PM PDT by cmsgop ( Bong Hits, Fraggle Rock Reruns and DU is no way to go through Life....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
"Commuters at Penn Station in Newark seemed unruffled."

In the mean time the ACLU and some out of state bloggers went balistic.

15 posted on 07/25/2005 7:31:46 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
``One thing for sure is you're giving up your privacy rights in exchange for nothing...

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.

16 posted on 07/25/2005 7:32:11 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: va4me
Hopefully he would get spooked, revealing his true intentions and be gunned down in his tracks.

A little of the 'ol British 5 Tap
17 posted on 07/25/2005 7:33:30 PM PDT by Delta 21 (Its only funny till someone gets hurt, Then its HILARIOUS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

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.


18 posted on 07/25/2005 7:36:07 PM PDT by agitator (...And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: agitator
Most of the goosestepping security chickenshits on this thread need some jackboots to lick

The unalienable right to take public transportation, now that's freedom huh!

Take your boots and stick them up yours.

19 posted on 07/25/2005 7:36:34 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

Let posterity forget that goosestepping morons were our countrymen.


20 posted on 07/25/2005 7:37:23 PM PDT by agitator (...And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-125 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson