NYCLU sues city over subway searches

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

[aculeus]

The New York Civil Liberties Union will file suit against the city Thursday to keep police from searching the bags of passengers entering the subway, organization lawyers said.

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.

It argues that the measure also allows the possibility for racial profiling, even though officers are ordered to randomly screen passengers.

"While concerns about terrorism of course justify -- indeed, require -- aggressive police tactics, those concerns cannot justify the Police Department's unprecedented policy of subjecting millions of innocent people to suspicionless searches," states the suit, a partial copy of which was provided to Newsday.

[Labyrinthos]

BTW, if you want to have some fun, go to the ACLU's NYC website and fill out the questionnaire regarding your experiences with the random searches. When you get to the question that asks "Do you know why you were searched?" give the ACLU a piece of your mind. I told then that I was searched because of "politically correct leftest a-holes like you who have done everything they can to prevent LEO from focusing upon the people most likely to want to kill us, and they ain't 65 year old grandmothers from Harlem, Hassidic Jews from Crown Heights, queers from Greenwich Village, or even self-hating liberal Caucasians from the upper west side."

Here's the link: http://www.nyclu.org/

[PeskyOne]

If they don't want to make the subways safe, let them try walking or driving their own cars in the city.

[zek157]

BS you use it as a starting point. If it was possible to catch everyone there would be no bombings in Israel.

You don't waste time searching the elderly, children, woemen.

[Labyrinthos]

Actually, the Supreme Court has upheld "roving road blocks" provided the selection process is objective, i.e., the cops pull over every 4th car that passes through a particular intersection or every 9th car that leaves the shopping mall.

[lawdude]

"... law enforcement officials in New York have two options:..."

Both extremes are ludicrous. Grandmas are very, very unlikely bombers. OTOH, 6 year old white boys are unlikely. How about Arab appearing, nervous men 18-35 years old might be of interest. Why do people insist on a perfect system. We will NEVER be able to stop all attacks. BUT, if we stop 99/100, we are not doing too bad. Hell, if we stop 25/100, that would certainly reduce the damages and deaths.

Quite honestly, if some arab is offended by being profiled, I will tell him to go to the pigs since I get highly offended by a rag-head profiling Americans to die by his acts.

[solitas]

So, then, you have a problem with them randomly catching the NON-law-abiding ones who WOULD be carrying guns?
or the NON-law-abiding ones carrying bombs?
or the NON-law-abiding ones carrying drugs?

[solitas]

Quite honestly, if some arab is offended by being profiled, I will tell him to go to the pigs since I get highly offended by a rag-head profiling Americans to die by his acts.

Agreed. Well-put.

[Alberta's Child]

Here's a message I posted on this subject a few days ago that sums it up pretty well:

As far as I'm concerned, the basic problem with these "random" searches is the context in which they are carried out. New York City is an odd place -- it's a police state by nature, and yet at the same time it is filled with immature malcontents who will never be satisfied with their everyday lives.

As a result, the city operates in a bizarre, schizophrenic climate in which the same people who complain about heavy-handed police tactics one day will not hesitate to complain that the police "aren't doing enough" when the sh!t hits the fan the next day.

Oddly enough, the best approach to dealing with terrorism in New York City would probably be the complete elimination of all forms of security on the subway. It's amazing how quickly people in NY will grow up once they're on their own.

The solution to this dilemma is simple: Search 100% of the passengers on a voluntary basis for half the trains, and search 0% of the passengers for the other half. Nobody who is opposed to these searches will have to subject themselves to them, and everyone rides at his or her own risk.

[sanjacjake]

Remember when Al Gore was insulted about the racial
pro-filing? I would concur with everyone that says
stop all Muslims.... and anyone else from those areas
that produce these dirfty, rotten, stinking, bastards.
Including Saudi Arabians....let's get our energy house
in order, so we can tell them all to stick it...that
goes for Kerry, Kennedy,etc. who keep telling us how
we should not toucn ANWAR...There is probably enough
oil up there to supplement our ethanol,etc. for 50
years or more....Jake

[hineybona]

The ACLU has one objective and one objective only , to slander Bush and his policies. They will do that even if it means getting someone killed.They are bastards . Profiling is SMART police work.Profiling means checking out people who fit the descriptions of the suspects. Anything else is stupidity. Most NORMAL NY folks dont mind the searches , knowing it's for the safty of all..ACLU must be audited and shut down .

[Alberta's Child]

I don't trust law-enforcement personnel to begin with, and I'm shocked to see so many so-called "conservatives" here who are such ardent supporters of the concept that an intrusive "nanny state" is an acceptable approach to this problem.

[dts32041]

Won't happen JJ has been cleared by the Illinois dept of revenue, and has already been put off limits by the IRS.

[desherwood7]

No Suprise.

[aculeus]

The two reasons no lawyer objects to searches of airline passengers:

1. Lawyers fly on airplanes.

2. Lawyers' mothers fly on airplanes.

[Alberta's Child]

Profiling means checking out people who fit the descriptions of the suspects.

There's nothing wrong with profiling as we understand it, but I consider it the ultimate form of laziness for a U.S. citizen to expect "law enforcement" to engage in something like this simply so we ourselves can feel safe. If people are so concerned about the threat of terrorism posed by Muslims, then we should all do our own profiling -- by refusing to share a subway ride with them.

[Puppage]

Won't happen JJ has been cleared by the Illinois dept of revenue, and has already been put off limits by the IRS

Heartwarming, isn't it?

[hineybona]

form of laziness ? thats crazy ..It's the job of the police to do this.If the public starts refusing moslems access to a subway you will have chaos and riots . Not a good idea man , you're talking the jungle here.

[Alberta's Child]

It's the job of the police to do this.

This country was around for several generations before the basic concept of a "police department" even became a reality. What do you think people did before there were any "law enforcement officials" to speak of?

I'll tell you exactly what they did -- they carried guns around, and they enforced the law themselves.

[hineybona]

It's not 1800 any more ..Your off base here buddy ..You're suggesting NY subway passengers carry guns and deny access to the subway to Moslems at gunpoint. That's a waste of time suggestion. Again , you're talking total chaos.

[Alberta's Child]

If it's not feasible, then shut down the damn subway system -- for it's obvious that a mass transit system of this kind is not compatible with the basic tenets of a free nation like the United States.

It's not 1800 any more.

Sarah Brady and the limp-wristed jack@sses at Handgun Control, Inc. couldn't have said it any better.