NYCLU sues city over subway searches

New York Newsday ^ | August 4, 2005 | BY JOSHUA ROBIN and DAN JANISON

[Texas_Conservative2]

I knew this was coming.

[kellynla]

I think its about time for the IRS to audit the ACLU...
hmmmmmm...

[Hadean]

Do they have a better idea?




Didn't think so.

[Alberta's Child]

I'm curious to see how this whole thing shakes out in New York.

I'm on the NYCLU's side on this one, but probably for much different reasons. It seems to me that law enforcement officials in New York have two options: search everyone, or search nobody. I'd like to see how the latter approach would work if it were implemented for six months.

[Graymatter]

LOL. That was the first word that came to my mind: audit.

[Puppage]

I think its about time for the IRS to audit the ACLU...

Right after they audit Jesse Jerkson.

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

can we sue for aclu for risking our safety?

[utvolsfan13]

**ahem** **cough** **cough cough** **DOUCHE BAGS** **cough**

[zek157]

Ummm, how many suicide bombers/terrorist have been Caucasian, or over age 35 of any race?

profiling is the only way to do it with limited resources.

get over it.

[trebb]

Simple solution, have them either come up with something that will really work, or to assume full responsibility if a successful attack occurs because of their PC "sensibilities".

[Labyrinthos]

The suit, which will be filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, will claim that the two-week old policy violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and prohibitions against unlawful searches and seizures, while doing almost nothing to shield the city from terrorism.

I do agree with the ACLU in that the searches as currently performed do absolutely nothing to shield us from terrorism. But from a Constitutional standpoint, I do not see how the random searches are any different than "roving road blocks," where cops randomly pull over drivers without any probable cause in the hopes nailing a drunk driver. Much to my disgust, the SCOTUS has repeatedly upheld roving road blocks and I don't see how the random mass transit searches are any different.

[Alberta's Child]

"Profiling" sounds like a great idea, but it will only work until a Bosnian Muslim who is as white as Elmer's Glue blows himself up in a subway station.

If the London police had implemented a targeted campaign of searching Middle Eastern passengers before July 7th, would a Jamaican-born British guy named Germaine Lindsay ever have been caught?

[solitas]

The suit, which will be filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, will claim that the two-week old policy violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and prohibitions against unlawful searches and seizures, while doing almost nothing to shield the city from terrorism.

This two-week-old policy probably COULD have stopped Colin Ferguson from specifically killing five Whites and one Asian on the Long Island RR back in '93 - but, oops, yeah - we don't want to talk about ALSO helping to stop more-prevalent DOMESTIC CRIME when we can just sit back and b!tch about international terrorism… Silly me.

[CedarDave]

Unfortunately, it will take an attack as in London before their PC "sensibilities" are overwhelmed by an angry mob of New Yorkers.

[Alberta's Child]

. . . I do not see how the random searches are any different than "roving road blocks," where cops randomly pull over drivers without any probable cause in the hopes nailing a drunk driver.

That's a very good point. I don't think a roadside checkpoint of any kind can pass legal muster unless they stop EVERY driver, and not just random ones (this was the basis of a decision in a landmark case in New York or New Jersey a few years ago, in which a random drug-enforcement checkpoint on the George Washington Bridge was determined to be illegal).

[dennisw]

Are you nuts???

[tkathy]

Why not have speparate trains for the searched and the unsearched? I know which one I would ride in.

[Alberta's Child]

Having random searches of passengers in a city where law-abiding citizens are prohibited from carrying guns is just about the most useless -- and prohibitively expensive -- form of "security" I can possibly think of.

Like I said in an earlier post -- I'm on the NYCLU's side on this one, but they've got an agenda that is predicated on their infantile, delusional view of law enforcement.

[Alberta's Child]

Are you nuts???

No -- why do you ask?