Subway Search Constitutionality in Question

John, i think you need to reread what i said (open lives—i meant something quite different than what you interpreted), if not, i will quote myself here to make it easier for you. "airlines, like the MTA are a public private corporation and thus it's a privelage to ride, not a right. and most importantly it's not unconstitutional."

while i can agree with you in regards to the searches, are they unjust? perhaps. are they helping thwart a terror attack? no. does searching a bag make me feel safer? no. these elements were not my point(s). my point(s) were, and i was very clear, the MTA is public/private, meaning it's not a right to ride the subway as it's not a right to drive your car. law enforcement can search your vehicle before you enter a bridge or tunnel, if you're "suspicious" you're tagged.

Basically, you're not giving up any rights to begin with, and you won't be "searched on the sidewalk, because the sidewalk IS public not public/private. cabs are at their own discretion as well, since they also public/private.

do you not take airplanes because they search you as well. i do not like the fact that there are bag searches, but i must stress here, it's not a violation of constitutional rights.

I don't think it's possible to prove or disprove that the bag checks make us safer. Short of a successful attack or a thwarted attack, it's all conjecture. I also don't think that by allowing bag searches we open ourselves up for cab/pedestrian/home searches. I look at the bag searches as the same as going through security at an airport, except I don't have to take my shoes off. If they start making us take our shoes off before we swipe our metrocards, then I'll know Big Brother is coming for me.

It's total window dressing to make the masses think that something is being done to protect them. It has no functional value and wastes resources that could be better used elsewhere not too mention the obvious unconstitutionality. However from a pratical perspective, I don't think it would be that much of an inconvenience to let some cop go through my bag.

Subway inspections are nothing more than "security theatre". They don't actually reduce the threat, just shift its location elsewhere. Plus it makes people feel safer by making it seem at if they are being protected.

Frankly, I want money spent on making me safer even if I can't see the activity. Spending money to make be feel less fearful is a huge waste.

Nigel, let's rephrase your question, shall we? If you have nothing illegal in your house, what's the big deal if cops come by every once in a while to rifle through your stuff for no reason other than if they searched everybody's home, they might eventually stop a plot? The founding fathers didn't write the fourth amendment on a whim. Nolo Law says, "A good example of how this works comes from a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court held that a bus passenger had a legitimate expectation of privacy in an opaque carry-on bag positioned in a luggage rack above the passenger's head, and that the physical probing by the police of the bag's exterior for evidence of contraband constituted a search subject to Fourth Amendment limitations. (Bond v. U.S., No. 98-9349 (April 17, 2000).)" Today, it's subway station checks. Tomorrow, it might be cab checks. After that, random sidewalk checks. Where would it stop?

The big deal, Nigel, is that allowing the cops to search my bag does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to increase my safety. It will not prevent one attack, nor one bombing. If I were a terrorist who wanted to attack, I would simply use one of the lesser-used entrances to gain entry to the subway (which aren't staffed by bag-searching cops as often, if ever) or I will simply turn around and go to the next station if there is a cop there, as is my right. As such, it doesn't do a damn thing to prevent anything. I still await the bag search advocate who has one -- ONE! -- rational, practical defense of the utility of these searches. Who, exactly, will this policy stop? How? And as for edEx's comment about "very open lives" lived in NYC...what are you talking about? I don't remember signing off on having fewer consitutional rights by dint of having been born in New York City. It's not just weed we need to worry about. What about if I have a predilection for colon-revealing porn? Should that be advertised to every police officer in New York in an empty gesture toward fake subway safety? So should we all be searchable, at all times, wherever we go, just to make people "feel more safe" as opposed to actually being more safe? It makes sense to back safety policies that actually WORK, not policies that simply molly-coddle shallow-thinking sheep who think cop presence=safer. These attitudes -- where the defense of a policy consists of "well, if you have nothing to hide, what are you worried about?" -- would make Orwell crack a rueful smile. I still await that factual defense of an absurd policy.

i think the seach of any item bag or person is justifiable by both the NYPD and the MTA. airlines, like the MTA are a public private corporation and thus it's a privelage to ride, not a right. and most importantly it's not unconstitutional. it think people are mad because it's just another thing that somehow "violates or exposes" their already very open lives, living in nyc. if you have some weed, put it in your pocket or keep it at home.

If you have nothing illegal in your bag, what's the big deal with having a cop look through it? If the TSA can search your bags when you fly, how can it be unconstitutional to search a bag when you ride the subway?

I have heard not one rational justification for these bag searches. They are ineffective (for the reasons you've listed) and clearly unconstitutional. The best advocates for this cynical policy can muster is a vague assertion about it making people "feel better." Yeah, that's what I want from my government - false security in an attempt to mollify fears that are raised for political gain in the first place. Anyone who submits to a bag search hastens the loss of our collective civil liberties.

"contending that the subway bad searches are unconstitutional."

Bad, I agree, but unconstitutional?