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

Skip to comments.

Judge OKs Police Subway Searches in NYC
Yahoo! News ^ | 12/2/05 | LARRY NEUMEISTER

Posted on 12/02/2005 1:21:13 PM PST by libertarianPA

NEW YORK - A federal judge Friday upheld the police department's practice of randomly searching subway riders' bags, saying the intrusion on people's privacy is minimal while the threat of a terrorist bombing is "real and substantial."

Police tightened security in the nation's largest subway system in July after the deadly terrorist attacks in London's underground.

"The risk of a terrorist bombing of New York City's subway system is real and substantial," U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman said.

The New York Civil Liberties Union had challenged the searches, arguing that riders were being subjected to a pointless and unprecedented invasion of their privacy.

The judge cited the testimony of police officials who said the search policy might cause terrorists to choose a different target.

"Because the threat of terrorism is great and the consequences of unpreparedness may be catastrophic, it would seem foolish not to rely upon those qualified persons in the best position to know," Berman said.

Gail Donoghue, a city lawyer, called the searches a "life-and-death" necessity and said the city should not wait for a specific threat or an attack to crack down.

"That kind of complacency is a very dangerous thing," she said. "The threat is immediate. It is real and of extreme concern to those who run the counterterrorism in this city."

During the trial, Deputy Police Commissioner David Cohen said the searches keep terrorists guessing.

"Unpredictability is the enemy of terrorists and the ally of those trying to prevent an attack," said Cohen, who joined the police department after a three-decade career at the CIA analyzing the threat of terrorism.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: mta; nyc; nyclu; nypd; ruling; subways; subwaysearches; terroristattacks
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last
Good guys - 1

Liberals - 0

1 posted on 12/02/2005 1:21:14 PM PST by libertarianPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: libertarianPA

FU NYCLU


2 posted on 12/02/2005 1:24:02 PM PST by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libertarianPA

Why the hail would a judge have to approve searches on a folking subway? What kind of expectation of privacy does a person have on a New York folking subway for gads sake?


3 posted on 12/02/2005 1:45:20 PM PST by yldstrk (My heros have always been cowboys-Reagan and Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

Why the hail would a judge have to approve searches on a folking sidewalk? What kind of expectation of privacy does a person have on a New York folking sidewalk for gads sake?


4 posted on 12/02/2005 1:52:09 PM PST by coloradan (Failing to protect the liberties of your enemies establishes precedents that will reach to yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

yes the threat is real.
SUIciDE bombers are for real.
how the hell is checking my bags or THEIRS going to prevent a device from exploding ?
what next ? stopping us on the streets ?
why no random checks at overcrowded shopping malls and stores ?
....don't know where you're from, but even on the jammed up subways,there is still a degree of privacy/civility---we're not animals.


5 posted on 12/02/2005 1:56:36 PM PST by catroina54 (not a lib or libertarian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: catroina54

But I thought we were fighting them over there, and not here.


6 posted on 12/02/2005 1:59:21 PM PST by Becker32
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: George_Bailey

Yet another blow to our freedoms. The government intrusion into our basic freedoms to move about unharrassed is getting ridiculous.


9 posted on 12/02/2005 2:14:23 PM PST by Pop Fly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: libertarianPA

BoR#4 = TP


10 posted on 12/02/2005 2:16:54 PM PST by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

Well... that just doesn't make a lick of sense.


11 posted on 12/02/2005 2:20:24 PM PST by libertarianPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: libertarianPA
Little old ladies over the age of 70: SEARCH.

Arabe males between the ages of 18 and 30: NOT ALLOWED

Please quote the exact paragraph in the Constitution which granted the Federal government authorization to search anyone?

12 posted on 12/02/2005 2:25:32 PM PST by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libertarianPA

Neither does searching random people, knowing that those who they're looking for can just walk away if picked for search.
Do we have to spell it out for you? 10 terrorists enter different subway stations simultaniously, 3 of them are randomly selected for search, those 3 just walk away to a crowded area while 7 others get on, and all 10 blow up simultaniously - this makes sense how?

BTW:
BoR#4 = TP
means
Bill of Rights, 4th amendment (search only upon individual cause with warrant) is now Toilet Paper.


13 posted on 12/02/2005 2:27:28 PM PST by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
Little old ladies over the age of 70: SEARCH.

Arabe males between the ages of 18 and 30: NOT ALLOWED

More like:

Little old ladies over the age of 70: unlikely to blow up when searched. Arab males between the ages of 18 and 30: more likely to blow up when searched.

Guess who the cops search?

14 posted on 12/02/2005 2:39:03 PM PST by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
Little old ladies over the age of 70: SEARCH. Arabe males between the ages of 18 and 30: NOT ALLOWED

No kidding. Every yenta with a Macy's bag will be thoroughly searched, while Mohammed and Abdul breeze on through security.

15 posted on 12/02/2005 3:39:17 PM PST by NYCVirago
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: George_Bailey
"when the founders wrote the constitution "

The Founders didn't care two cents if a state or city conducted random searches when they wrote the constitution.

It's amazing our schools have convinced people that the 14th Amendment was written by "the founders".

16 posted on 12/02/2005 3:57:32 PM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

To: George_Bailey
Who taught you that the the 4th Amendment, or any of the Bill of Rights applied to the states?

Give me a name. I'm sick of the outright lies that are taught to our helpless children.

No one will ever understand the 14th Amendment if they're taught that the founders wrote the Bill of Rights to restrict the states.

Give me a name.

18 posted on 12/02/2005 4:26:11 PM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
Sec. 12. 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 person or things to be seized. The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable interception of telephone and telegraph communications shall not be violated, and ex parte orders or warrants shall issue only upon oath or affirmation that there is reasonable ground to believe that evidence of crime may be thus obtained, and identifying the particular means of communication, and particularly describing the person or persons whose communications are to be intercepted and the purpose thereof.
Constitution of the State of New York

19 posted on 12/02/2005 6:47:06 PM PST by Celtman (It's never right to do wrong to do right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

Actually, I prefer they did some heavy profiling rather than random searching - young middle eastern men or women. But I'll settle for random searching for now.

It's not like the police are going up to random people sitting at a restaurant. We're searching people at known terror targets.

No one ever said that protecting ourselves against terrorists would be convenient. It's also not the most offensive act against humanity. It's nice to stand up for a principle, but to have a fetish about it can get people killed.


20 posted on 12/03/2005 10:29:41 AM PST by libertarianPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 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