Another reason Mass. sucks
Boston police will start randomly harassing searching rail passengers. I guess they didn’t get the memo:
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.
June 9th, 2004 at 10:03 am
More dead canaries, but no way out of the mine.
June 9th, 2004 at 10:54 am
People are searched at airports, reasonably and with just cause. Why is this different?
June 9th, 2004 at 11:03 am
You assume that i agree with the statement that it is reasonable and just to search at airports.
June 9th, 2004 at 11:57 am
“Another reason”…let’s see, that makes a total of 34,104 reasons to-date why Massachusetts sucks.
June 9th, 2004 at 1:57 pm
We have that on our state ferry system in Washington State. When the terror threat level gets above yellow, they have random vehicle searches. Now, the state ferries are part of the state highway system, and thus the searches are carried out by the State Patrol. Now, do you think it is legal for them to randomly pull you over on a highway to search your car???
June 9th, 2004 at 2:31 pm
I’m still wondering how sobriety check points are leagal.
Brass.
June 9th, 2004 at 2:46 pm
Because (and i am not making this up) courts ruled that as long as everyone’s rights are violated, it’s OK. Seriously, as long as they stop everyone, it’s fine.
June 9th, 2004 at 3:10 pm
Uncle:
So what’s your proposed solution?
June 9th, 2004 at 3:14 pm
To search based on warrants and probable cause.
June 9th, 2004 at 4:06 pm
And of course to put detectors at the entrances. To walk around and randomly search people seems a bit extreme.
June 9th, 2004 at 4:59 pm
You assume that i agree with the statement that it is reasonable and just to search at airports.
You should. What’s the harm?
June 9th, 2004 at 5:56 pm
What’s the harm of letting the police randomly search your house? If you’re not breaking the law, you don’t have anything to worry about.
June 9th, 2004 at 6:09 pm
This is hardly the same as your house. Anyone who would board a flight that only checks people’s baggage upon probable cause is not playing with a full deck, and soon won’t be playing at all.
June 9th, 2004 at 6:26 pm
Jeff, i got the impression from the article that the police were just wondering the train stations searching people. However, I don’t really have a problem with them scanning people on their way in, like they do at an airport.
June 10th, 2004 at 1:30 am
Scanning everybody is the safest approach; however, that’s about as far from “probable cause” as it gets. The constitutional hook is that once the policy is announced, people who travel by air/train/whatever no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
June 10th, 2004 at 9:15 am
I realize that but, as with airlines, a scanner at the entrance is less instrusive than randomly searching people with dogs.
June 10th, 2004 at 1:56 pm
Uncle:
I have to admit that I missed that nuance (just picking people out of crowds). I thought you were proposing that we stop all such searches, like at the airport. Still, even the constitutionality of airport searches is questionable (although I believe it’s necessary). I wonder if it would help to put in some provision that only those things that relate to travel safety are admissible evidence if found in such a search. For example, they find your stash of methamphetamines, but this doesn’t jeopardize the safety of the trip, so they can’t arrest you for possession or use the find against you.