Cops rip judge: 'It's giving an open door to terrorists'





Questions for debate:

1) Do you agree with the judge's decision?
2) Do you think this makes a terrorist's job easier?

IMHO, this is ridiculous. As an editor in the Daily News wrote, "And what is Sweet worried about? Not about bloodshed. No, he's concerned instead that a few picketers might be discomfited by having to show they're not carrying explosive devices packed with nails."

How does this encourage free expression? I go to Yankee Stadium, and every person's bag is checked no matter what. Is this an invasion of privacy? They should be allowed to check EVERY person's bag. This would prevent anyone from complaining about 'profiling.'

And this argument that police should only act if there is reasonable suspicion of a terrorist attack? As the editorial also said:



I know what all these privacy advocates are talking about but i just do not see this as reasonable. Handcuffing the police efforts, no matter how minute, is still a big problem.

Hell no! This judge is basically saying "You can't prevent a terrorist attack". How is the NYPD suppose to protect New Yorkers from terrorists if they can't search bags for bombs and guns??


A lot easier. Might as well just allow bombs onto planes while this dumb judge is at it

1) Do you agree with the judge's decision?

Yes.

2) Do you think this makes a terrorist's job easier?

Sure, but that's a loaded and biased question, designed to try and provoke a response. Suppose question #2 had been worded "Do you think this will help prevent police from making unconstitutional searches and seizures in violation of the fourth amendment?" The answer to that would be yes, as well.

Analogizing this to entry at Yankee Stadium is changing the situation. Entry into a facility, whether private owned or government owed, where permission to enter is based on consent to a blanket search of your belongings and effects, is different than being present in a public street to carry out a protest under a citizen's right to peacably assemble.

It's true that someone who wanted to carry out a bomb attack could load up with explosives under their clothes, or put a bomb in a bag or briefcase and take it to a public street. This is a fact, and a risk, that we have to accept. Blanket searches of people in public are unconstitutional, period. Propose an amendment to the constitution if you'd like; good luck.

I'm sure the city officials have good intentions, but attacking the Judge in this regard is unreasonable and shows how misinformed they are about constitutional law.

Edited to add: We live in a democracy. There must always be a balance between Government power and individual rights and freedoms. I don't think sacrificing these constitutional rights is appropriate in order to give the police the power to blanket search people on the street in an effort to fight "terrorism."

1) Do you agree with the judge's decision?

Yes I do, here is the text of the 4th Amendment to the constitution:


Now if the demonstrators were required to go through a metal detector first and then be searched if something odd was found that might be acceptable -- the authorities would have probable cause. If the authorities were watching out for suspicious looking people, that might be probable cause.

I am actually very pleased with the judge's decision, because maybe it will set a precident that we have had enough of this abrogating civil rights in the name of security garbage.

2) Do you think this makes a terrorist's job easier?
No I don't, because I don't constantly walk around in fear of a terrorist attack. Do people fear going to a baseball game on the weekend? It's basically the same scenario, lots of people, very little security. If the rent-a-cops there can't catch me sneaking in a flask so I don't have to pay $8 a beer, how are they going to catch a terrorist bringing in a bomb or biological agent?

We had a single terrorist attack on US soil and some of the population walks around like the sky is about to fall in and there are terrorists in the bushes waiting to jump out and cause havoc. Do you think the average Israeli that deals with this almost daily behaves that way? If they did, no one would go outside, ever.

If terrorists want to attack the convention, they would likely be able to do so even if the bags were searched. There are any number of other things they could do to wreak havoc. Not allowing every single bag to be searched doesn't make things easier.

You know, I'm pretty sure that warrants "handcuff" the police. I'm sure they could do their job more efficiently if they carried auto-matic weapons and everyone was forced to have a microchip in their forehead that tracked their movement and carried personal information?

Should we allow that? No, of course not. So how do we decide where to draw the lines? The whims of small groups of people, or even judges? No. The only reference we have is the law; which can be updated or changed through the democratic process. I don't understand why you take issue with the judge when his power only allows him to interpret the law. I suppose you would want him to RULE INCORRECTLY; but the judge has an extremely important ethical obligation NOT TO DO THAT.

If you dislike the law, then take it up with the state legislature. They are responsible for writing the laws. The judges are only able to interpret and apply.

1) Do you agree with the judge's decision?

Yes. It is well settled law on what is required to stop a person on the street and search them. It is not a high standard (reasonable suspicion), but has been around for over 35 years -- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). If they did the searches, they might stop the attack, but the evidence would be inadmissible and the "terrorist" would walk -- an unpleasant outcome. As bad facts make bad law, how long do you think it would take for some congressional crackpot to propose an amendment modifying the 4th Amendment?


2) Do you think this makes a terrorist's job easier?

Being a free, democratic society makes a terrorist's job easier. If we shelve our personal liberties and become a police state, I am sure we can make terrorist's jobs harder.



Yankee stadium is not the same as a public street. You do not have to go into Yankee stadium to see the baseball game. Additionally, many tickets have on them that the venue has the right to search all bags. So that analogy is flawed.

Checking everyone, might be a valid way of accomplishing the objective as long as not less than everyone is checked and the search is not overly intrusive. This would be akin to the dui checkpoints, but it would be virtually impossible to ensure you check everyone so it is probably moot.




No that is a frightening sentence. Perhaps we should do away with that pesky Constitution. But seriously, we live in a representative democracy and not a police state. In the Army we talk about "accepting risk" in an operation. I am willing to accept some risk so I do not have to live in a police state. Risk is the price of freedom.

J

1) Do you agree with the judge's decision?

I applaud the decision. I for one do not want to see any laws on the books that allows blanket searches of individuals just because it is determined something "might" happen.
I don't live in fear of things that "might" happen, If I did I would never leave my house! I don't feel I should have to sacrifice my civil liberties because of "maybe's, might happens, and could be's".

2) Do you think this makes a terrorist's job easier?

This is my opinion, but I would think the last thing any terrorist would want to do is disrupt the political process in America by way of a terrorist attack. My reasoning is any attack would give the current administration more support for continued actions of aggression around the world.

If Al'Quieda really want to achieve its goals of getting the US out of Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and ending US support to Isreal against the Palestinians it will allow Bush's numbers to continue to slide and hope for a Kerry the victory in November.

A terrorist attack would galvanize support to continue the war, and I think Al Quieda hates Bush more than it is willing gamble another attack with the aftermath guaranteeing another 4 years of Bush.

1) Do you agree with the judge's decision?
Yes - probable cause is required for any search or seisure. Basic personal rights guaranteed by the constitution.

This is not private securty checking bags at a private venue like a baseball game. This is law enforcement searching citizens without cause in a public, politicaly motivated event. It is abuse of power.

2) Do you think this makes a terrorist's job easier?
I think it makes law enforcement's job harder. But I also think that is a good thing. Suspending rights of citizens should be the hardest job in the land. Law enforcement as it relates to personal freedom should never be "easy".

Fear of an unknown attack is no reason to suspend basic rights and due process. Suspending liberty will not make us safe from attack. It will only make us less free.

First off, who decides what is reasonable and what isn't? The police, the searched, a 3rd party?

I do not see the difference in argument between the police checking bags at a checkpoint and the airport checking your bags. By the logic used in this thread, i can tell the airport they can't check my bags because there is no reaonable cause. I mean the airport wants to check your bags so you dont blow up the plane, and the police wants to check your bag so you do not blow up a crowd of people. You telling me because some people are afriad to show the police they do not have a bomb it is in violation in the Constitution. Isnt a terrorist threat reason enough to check people's bags? I would really like someone to define 'reasonable' in this situation. Looks suspicious you say? What if the police check the person and they have nothing. They can then accuse the police of 'profiling.' By checking everyone, the police can stay objective and make sure everyone is safe.

It is ridiculous how so many people can exaggerate this situation so much. No, we shouldnt throw away the Constitution. And NO we are not in a police state. Some people value their bag, that doesn't have a bomb in it, more than their life.

"Probable Cause" is the standard - it's already decided. The constitution is clear.

Up until recently, the police were not checking your bags at the airport - the airport or airlines were. It is within a private company's rights to require searches for public acess to private resources. (like a concert or ballgame)

As a matter of fact there are several constitutional arguments that could be made against the searches at airports now that the are controlled by the federal government. They are no longer insulated by the "private" umbrella and are subject to higher standards and scrutiny.

"Checking everyone" is not within the charter of the police - they don't get to suspend rights just because they do it equally. You give up far more security and liberty by letting them search without cause than by the minute threat of an attack.

If they suspect an individual of having a device, and can produce probable cause, then by all means - search away. But they can't take the easy way out, and you don't get to suspend laws and the very basis of our liberty just because you are afraid.

Your "protection" does little to stop an actual threat - but it does real and lasting harm to our liberty and the constitution.

1) Do you agree with the judge's decision?

Completely.

The article gives the impression that searches are not allowed to be performed in a public area. For instance, searches would not be allowed on a street where a protest is being held (if they did then the protestors would be being singled out for their political leanings).

This makes total sense: police are not allowed to perform random spot checks on people merely because they are protesting a political event (which would, duh! be searching people based on their political demonstration). If the protestor attempts to enter the convention grounds, or private (or permitted) property, then that's a different story.

lederuvdapac:


First, what does 'profiling' have to do with anything? The only possible profiling I see is political: if someone is demonstrating against the convention then he is somehow suspect or suspicious? PLEASE!

Second, you are entering private property in Yankee Stadium. The owners of the establishment have the right to guarantee the safety and comfort of their customers. On a streetcorner, you are not in private property, even if the Republican National Convention happens to be going on next door. You are also not exercising your Constitutional right of free, political speech at Yankee stadium in a tradition, pristine, legal manner.


lederuvdapac:


Again, I think you are not missing the point. An airport is NOT a traditional place to exercise political speech. The fact of the matter is, if you are demonstrating on a street--or are just standing on a street--a police officer CAN NOT search you. The danger is that this could deter/intimidate/obstruct one's ability to speak freely and openly in a traditionally political atmosphere.

So: basically, the Constitution speaks clearly on this subject. When you are on public property police may not search you without probable cause. Regardless of your political leanings or if you are protesting

Protesting is not probable cause that you will blow up the Fleet Center or Central Park or whatever.

lederuvdapac:


I think it's ridiculous how you exaggerate this situation so much.

It worries me that American's are so willing to give up their civil liberties in the name of 'security'.

The Constitution is what makes America great--and I personally will not let the terrorists ruin my Country.


2) Do you think this makes a terrorist's job easier
No. If a terrorist had a nuke and wanted to blast Manhattan Island onto another planet, I think he probably could. I mean, why would he go to the trouble of forseeably getting caught at the convention, when he could just stand three blocks away and blast the whole darn thing into kingdom come.

Ugh how ugly.



Yeah that long standing legal proposition is called the Bill of Rights. It is intended to safeguard the public against an authoritarian regime in the US. Every time you usurp the Bill of Rights, you set precedence, making it easier to usurp it again. I don't care about my own privacy. I have nothing to hide. I do care though about the further development of the police state, and thus I believe in holding the Bill of Rights in the highest of sanctity. Just because the rhetoric of the day sounds good enough to give up a few rights, doesn't mean that those rights will be given back. See my post on Hitlers Enabling Act.

Correct; as a U.S. citizen, if you are out in public on the street, and have done nothing to warrant suspicion or give the police probable cause, you are constitutionally protected against an involuntary search.


On a public street, without probable cause, searching everyone's bags as a general security measure? No, a terrorist threat is not reason enough to check everyone's bags.



Leder, perhaps it might help if you could try and show the other members here the exact reasons as to why you think we should take the two hundred year old right protecting us against such blanket police searches and make it inapplicable just because the police are concerned someone in a crowd might have a bomb. It sounds like you're willing to revoke any civil liberty (and take that right away from all our citizens) in case it might help fight terrorism in even the slightest way.

Firstly, because i do not see this as a violation of the Constitution. If you are on a street on a normal day and the police run up to you and demand to search your bag without any reason...then yes THAT is a violation of the 4th amendment. If the police went from house to house ransacking the place looking for evidence even if the people living there are not suspects, then yes that is a violation of the 4th amendment.

If you are at a political convention, and terrorists threaten to blow up some of those protesters with a bomb...the police checking your bags is NOT a violation of the 4th amendment. They are protecting the people. You guys see this as 'the end of the world.' You see it as the desecration of the Constitution and the end of freedom as we know it. You see showing your bags to police to show that you do not have a bomb as the biggest violation of the Constitution in history.

I just do not see it that way. If i am in that crowd, and the person next to me has a bomb in his/her backpack, and i die...what will be the explanation? Will you tell my family that we couldn't check the people's bags for BOMBS because the person might be sensitive? Please! For some reason, i value my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness far more than some people's idea of privacy in this thread. If the police cordially ask to see my bag..what do i care? I do not have a bomb or weapon of any sort. Why would you not want to show your bag? Why? Show that you do not have a damn bomb and be done with it. Whats the big deal? Everyone is just overreacting to a procedure that should be a no-brainer. Remember, the judge that made the decision did NOT do it because he thought it violated the 4th amendment but because it would stifle the freedom of expression.

Furthermore, i still ask the question...who decides what is probably cause. Someone mentioned it has already been outlined, but still failed to answer the question. 'Suspicious behavior'? Who says a terrorist is going act suspicious? Especially in the middle of a large crowd.

This morning there was a bomb note on an amtrak train going from DC to Boston. Once the train reached the station here in NY, FBI agents, police and others went on, asked ID from every one of the passengers and went through some luggage i believe. Is that probable cause? Bomb threat on a train? Similar to a bomb threat at a politicial convention.

It seems to me, that all we have here are people who distrust the government so much that they believe everything they do is an attempt to violate their civil liberties. You are more afraid of the government than you are of terrorists who want to kill you, your family, and everyone you hold dear. The government doesn't want to kill you.

So here is what we know. The government supposedly (atleast according to your claims) wants to take away our civil liberties. Supposedly. Lets weigh that against radical terrorists who want to kill us...no supposedly...they do...they have made it clear. People here are more afraid of a conspiracy theory than an actual threat. And that is truly sad.

Bottom Line: We must recognize the threat for what it is and we as US citizens must recognize who is on our side and who isn't. The government is on our side because they ARE us. They are part of this country as well. The terrorists are our enemy... and they want to kill us. And if checking some protester's bag to make sure he/she doesnt have a bomb keeps me and my family safe...then so be it.

Illegal searches are violating your rights - not "supposedly" but actually and according to all American law.

I'm not suggesting a conspiracy or any desire to violate my rights- it's very simple. The law says that it violates my rights.

The remote chance of a terrorist attack is not enough to suspend the fourth amendment - a direct threat and probable cause might be - temporarily.

Even if we take your position and assume that it is legal – it does nothing to stop an attack. Taping devices to my legs would be just as effective. Bio agents can be spread by an infected person alone – no devices or bags needed. Do you suggest that all attendees and spectators be striped and subject to blood tests? Would that make you safe?

Of course not. Assuming that a general bag search will stop terror leads only to a false sense of security and a violation of freedom. It will never make you safer. You are more at risk to have your rights violated by fear based policy then to ever be effected by a terrorist with a bomb in her purse.

So what happens if the threat becomes something like -- muslim men carrying bombs in backpacks may blow up cafes or theaters. Does that mean that you would condone the police randomly inspecting bags on the street, or that you would condone restaurants and theaters checking your belongings before you enter?

What you find acceptable sets a clear precident when future threats surface and if those searches were allowed to stand then law enforcement could be justified in searching people under the circumstances you feel "are a clear violation of the 4th amendment".



The bottom line is that the law enforcement branch of our government has always sought to increase its power (and specifically the police) and it is the job of the judicial branch to keep that in check. They have consistently done that, and they will continue to fight that battle.

Also, the goal of a terrorist is to bring down our society, make us change out ways and cause us to live in fear. Do you not realize that by abrogating your civil rights that you are helping them to accomplish their goal? Aside from the fact that people constantly talk about taking civil rights away to make catching terrorists "easier" this is what disturbs me most. Do you also realize that you have a better chance of being struck by lightening than you have of being a victim of a terrorist attack? Why the elevated fear of terrorism? Do you look up to the skies in fear when clouds roll in? Statistically speaking that would be more prudent than worrying about terrorists.

Leder, I will attempt to address all your concerns section by section, as I wouldn't want you to feel someone was ignoring what you had to say.

[quote]Firstly, because i do not see this as a violation of the Constitution. If you are on a street on a normal day and the police run up to you and demand to search your bag without any reason...then yes THAT is a violation of the 4th amendment. If the police went from house to house ransacking the place looking for evidence even if the people living there are not suspects, then yes that is a violation of the 4th amendment.[/quote]
It is also a violation of the 4th Amendment for the police to conduct blanket searches of individuals on a public street without probable cause. This is a fact; it can not be denied. You seem to want to relegate the 4th Amendment only to more extreme examples, like police ransacking homes.

[quote]If you are at a political convention, and terrorists threaten to blow up some of those protesters with a bomb...the police checking your bags is NOT a violation of the 4th amendment.  They are protecting the people.[/quote]
Yes, it is. They are on a public street. They are not inside the convention hall, where permission to enter can be conditioned on consent to a search. Saying that they are "protecting the people" does not make it suddenly cease to be a violation. If saying that the police "protecting the people" was a reasonable excuse, it could be used for every violation of a person's civil liberties.

[quote]You guys see this as 'the end of the world.' You see it as the desecration of the Constitution and the end of freedom as we know it. You see showing your bags to police to show that you do not have a bomb as the biggest violation of the Constitution in history.[/quote]
No one has said that, Lederuvdapac. You are projecting that on to everyone who disagrees with you. Why? It isn't a very persuasive argument.

[quote]I just do not see it that way. If i am in that crowd, and the person next to me has a bomb in his/her backpack, and i die...what will be the explanation? Will you tell my family that we couldn't check the people's bags for BOMBS because the person might be sensitive? Please![/quote]
Correct; your family would be treated with kindness and understanding at their loss, and if they asked why didn't the police randomly search everyone's bags to see if there might have been in a bomb, it would have be explained to them in the gentlest terms possible that the police could have if they had probable cause an individual had a bomb, but there is a balance between security and liberty, and that blanket searches of people without probable cause on a public street is not permitted. If they didn't understand this and were upset about it, I wouldn't give them a hard time about it, and everyone would still feel very sorry for them and their loss.

[quote]If the police cordially ask to see my bag..what do i care? I do not have a bomb or weapon of any sort.[/quote]
That's fine; if you want to consent to a blanket search without probable cause on a public street, no one will stop you. Who are we to say that you can't?

[quote]Why would you not want to show your bag? Why?[/quote]
Because people have the right not to. They haven't done anything wrong; they are standing on a public street; there is no probable cause. Who are you to say that they have to?

[quote]Remember, the judge that made the decision did NOT do it because he thought it violated the 4th amendment but because it would stifle the freedom of expression.[/quote]
The basis for the judge's ruling is in a person's 4th Amendment rights against a search in public without probable cause. The newspaper article quoted the Judge in such a way as to lead you to believe differently, Leder. It says he was attempting to define a resolution which can serve to encourage free expression in a secure society, and that he was trying to prevent the police from invading personal privacy. Those statements are true; but the legal basis of his ruling which would be upheld on appeal is that it violates a person's 4th Amendment rights against search without probable cause.

[quote]Furthermore, i still ask the question...who decides what is probably cause. Someone mentioned it has already been outlined, but still failed to answer the question.[/quote]
Probable cause is the reasonable belief that a specific person has committed a crime. At the time the police officer acts, he must have probable cause; later, on review in Court, the test the Court uses to determine whether probable cause existed for purposes of arrest is whether facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed or is committing a crime. So probable cause is initially decided by the police and it is validated (or invalidated) later by the Court.

[quote]Who says a terrorist is going act suspicious? Especially in the middle of a large crowd.[/quote]
You're right, a terrorist might not act suspicious, and as a result might not attract police attention, and might succeed. This is undeniable reality. It could happen anywhere, at any time.

[quote]It seems to me, that all we have here are people who distrust the government so much that they believe everything they do is an attempt to violate their civil liberties.[/quote]
Again, you are portraying those who disagree with you as radicals and extremists.

[quote]Bottom Line: We must recognize the threat for what it is and we as US citizens must recognize who is on our side and who isn't. The government is on our side because they ARE us. They are part of this country as well. The terrorists are our enemy... and they want to kill us. And if checking some protester's bag to make sure he/she doesnt have a bomb keeps me and my family safe...then so be it.[/quote]
The bottom line is that there must be a balance between liberty and security. The threat that someone might try to sneak a bomb inside a bag on a public street and use it to kill civilians is real, but on balance that threat does not outweigh the damage done to our citizenry's liberty en masse by allowing police to conduct blanket searches of individuals on public streets without probable cause. Ever heard the expression, give me liberty or give me death? Appeals to fear that our terrorist enemies are so threatening that we must give up basic constitutional rights out of concern that something might happen will not work.

Edited: spelling.

First off, your example has nothing to do with my main point. There are 1000s of cafes and theaters in the city. But there is just one political convention and that political convention has been threatened. Lets be realistic here and stop trying to justify your arguments by bringing up far-feteched situations that have nothing to do with searching for bombs at the political convention. I find it funny that you fail to address the rest of my post. I just do not see the big deal if the police ask you to show them that you do not have a bomb. Are you offended by showing the police your bag? Whats the problem here?



This is not about catching terrorists easier, its about saving as many lives as possible. All that rhetoric about statistics and probability is the same type of attitude that led to 9/11 in the first place. No, i do not look up in the skies in fear. I am not afraid. But if the police want to see my bag to check if a bomb...A BOMB..is present when i am in a crowd of people protesting then i will show them i have nothing to hide and go on my way.

And still nobody has explained to me what their interpretation of probably cause is. I mean, if a terrorist threat isn't enough than i would honestly like to know what is.

Nothing funny about it, and there really is no need for me to do that now because Azure-Citizen basically said everything that I would have said, so go check out his post.

But to answer your direct question. Yes I am offended by the police asking me to show them my bag on a public street, because they have no right to do so. The 4th Amendment protects me in that respect. I may not have anything to hide, but I also am under no obligation to allow the police to rifle through my things.

Bags are screened at airports. Is that un-Constitutional? There is no reasonable cause that every single passenger at an airport is a terrorist. There is no specific threat at every single airport in America. It is a security measure.

This is a special case. For security reasons, these bags need to be searched. If anything, protestors at a convention are more suspicious than simple air travellers. There is a real threat here. There are websites devoted to the disruption of this event. Something is going to happen, is my feeling.

Should we do what we can (reasonably) to protect the public? There is a known threat here. There is a large group gathering.

This is not a blanket allowance to search anyone at anytime. This is a specific event, similar to a concert or sporting event. Security for a specific event is not an intrusion on Constitutional rights. If it were, searching people who went to watch their loved ones leave on a flight would be un-Constitutional.

The judge has certainly undermined security at the convention. I hope nothing happens there

Again - checking bags for bombs without cause does not stop bombers. It does violate rights.

Three main definitions for "Probable Cause" from ncwc.edu

Probable cause is where known facts and circumstances, of a reasonably trustworthy nature, are sufficient to justify a man of reasonable caution or prudence in the belief that a crime has been or is being committed. (reasonable man definition; common textbook definition; comes from Draper v. U.S. 1959)

Probable cause is what would lead a person of reasonable caution to believe that something connected with a crime is on the premises of a person or on persons themselves. (sometimes called the nexus definition; nexus is the connection between PC, the person's participation, and elements of criminal activity; determining nexus is the job of a judicial official, and it's almost always required in cases of search warrants, not arrest warrants)

Probable cause is the sum total of layers of information and synthesis of what police have heard, know, or observe as trained officers. (comes from Smith v. U.S. 1949 establishing the experienced police officer standard)

There are others... but these sum it up best. Obviously the Judge in question found these lacking in this case. If they had the "evidence" of threats that you suggest then it could be a reasonable search. It currently is not.


(edited to add cite and website credit)

Amlord, I might agree with you and Leder, except for a couple of salient points:

1. These protestors are not going to be in the convention hall itself. The convention is an invitation only event, and the protestors have not been invited.

Further, at least according to stories I've read so far, mayor Bloomburg and the NYPD are fighting to make sure that these protestors don't get within six blocks of the Madison Square Garden, and preferably further away (like Queens, or Staten Island).

2. Since these people will not be entering the convention hall, the police, Mayor, nor anyone else can possibly abrogate the rights of everyone on the streets within a half-mile radius of the center.

Of course, for anyone that is permitted to enter the convention, I am certain that they already have restrictions in place to allow for searching of all packages, bags, etc.

Look, it's simple. If you are going to throw the Constitution onto the landfill every time Tom Ridge holds a news conference and says the bad guys want to kill us, then we might as well just do away with it altogether. There is always going to be someone who wants to see us dead. But, I for one, refuse to give up any of my rights without a fight.

And again as several people have pointed out, airports are private entities and as such can require people to submit to a basic search of bags, etc.

The protestors are going to be in a public park, the street, whatever. As NiteGuy pointed out, they'll likely be no where near the actual convention. The police have no right to make people submit to blanket searches in public domain such as a street or park, regardless of the security threat.

1) Do you agree with the judge's decision? Yes.

2) Do you think this makes a terrorist's job easier? Sure. So does allowing any person to leave their domicile, drive a car, walk on the sidewalk, or take a bus. A large gathering of people is not sufficient justification for random searches.

So protestors are not entitled to security?

This is likely to be the largest gathering of protestors inside the US (just a guess here). It is also the biggest target for potential terrorists.

Do you really think that Islamo-extremists care if they kill Republicans or their protesting opponents? You would think these people would want the extra security.

All I am saying is that:

1. This is a one-time event.
2. There is a known threat here.
3. A large gathering of people at a predictable time and place.

The protesting area has a big red "X" on it, even more so than Madison Square Garden does. If these people don't want the extra security of a bag search...

Of course, if something DOES happen (God forbid...), the Feds will obviously be at fault. You can almost see this happening now...

I searched this thread but admit I may have missed it, what exactly is the "known threat"?

What about New Year's celebrations in cities? Mardi Gras, street festivals throughout the country, ect. ect. Don't all those people deserve protection? Where would this policy end, once you open the door to the acceptance of random searches for large gatherings of people at "predictable times and places"?

That is faulty reasoning and a perfect example of the fear inspired by this terrorist problem. This event is no more of a valuable target than any number of other things where people gather in large groups such as: subways, sporting events, concerts, public parks, etc.

Perhaps just forbidding people to gather in groups of more than 25 would be the answer? There is absolutely no reason to believe that terrorists would choose this target over anything else, and if the authorities do have that information they certainly haven't shared it with anyone else.

One time event or not it sets a bad precident and I'm glad the judge ruled against it.

I'm not sure how that impacts on the situation; is that a plea for special waiver of the 4th Amendment for this particular event? Every gathering in public is a "one-time" event at the time it happens.


You mean we have information that Islamo-terrorists are planning a suicide bomb attack against the protestors? Please tell us what we're unaware of so we can consider this new information.


Like number one, the same could be said of many busy public places.

Article

Found this, in my AM news alerts and it addressed many (not all) of my concerns about the upcoming events.

As to yesterdays Amtrak delay,


I sense a Drag net happening way beyond the actual Convention zones. It does seem that they will be taking many liberties (pun intended) with search opportunities.


edited to add...Since I vacillate with regards to this topic, I most likely won't be able to effectively debate though I must thank all contributors to this thread, one must keep their perspective when considering issues of liberty.

Poppycock. Please explain how anyone's freedom is violated by this. Exactly which 'freedom' is being violated? Only one 'freedom' is affected--your ability to carry a bomb wherever you want. I have never understood the outcry against such searches, especially when they're protests concerned with reducing our 'freedom'. No one's freedom is impacted in the slightest with such searches. You are free to not carry a bag, and you're free to go about your business if you do carry one that doesn't have a bomb in it. In fact, a much more significant freedom is enhanced by such searches--your freedom to live through the day without becoming a victim of a terrorist attack.

I have visited Turkey on a couple of occasions, which has a terrorist problem very similar to Israel's. Armed soldiers are at the entrance of every shopping mall, or other large public building, to inspect the bags of everyone entering. I never felt that this impacted my freedom at all--in fact, I felt much safer, knowing that active searches were being performed to discourage bombings. On one trip, I flew out to a smaller town in the east--where terrorist attacks are more common--and noted as I was landing that a group of soldiers were dug in around the airfield, in foxholes, on alert with weapons pointed out. There would be a huge outcry against this in the US, I am sure, but they were there for MY protection--I would be much more concerned with their absence than their presence. I had taken my camera out in the airport (my wife's home town) to snap a few pictures, and was quickly told by another armed soldier to put the camera away. Again, this was completely understandable (terrorists could take pictures to use in planning an attack), and in no way unduly infringed upon my freedom.

I think many Americans are overly concerned about supposed infringements on freedom, and less concerned about pragmatic steps to enhance security. This bag checking is a prime example. Who really is negatively affected by this? Only someone carrying something they shouldn't be. If that is your concern, you have two very simple remedies--don't carry something you shouldn't, or don't go where you know there will be inspections. These are choices you are free to make--but don't use your supposed freedom to impinge on my freedom to attend the event without getting blown up. That freedom should always be paramount.

And you used to be such a good liberatarian...

What freedom? The freedom to be secure from state intervention within my own person and my own property. Part of that great Bill of Rights that some people want to toss out on baseless fear.

It's not just the freedom to carry a bomb that's a problem.

What if I'm carrying around a clock and some wires? Think I'll be able to go about my business without being delayed or somehow persecuted?

What if I'm carrying around a gas container?

What if I'm carrying around large chunks of cash in that bag? What about diamonds? What about a little weed? Think it won't make the cops suspicious or create unnecessary delays in my day?

I have the freedom to do all of those things without fear of persecution by government authorities. I won't give that up.

You ready to give up your guns? Or do you want to keep that right? But you could be a terrorist! Search him!!!

It's bad policy to give up freedoms without a good fight. That's why we're Americans.

Yes and no. I think that these searches may or may not be deemed unreasonable. On one hand there is no warrant being issued to search these bags, but on the other hand, it is the protestors choice to come out and protest at this area, and to some extent, they do so knowing that the security will be hiked up. So again, yes and no.


Possibly, I'm up in the air on this whole issue.

CP

Securing the 2004 Conventions



What exactly is a "National Special Security Event"?

National Special Security Events


These events are not akin to Mardi Gras, New Years, or other events which are not NSSEs. Certain situations require enhanced security.



These events do not occur everyday. Their significance goes beyond simply being a large gathering of people. The task of the Secret Service becomes protecting the entire section of the city.

You would think the designation of the conventions as NSSEs would indicate that there was a probably threat involved (hence, probably cause to perform searches).

I meant to say this in the "Patriot Act" thread, but will instead say it here:

If you think the measures taken for security reasons now are somehow draconian, imagine what they will be if another large 9/11-type attack succeeds. People will DEMAND security. The Patriot Act will be minor compared to what the government could impose in its knee-jerk reaction to such an attack.

Prevention of these attacks is the highest responsibility of the government. It is one of the few duties which is undeniably in the Constitution.

Searches are an inconvenience at best. You submit to them at the airport, at ball games, at school, and upon entering certain government buildings. Why? On the off-chance that the facility will be a target.

These conventions are targets. Not only are they targets, they are less protected than your average stadium. Sure, inside the event is secure, but that is not the whole picture.

I will re-iterate, this is a one time event, an event which has been designated a National Special Security Event. You don't need to attend. You have been given fair warning that you will be subject to a search if you enter the area. I simply do not see this as a violation of the "search and seizure" clause which is clearly directed at situations in which there is no reasonable expectation of a crime.

EDIT to add:

Let's look historically: at the 1996 Republican Convention in San Diego GOP NATIONAL CONVENTION SECURITY PLAN - PART 1


Searches are certainly not unprecedented, even searches of protestors.

Um...amf...if you are going to a protest...i do not understand why you would be carrying a clock with wires, chunks of cash...and a GAS CONTATINER. LOL a gas container. Yes, you should be stopped because that is some weird stuff to be carrying in your bag during what is supposed to be a friendly protest. You have the freedom to carry a knife, a gun, a bomb? Come on!!! This is a public event! TERRORIST THREAT!!! Yes, the same type of threat we criticize the government for not listening to pre-9/11!!! Listen, the government is not out to get you. If you have weapons, a bomb, or a gas container at a public protest, are you telling me that you want to be free from government presecution for carrying thee items?

Again, you people are overreacting to this dumb situation that should be a no-brainer. If you want to go to the protest, show the police you do not have a bomb. If showing the police that you do not have a bomb offends you, stay home. Its not like one more protester is goign to make a difference.

If i am the NYPD i would tell everyone to leave their bags at home, just like they did in the months after 9/11. This would alleviate much of the problems and it would allow the police to focus more on the fewer amount of people who have bags.

Let me reiterate what I wrote in an earlier post -- The standard is NOT probable cause (more likely than not) but REASONABLE SUSPICION under Terry v. Ohio.

People fall back to the old "if you have done nothing wrong, what do you have to worry about" argument which is fallacious. By that reasoning, if I am not jewish, what would I care if the Government outlawed judaism. A person has a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. It is well defined black letter law when a police officer can stop and frisk someone.

9/11 did not invalidate the 4th Amendment. Searches of this sort have a chilling effect on the right to freedom of assembly.

If they have a reasonable suspicion, search away. If not, don't.

J

After reading Amlord's post, I would be comfortable with people having to submit to searches if it is designated as a "National Special Security Event". Designating it this way entails that there are specific criteria (I assume) that have to be met to call it a "National Special Security Event" and it also does not set a precedent of allowing police to randomly search people on the street if they feel like it.

The point I have been arguing the entire time is that we simply cannot submit to blanket searches in a public place, not only because it violates our 4th amendment rights, but because it sets a dangerous legal precedent. Now I'm no lawyer, but I would say that declaring it a "National Special Security Event" somewhat insulates this occurence. I have agreed (but maybe not stated it) that the conventions need tight security. But I refuse to accept that security at the expense of our Constitutional rights, especially in a way that could be applied to other unrelated situations.


You are missing the point lederuvdapac. The point here is that what the government was planning to do is illegal and unconstitutional. This situation is unique in that the police would have been allowed to search people on the street in the public domain (not a stadium, airport, or government building).

Myself and many others hold the viewpoint that the government is not excused from Constitutional limitations, even in the face of a potential terrorist attack. You do not follow the Constitution only when it is convenient for you -- you must adhere to it at all times. If we didn't do that, it wouldn't be worth the paper it is printed on. The fact that our country protects people's rights (even those you might consider undeserving like criminals, or those you disagree with in the case of free speech) is what makes America uniquely America. You take that away and we aren't any different than the rest of the world.

I would rather people die in a terrorist attack (and even myself if I was there) and have the Constitution upheld than shred it a little and save everyone's lives. Because at the end of the day, you might have survived the day but the Constitution takes a serious blow. For over 200 years people have fought numerous battles on the battlefield and off the battlefield to ensure that you and I enjoy those rights today. I will not let them slip away because people are "afraid". You also allow the terrorists victory, because bringing down our way of life is their ultimate goal, killing people is only the means to do that. I think the adamant supporters of this (even before the National Special Security Event thing) really need to give this some thought, step back and look at the bigger picture and quit being reactionary.

"Exactly which 'freedom' is being violated?"

My freedom to not be searched with out cause.

From that pesky bill of rights...
Amendment IV

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.

You are personally not opposed to unfair searches - good for you - none the less your rights - not just mine - are being violated.

The "threat to freedom" you are so puzzled by is simple - law enforcement is subject to constitutional law in this country - no exceptions. If they have no cause they have no legal means to search. They break the law when they do. This violates everything our rule of law is built on and directly threatens your freedom.

No probable cause? - No search. Simple.

Ahh, well, we all slip back occasionally....


Here is where I think the crux of the argument lies:



Given current circumstances, and in specific events, I think such searches--of EVERYONE--are reasonable. Therefore, no violation of the right is occurring. Terrorism, to me, does cause a fundamental shift in societal norms and values--ie, things which might be unreasonable in the absence of terrorism become reasonable with them. Just as with the searching of all bags of people going to the mall: terrorism makes this act reasonable. Randomly going into people's homes, without a warrant--not reasonable, even in the case of terrorism. Basically, such searches, to me, in certain public places, have a much higher benefit to society than their relatively minor cost (ie--those people having 'strange' things in their bags which cause them to be delayed). I do NOT feel that this should be used to give law enforcement cart blanche to conduct whatever random searches they want, wherever they want.

Consider the following--everyone entering certain Federal buildings are already forced to go through searches and metal detectors. These buildings are public places--why allow searches there and not here? What is the difference? Ditto for airports...

I fully agree as this was my point this whole time. Given the special circumstances of the event, a terrorist threat IS reasonable cause to search people for weapons or bombs. If a threat isn't worthy of probable cause, then i have no idea what you think is. If there is credible intelligence that an attack will occur then the police would not be doing their job if they did not act upon it.

This is the same types of threats that we criticize our government for not adhering to before 9/11. We cannot pick and choose which threats we will listen to and which we will not.

Jagwease is right about the standard being reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause. Terry v. Ohio held that police have the ability to stop someone and do a quick surface search of their outer clothing for weapons if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is committing a crime or is about to, in order to prevent harm to the officers in the course of doing their job. However, they still need to have that suspicion before targetting an individual for a search, and a blanket seach of everyone on a public street is still unconstitutonal.

When the officer is doing a pat down search of the person's outer clothing, they are usually looking for a weapon such as a knife or a gun, but they can look for a bomb too. They can also check a person's bag if the person is holding the bag, since the bag is within immediate reach and the person could secure a weapon from the bag. If the person puts the bag down, however, and is no longer holding it, then the standard to search the bag rises from reasonable suspicion to probable cause. In the case before the court at issue, the police had neither legal reasonable suspicion nor legal probable cause to insist on blanket searching everyone.

---

I think most the argument in this thread simply revolves around whether we think it is more imporant to prioritize security over freedom, or freedom over security, in the given scenario at hand. Proceeding from that basic starting point, we arrive at opposite conclusions.

Regarding Amlord's post - I read the link and understand that the conventions have been designated "National Security Special Events" but still feel unenlightened as to the specific threat being discussed. Has someone actually made a threat? I'm afraid a "security expert" from the Rand Corporation calling something a potential target strikes me like a vinyl-siding salesman saying your house needs vinyl siding. Do security experts have a vested interest in situations appearing less-than-secure?
I agree with what many others have posted before - Agreeing to surrender one's civil liberties in exchange for some perceived and probably specious level of heightened safety amounts to the terrorists already having won.

That is correct.

There is currently no credible threat or evidence. Certainly not enough to justify blanket searches on the street - not in a building - not in an airport - blanket searches on a public thoroughfare without probable cause or suspicion. This is why the judge applied the law fairly and struck it down.

If cause or valid suspicion existed against all protesters then it may be legal. In this case no cause exists.

This is not an issue of balance of “liberty” vs. “safety” – It is about rule of law and the fact that law enforcement can not ignore the constitution just because it would be more convenient. It’s not within their charter to do so, or our public officials to let them.

As many have said, the only complication here is the fact that these types of searches don’t stop terror or bombs. Even if it was legal it would do nothing to stop bombs – it’s irrational either way.

Interesting discussion. I find myself in agreement with this court's decision particularly in light of the case law cited by Jagwease in Terry v. Ohio. I would encourage people to read that decision here. Nothing in this opinion precludes the officers of the NYPD from searching someone's bag or backpack as long as they have a reason to do it. ie. the person is acting suspiciously - whatever that may mean.

From the case law previously cited.....



That seems to me to give quite a large amount of latitude for the police to use their professional judgement on whether or not to search a bag without resorting to a blanket search of all bags. I really don't see how this court's opinion adversly effects security at all.

Edited to take out the smiley face that the ( in the decision caused. I don't think the Supreme Court puts smilies into their opinions....

You all are doing an outstanding job here, I just about change my mind after every post.

Question for the attorneys:

If there were a known threat would that automatically create either ‘reasonable suspicion’ or ‘probable cause’ for anyone attending the event?

I’ve tried to find exactly how much weight the preamble of the constitution carries. From what I can tell not much but:


By allowing the searches are we not insuring domestic Tranquility and providing for the common defense? As much as this is a personal rights vs security issue, it’s also a preservation of government before personal rights issue.

I hope we don’t need an amendment that specifically spells out that certain rights may be waved for the preservation of our government, but I can only imagine what would follow if our election process were disrupted by an attack. I like the designated National Special Security Event and think in these instances we should sacrifice a portion of our liberties for the good and safety of all.

I can still remember how often it was repeated that “Things will never be the same” after the attack. I think we’re finding out how true and far reaching those words were. There are surely more trying times ahead, several more gut checks in the years to come and have felt for some time that our country needs us all more than ever.

No, if I understand what you are asking (since you used the word "anyone").

If information is received indicating that a specific individual is carrying a bomb, you have reasonable suspicion that they intend to commit a crime. You can search them (and I would hope so!)

If information is received indicating that there might be a bomb, but you have no information on who might be carrying it, you've got a problem. You don't have reasonable suspicion that everyone in the crowd is carrying a bomb, nor can you conduct blanket searches of everyone.

Obviously, this could be a serious problem for law enforcement and no one would argue that their job was easy. But there is that balance between security and liberty, and it has always been this way; it was this way before 9/11, and continues to remains so now, unless we want to amend the Constitution. You would have to amend it, because as it stands right now, existing case law says you can not conduct a blanket search of everyone on the street in a public place.

Allow me to throw you another question, Azure-Citizen. If the police receive information that there is a bomb some where in the crowd, does not this ruling allow for them to use bomb-sniffing dogs to circulate among the crowd? Continuing this hypothetical, should one of the dogs indicate a postive would that not constitute a "reasonable suspicion" for a search of a selected bag or bags?

Certainly (and I'm glad you pointed that out; Mrs. P also brought this up in a separate conversation as well); the police are free to use bomb-sniffing dogs circulating in public among the crowd.

Think of it this way. If someone carried a bomb out in the open, like a bunch of sticks of dynamite strapped to the front of their clothing, the police could act because it was in plain sight, in the open, in public. While if they have a bomb inside a bag, and the bomb is hidden, and they've done nothing to attract attention such that the police do not have reasonable suspicion, then the police can not blanket search everyone in the public area as a "security precaution," despite our wishes that the terrorist in question get caught. But... if the person in question has a bomb in a bag, and a police dog is walking around in public with a police officer, and the dog alerted to the smell of bomb chemicals, it is something that didn't involve physically searching a person or their effects. The dog does not have to put its nose inside a bag to smell chemicals... it can smell them right out in the open, just as in our earlier example the police officers saw the suspect walking around in public with a bomb strapped to his chest in the open.

It should also be acknowledged that it is pretty easy for a police officer to establish "reasonable suspicion" for a given individual if something keys the officer's attention; the police officer can then simply walk up to the person, ask them some questions, and evaluate their responses and reactions; a lot of deference will probably be accorded to the police officer later in court as to whether or not the individual behaved suspiciously. In light of this (as you hinted at earlier), there is a lot of latitude for police to use their professional judgement on whether or not to search a specific bag, without resorting to a blanket search of all bags. We only cross the constitutional line here when we allow them to conduct that indescriminate blanket search of the whole crowd in public.

Thanks for bringing this up in this thread.

It is interesting. The judge's decision was, in my opinion, the right one. People make comparisons to checking bags going into a stadium or an airport and those are completely different situations. Yes, you check the bags of people going into a stadium or an airport, you don't however check the bags of people standing outside the stadium or airport unless you have a good reason to do so. And no, a terrorist threat is not a good reason to check bags on public streets without cause. Living in a free society in which something like the Bill of Rights exists can be risky. Someone might try to take advantage of those rights in a despicable manner. It is something we have to accept.

If the police were to set up a perimeter on the street in order to maintain the safety of the building, that, I think, would be fine. Check people coming within that perimeter. But outside the perimeter, the police shouldn't have the right to infringe on people's privacy without good cause.