NYers to NYPD: 'I Do Not Consent to Being Searched'

The Village Voice ^ | July 21st, 200 | by Chisun Lee

[BigFinn]

Spend $16.99 so you can wear this to your grave

Reacting to the NYPD's announcement Thursday afternoon that police would randomly—but routinely—search the bags of commuters, one concerned New Yorker quickly created a way for civil libertarians to make their views black-and-white. In a few outraged moments, local immigrant rights activist Tony Lu designed t-shirts bearing the text, "i do not consent to being searched." The minimalist protest-wear can be purchased here, in various styles and sizes. (Lu will not get a cut. The shirts' manufacture, sale, and shipment, will be handled by the online retailer. Lu encourages budget-conscious New Yorkers to make their own and wear them everywhere.)

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly had announced the legally obvious—that New Yorkers are free to decline a search and "turn around and leave." But Lu, who is a lawyer at Urban Justice Center, warned that even well-intentioned cops could interpret people's natural nervousness or anger as "reasonable suspicion." The possibility of unjustified interrogation and even arrest is real, Lu said.

Although police promised they would not engage in racial profiling, Lu said that, as with all street-level policing, people of color and poor immigrants would be particularly vulnerable, especially if encounters lead to arrests.

[Stu Cohen]

In today's world, if one has nothing to hide....why not comply graciously w/LE?

Because everyone should have something to hide.

[pleasedontzotme]

Well, they could call the INS, but if they're anywhere like what happens in the county where I work...we had about fourteen illegal immigrants in jail. We called the INS, they said, we don't want 'em, let 'em go.

[zeugma]

I feel the sudden urge to take a constitutional law class. I find this subject fascinating.

I can relate. I find reading supreme court opinions (and the occasional appelate decision to be extremely enlightening. (Google: cornell, supreme court). I read most of them, and have found it to be interesting to thread my way back through opinions cited by the court. Seeing how the precidents evolve over time (almost always to the detriment of our personal liberty) has been eye-opening. Much of the time it is depressing, but occasionally you'll find some real gems. I absolutely love reading Scalia and Thomas. They are especially good reading when dissenting.

If I could have absolute power for 24 hours, I'd scrap every bit of jurisprudence except certain aspects of the "incorporation" doctrine from the last century and return the US Code to what it was in 1910, with a few allowances made for subsequent technological advances. Two great side benefits to this would immediately accrue to us.

• First, we'd regain a heck of a lot of lost freedom, much of it lost in the war on drugs, and now accelerated in the war on terrorism.
• Second, both Sgt. Pepper's, and The Lord of the Rings would be in the Public Domain due to a return to a more sensible copyright law.

[cyborg]

You've never been to Manhattan apparently. Muslims from every racial group live here. My last cab driver was a white man from Algeria.I know this because he told me so.

[Not A Snowbird]

You asked:

Are you suggesting we just continue to leave our borders, and immigration policies as they are?

I said:

I did not say that.

-----

So do you agree our border security and immigration policies should be dramatically reformed and increased?

Yes, I do.

[ArrogantBustard]

I just googled < mole people new york >


Absolutely fascinating.

[Drago]

My point revolves around the "slippery slope".

[af_vet_rr]

If the shoe fits. I have little patience for so-called "conservatives" who jettison their freedoms every time they meet a little adversity. Actually, "sheeple" is too kind of a term.

It's way too kind of a term, and I question any "conservative" who refuses to confront the fact that the only way to keep terrorism from happening here, is to get the bad people out, and to secure the borders.

Searching random people on subways is just stupid. It's like your house is on fire, and the fire department is only interested in making sure your lawn doesn't catch on fire.

Honestly, I don't understand it. I see "conservatives" saying the government should have more power, be able to search whoever, etc., and yet I don't see them commenting on President Bush and Congress' lack of action in regards to our border security.

Of course, if we kicked the bad people out, and secured our borders, there would be a lot less justification for an increase in government power...

[Alberta's Child]

Just curious what is unreasonable about the police searching randomly for someone carrying a weapon that intends to hurt someone.

I'll tell you what's unreasonable about it. It's unreasonable to have these security measures put in place by a "police force" that operates according to its own rules and regulations, and operates outside many of the laws that ordinary citizens are required to obey.

One of the interesting aspects of the U.S. Constitution is that the phrase "law enforcement" is nowhere to be found in the entire document. At the time the Consitution was written there was no such thing as a "police department" as we now understand the concept. Through most of this nation's history, "law enforcement" was seen as a mechanism for ensuring the orderly prosecution of criminals rather than as a mechanism for protecting the public. A sheriff on the frontier, for example, was not there to protect law-abiding citizens from criminal -- he was there to protect the accused criminal from the law-abiding citizen by ensuring that the accused criminal was given a fair trial in a court of law instead of facing "frontier justice" or other acts of retribution outside the law. With the right to keep and bear arms enshrined in the Second Amendment, the notion that there was any need for government to provide protection on a daily basis for each and every U.S. citizen would have been looked upon as childish idiocy.

[LifeOrGoods?]

I don't call stopping a bomber from killing people being an "unreasonable" request to randomly search backpacks.

Provided the person being searched could be reasonably considered a bomber. Some 65 year old white dude is not reasonable. Two 20 year old Arab guys with backpacks and shifty eyes would give a reasonable reason to search. But with no racial profiling, all these searches are unreasonable.

[Gabz]

And the problem isn't law enforcement (per se) it's the people who make the policies.

Exactly.

[Black Tooth]

So do you agree our border security and immigration policies should be dramatically reformed and increased?

Yes, I do.

OK. Since we still have millions entering undected, and we are still issuing thousands of visas to people from Mideastern countries, why do you think they have not?

[durasell]

They are, apparently, very territorial. You don't want to tangle with them. Plus, a lot of them are flat out psycho. They leave the track workers alone and some have children who -- get this! -- attend school. But they're generally to be avoided. Anyone who goes wandering around down there is asking for it.

[the Deejay]

Well I, (for one), have never/will never
have anything sinister to hide from LE
or airport security.

I've spent a lot of time over the last
20-odd years going through airport
security in many countries. Never had
a problem or resented it.

[zeugma]

It's a shame that when you say the name "Samuel Adams" these days, most people think of beer. Out of the founding fathers, he doesn't get the attention and respect he deserves.

Agreed. I must admit though, it is good beer. :-)

[RedRover]

I often have a Glock in my backpack, one of the thousands of reasons I do not travel to communist occupied zones like NYC.

So drive to New York. The good guys could use the extra firepower.

[Alberta's Child]

. . . we would however end up in endless lawsuits from the ACLU their ilk.

If most of what we now think of as "public entities" were turned over to private interests, the ACLU would be out of business because they would have no legal standing to file a suit on behalf of someone who claims to have been "mistreated" by a private business owner.

[Not A Snowbird]

Your guess is as good as mine.

[RedRover]

I've seen the error of my ways and will "off a pig" on my way home from work.
Perhaps then you'll respect me.

[ArrogantBustard]

Good advice.