> The National Guard members will conduct random bag checks on passengers
I'm not asking this out of disbelief, but just out of genuine curiosity: What is the legal foundation that allows them to randomly search people who are simply going about their day? What happens whenever people say "no, you can't search my bag." ?
> This case involves the NYPD's practice of stopping and searching subway goers without just cause. On July 21, 2005, the NYPD announced that it would begin a new program of searching the belongings of those seeking to enter the subway system. Since the program was implemented, the NYPD has searched tens of thousands of people without any suspicion of wrongdoing. On Aug. 4, 2005, the NYCLU filed a complaint in the District Court on behalf of five individuals. The complaint alleges that the NYPD program violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments...
> On Dec. 7, 2005, the District Court ruled in favor of the defendants and refused the plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction. The decision stated that the random subway search program was not “impermissibly intrusive” and was constitutional. The NYCLU appealed to the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. On Aug. 11, 2006, the Second Circuit upheld the District Court decision, stating that the program constitutes the “special need” exception to the Fourth Amendment.
> Passengers can refuse to open their bags and walk away, but they cannot go through the turnstile to the trains with bags they did not allow the police to search.
I am not a lawyer, but I agree, this seems to be on questionable legal footing...
Fourth Amendment:
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're talking about getting onto an enclosed, protected space. You have the Constitutional right as an American to not be unreasonably searched, but that doesn't mean you have the right of free movement to any and all places not owned by you personally without restrictions imposed by whoever controls that space, even when it's the government. If you're trying to get into a courthouse, the white house, an airplane, a train, they can search you first.
What happens if you refuse a search is you leave the platform and get back onto the street where you're allowed to move about freely without being subject to search.
The sister comment describes a court ruling that bag searches are permissible for anti-terrorism purposes. However this new deployment is being challenged by the ACLU because the bag searches are being done for general law-enforcement reasons. I guess we'll see what the courts rule.
Maybe true but NYC didn’t need this level of policing in the subways in the 1950s.
We could ask why this happens in NYC and other US cities but not in Tokyo, Singapore, Bangkok, or Paris. In years of using mass transit in Asia I have not once witnessed the kind of conflict I’ve seen in NYC and SF every day.
> Hochul said she chose to use state resources rather than pay for NYPD overtime to beef up transit patrols.
> “I’m going to be responding to many, many needs of the mayor and the city of New York in our budget,” Hochul said. “And so I said, ‘I can do something more immediate than a budget request, I can give you bodies right now.’ And I think that actually puts us ahead of the game.”
Readit News
I'm not asking this out of disbelief, but just out of genuine curiosity: What is the legal foundation that allows them to randomly search people who are simply going about their day? What happens whenever people say "no, you can't search my bag." ?
https://www.nyclu.org/en/cases/macwade-v-kelly-challenging-n...
> This case involves the NYPD's practice of stopping and searching subway goers without just cause. On July 21, 2005, the NYPD announced that it would begin a new program of searching the belongings of those seeking to enter the subway system. Since the program was implemented, the NYPD has searched tens of thousands of people without any suspicion of wrongdoing. On Aug. 4, 2005, the NYCLU filed a complaint in the District Court on behalf of five individuals. The complaint alleges that the NYPD program violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments...
> On Dec. 7, 2005, the District Court ruled in favor of the defendants and refused the plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction. The decision stated that the random subway search program was not “impermissibly intrusive” and was constitutional. The NYCLU appealed to the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. On Aug. 11, 2006, the Second Circuit upheld the District Court decision, stating that the program constitutes the “special need” exception to the Fourth Amendment.
From an NYT article about court decision in 2006, at https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/12/nyregion/12search.html
> Passengers can refuse to open their bags and walk away, but they cannot go through the turnstile to the trains with bags they did not allow the police to search.
Fourth Amendment:
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.
What happens if you refuse a search is you leave the platform and get back onto the street where you're allowed to move about freely without being subject to search.
We could ask why this happens in NYC and other US cities but not in Tokyo, Singapore, Bangkok, or Paris. In years of using mass transit in Asia I have not once witnessed the kind of conflict I’ve seen in NYC and SF every day.
> “I’m going to be responding to many, many needs of the mayor and the city of New York in our budget,” Hochul said. “And so I said, ‘I can do something more immediate than a budget request, I can give you bodies right now.’ And I think that actually puts us ahead of the game.”