Skip to comments.NYers to NYPD: 'I Do Not Consent to Being Searched'
Posted on 07/22/2005 11:06:07 AM PDT by BigFinn
Reacting to the NYPD's announcement Thursday afternoon that police would randomlybut routinelysearch 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 obviousthat 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.
Unless this is targeted by profiling it is nothing but a circle jerk and an utter waste of police manpower. What are they going to do in January, have everyone take off his coat? how many busses run through midtown? How many stops are there? How many taxis are there (and how many are owned and/or operated by muslims)? How many muslim owned and/or operated coffee, pretzel, hot dog carts are there in Manhattan? Each of these should be checked every day if they want to waste manpower in an area where it might actually stop something.
It would prevent bombs on subways.
I've been waiting 4 years for someone to use the term "circle jerk" on Free Republic.
Just when I was beginning to lose hope, BAM, you came though for me.
you could make the same argument about border security. everyday on FR, we have people who say "seal the border, stop the terrorists". I could easily make the case that the border cannot be sealed adequately to stop a small team of determined and well funded terrorists from crossing - so that logic says, why bother having any border security (immigration control aside). if random subway searches are useless because the odds of catching someone is too low to justify the civil rights intrusion, then border security isn't worth it either because ths odds of stopping a dedicated group from crossing with the 1000s of miles of borders we have, is too.
and we could run down a list of other things:
- random searches of trucks entering NYC tunnels. again, low odds of capture, so should these be eliminated?
- random boarding and searching of cargo ships entering NY harbor by the coast guard. again, low odds of capture, so should we eliminate that too?
I could go on and on - each individual security activity has "low odds" of success - should we eliminate them all?
what's left that we can do? because internment camps for muslims isn't going to happen, we both know that.
I try to use it once a month...I alternate it with cluster F***.
"Since you'll consent to ANYTHING to make yourself "safer", I can give you about 1,000 more instructions. Would you like me to post them, or freepmail them."
No, thanks. The first two tips you gave above were not clear. In fact, it's hard to discern what you're trying to say. I would imagine the rest of your "instructions" to be also not very effective in communicating them.
This thread is about a t-shirt being sold in New York City with a message that defies the police.
Here, i'll speak slowly.
Stay .... inside .... and ... you ... will .... be .... safer .... than .... if .... you .... go .... outside.
Does anyone know sign language?
Well then it's not a random search, is it?
Of course it ain't. A target search is not a random search.
It doesn't defy police. It says they don't consent to being searchd. Not giving consent isn't "defiance".
Thanks for the personal attack.
Your paper's are in order?
PS, DingDong sez hi.
"That's amazing. It sure looked like you were disagreeing with me at first, but now it seems we're in agreement."
To tell you the truth, I was a bit confused at what my pupils were reading at first, but then realized we were in agreement and wanted to say so, but still not sure.
You've clarified that we are in agreement.
Not an attack. Just calling a spade a spade.
Next time grasp the substance of a comment the first time around and there will be no need to talk down to you.
HAHA. You must mean my neighbor. I haven't gotten around to building one yet!
Good point. They may actually _resort to_ that before too long, after one or more suicide bombers blow themselves (and others) up in a public square. Do the same folks who so meekly consent to random searches in the subway, feel that random searches on the street will be needed, then, too?
I don't think the idea of "random searches" for the NYC subways and metropolitan-area commuter lines is going to work very well. They'll try to keep it up for a while, but like other things, what one tries to keep up must eventually come back down.
This goes _beyond_ the question of civil liberties and our rights under the Constitution (for the record, I _oppose_ such searches as an erosion of our liberties - what the heck are we supposed to be _fighting for_ anyway?). What's really may combine to make this unworkable are the issues of manpower, costs, and implementation.
My guess is that there are a _lot_ of posters in this forum who have absolutely NO idea of what the New York City subways and commuter lines are like during the rush hours. The hordes of people, crowding, pushing, teeming, just trying to get through the turnstiles.
Even the larger subway stations have relatively limited points of entry. That means that many, many - let me repeat that for emphasis, MANY - people must move through relatively constricted points of entry at a given speed in order to make the system workable. Clog up those entry points, and you have hundreds - THOUSANDS - who can't get into the system, every one of them trying to do their damnedest to get home after the workday.
Just how many riders can the NYC police actually corral, search, and release? One in a hundred? Two hundred? Three per hundred?
There are hundreds of subway stations in the system, many having two, three, or four access points. How much manpower is it going to take to secure the system? Are they going to secure every entry point, 24 hours a day? Who is going to pay for this? (HINT: it _ain't_ going to be the folks who live in New York City)
Let's consider the major transportation hubs, Grand Central and Penn Station. Penn Station has only about eight or nine entrance points through which must pass THOUSANDS of commuters, hurrying to make their trains. How are the police going to effectively cordon these areas so that they can scrutinize everyone? Impossible.
Or take Grand Central. Again, relatively few points of entry - and if you block those, you have hundreds of folks standing on the STREET, clogging up the outside of the station. Well, search them inside, right, at the gates of entry to the train platforms. Fine - but how about the commuter trying to make a train, who is hauled over to the side, searched, and misses his train? I wouldn't want to be the Metro-North official dealing with such folks.
Or consider the outlying commuter train lines, coming inbound. Dozens of stations, some in remote towns, high level platforms with multiple entry points. The only way to secure them is to limit the entry points so that everyone must walk through a cordoned gauntlet. Not likely. And the small towns which these stations serve don't have the financial resources to pay for local police to conduct searches on a 24-hour basis. Watch for an entire new "homeland transit security/TSA" bunch of goons, coming soon to a commuter station near you.
Strict security works for the airports because airplanes are _not_ "mass transit" machines; on the contrary, they carry limited numbers of riders, each of whom can be screened.
But trying to implement "security searches" on mass transit is going to be a nightmare. I predict it will either quickly be seen as:
1. Unworkable -or-
2. Unpalatable to the general public, who will demand that it be discontinued.
Then again, I could be wrong. Perhaps we are destined to surrender nearly every liberty we once held dear, all in the name of "feeling" safer.
In that case, I prefer the unsafe.
Like the wermact on the western front?
Maybe so, but the critical legal point is that the cops are not permitted to "pick out people to search." For legal reasons, the search must be random or its unconstitutional.
That's what makes it stupid.
What if you are standing next to this guy in line waiting to be searched and get "blown up" when the cop wants to search him?
No offense but you are being terribly naive about "being blown up". The guys that wear bombs are neither intimidated nor deterred by random searches. If they are searched before they reach their destination, they just blow themselves up where they stand.
Additionally, the chances of the police searching the guy that is carrying the bomb is very low - insanely low. Why do you want to give up your freedoms for a futile approach?
You still don't get it.
You can't profile the conduct of a target's lifespan, as you would run into the realm of abstractions. However, profiling of indiviuals based on non-tangibles criteria helps in choosing the target to be searched.
This shirt is being sold in a far left publication that routinely portrays Bush as a vampire, as a Nazi, etc.
The maker of the shirt is an activist for illegal immigrants.
People who will be buying and wearing this shirt are being defiant of the searches. They are the same people who make New York and America less safe by being pro-illegal, anti-gun, anti-profiling.
"Stay .... inside .... and ... you ... will .... be .... safer .... than .... if .... you .... go .... outside."
Stay inside? What's the matter with you?
If we followed that tip of yours, the world will come to a crawl, nay, civilization itself would halt. How how does this help catching the bad guys?
That would actually be an accurate statement. The reason to seal the border is stop the millions of immigrants who come here illegally and severely burden our social services.
Making it harder for potential terrorists would just be a potential benefit.
Note that if a terrorist was stopped by the border patrol and then blew themselves up, it wouldn't have the same effect as a terrorist detonating themselves in a crowded subway security line.
That point is very important as a terrorist that is stopped from entering a subway car can kill just as many people and cause just as much harm if he detonates while in the security line. This is truly a "feel good" measure that the left usually enjoys - I am surprised that conservatives are being fooled by it.
I'm not going to get into a flame war with you.
I grasped you just fine, my FRiend. You were twisting my words and I was trying to clarify so we could have a conversation.
I won't bother.
At some point, the f-you attitude will boil over and the real culprits will be targeted. However, this may take another generation or so - we should probably give the phony WOT a chance. That way, there won't be much disagreement when more dramatic war measures are implemented in the correct overseas targets.
... eastern front, silly boy ...
I still like the 4th amendment, backed up by the 2nd amendment.... Who cares about the cool-aid drinkers?
How does conducting random searches in the subway help catch any bad guys? The odds of searching the right guy are astronomical and even if you do pick out the right one, he will detonate himself where he stands and take a cop and whoever else is standing nearby. It will cause just as much damage and fear and the bad guy will not still not be caught as it was his plan to blow himself up in any event.
I'm not saying that we have to give up. What the people who value freedom in this thread are saying is that it is silly to give up very important constitutional freedoms for an effort that is useless.
I agree - we want the border sealed because of the illegal immigration problem.
but imagine if no one wanted to come here from Mexico - that we didn't have an immigration issue. and that border security was only about keeping out potential terrorists and criminals. should we not do it? should we eliminate all visas, passports, just make it wide open - since after all, the odds of catching someone is so low, why bother?
take a bunch of these "feel good" low odds measures all together, and I feel it makes a difference.
On some days, my bag is searched three or four times. Library, office buildings, museums, etc. One more time won't make a difference.
well, all I can tell you is that the very police department we are speaking of - NYPD - conducted sweeping stop and frisk activites to get crime under control when Rudy took office. I see no evidence it was random - specific neighboorhoods were targeted, that alone constitutes a form of profiling. I didn't see any court rulings stopping it. what stopped it? the Diallo shooting.
Oceanview: "I could easily make the case that the border cannot be sealed adequately to stop a small team of determined and well funded terrorists from crossing"
That's ridiculous. According to your "case," we should open the border gates to the immigrant alien since one or two terrorist might slip through the net if the borders were sealed. The fact is that closing the borders prevents the crossing of 99.99% of criminal aliens terrorists and foreign murderers. Keeping them open allows for 99.99% of the world's trash to come in at their pleasure.
JeffAtlanta: "That would actually be an accurate statement. The reason to seal the border is stop the millions of immigrants who come here illegally and severely burden our social services."
The Open Borders crackpots are either confused and naive, or they intentionally would love to see our country's sovereignty lost to hordes of colonizing Third World aliens.
You have the right to refuse being searched.
We have the right to refuse to let you ride our subways.
I take a bow to you, Sir/Madam.
The difference is that securing the border does not infringe or erode any constitutional freedoms - random searches do.
The problem with this measure is that is both futile and infringes on constitutional freedoms. The futility and ineffectiveness of the plan wouldn't be that big of a deal if were more friendly to the constitution. And for what it's worth, the constitutional issues wouldn't be as big of deal if it were a very effective approach.
This approach however does nothing but erode freedoms and inconvenience law abiding citizens.
Four years after 9-11, and Bush (or is it Clinton or Kerry - can't tell them apart on this issue) is still pouring foreign muslims into our homeland at the rate of 100,000 per year. Bush's eight years of "leadership" will add another million muslims to the USA through legal immigration and the US-born children of those immigrants.
Here's what he (and Congress) did to America in one year alone (2002)
|Legal USA Immigrants
|Muslim population percentage||Estimated 2002 Muslim Legal Immigrants|
|Serbia and Mont.||2,994||19||569|
|Cen. African Rep.||6||55||3|
"How does conducting random searches in the subway help catch any bad guys?"
I'm not for random searches, rather for targeted searches and profiling would help tremendously.
A stopped clock is right twice a day.
This guy who wrote the original article in question may have drawn his conclusions as to the inappropriateness of Bloomberg's action for reasons that you and I might not agree with. That does not automatically make his conclusion wrong. For my part, I recall being appalled but unsurprised by the new policy within moments of hearing about it earlier today.
I have only read about a third of the messages in this thread, but must heartily second the opinions expressed in message 484. I am astonished to see so many supposedly right-thinking people on this board happily relinquish their rights and freedoms with nary a concern for the consequences. Perhaps it is that many on this board avoid NYC at all costs anyway and regard it as past salvation. If so, this is a remarkably narrow and short-sighted view.
Precisely how did 32 people manage to legally immigrate from the US into the US? Enquiring minds and all that...
I agree but we both know that grannies and yuppies will end up being the ones searched. I also imagine that this will be used as an excuse to search those who fit a profile of a recreational drug user.
In this case, a guy blowing himself in a crowded subway station can be just as devastating as blowing himself in a subway car. The London bombers haven't killed very many people at all. The bad guys will not be caught or deterred the least bit by the searches.
All this measure does is give the police an excuse to search you. This should be very worrisome to those who love freedom.
The war on drugs has already eroded most of our freedoms - I fear that the war on terrorism will erode the rest.
Thanks for that list.
It's a must-read/study by every American as we are being transformed from a European extended nation to a third world nation somewhere between a Haiti and a Mexico.
Time to prepare our families.
That compilation also proofs what I have always said: Legal immigration is a much bigger problem than illegal immigration.
My guess is that these are people who were born here, moved abroad and then renounced or otherwise lost their U.S. citizenship. Should such a person then move back to the USA, they would have to get an immigrant visa, and would thus show up in the stats as US-born.
Also a very few people (children of foreign diplomats) born here are not US citizens, and would thus need an immigrant visa (or lax US government) in order to live here.
I agree but we both know that grannies and yuppies will end up being the ones searched. I also imagine that this will be used as an excuse to search those who fit a profile of a recreational drug user.
You are confused.
You target the enemy -- whom should not be here in the first place -- not grannies and drug users.
Good for the cops. I don't CARE what happens to the Times or any of their so called reporters. We all know what he's going to do with those pics.
I don't want to live in a police state because of Radical Islam or any other idiotic reason. If Islam is the problem then deal with Islam not the entire Global Population.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
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.
Diversity is tyranny.
Demographics is destiny.
No, I think you misunderstood my post. I am saying that grannies and drug users SHOULD be targeted for random searches - I'm saying that is what WILL be done.
Well, that may be true, but by all accounts the guy that discovered aspirin was a real asshole. This doesn't make everyone who takes aspirin an asshole.
Supposed someone else made the shirt ... would it be okay to wear it then?
Not consenting to something is not "defiance". Especially when they say you can walk away. That is simply ... not consenting. "Defiance" would be struggling to take your bag away from police after they declared that their dog smelled explosives and they had reasonable suspicion to look in it. Defiance would be slapping the cop in the face. Defiance is not refusing consent. Consent, by it's nature, is voluntary - and one cannot be defiant for refusing it.
The neighborhood kid asked if I would give him $10 to mow my lawn. I did not consent. He didn't mow my lawn. Did I "defy" him? No. I simply declined to have it done. And in return, I didn't get my lawn mowed. At this point, it sounds like if you don't consent to inspetion in the subway, you don't get to enter that particular turnstile. You have to walk to the other entrance, or maybe to the next stop. But that's not "defience". It's making a choice.
Everyone is free to consent or not consent. They may check the bag without your consent, but not granting your consent is not defiance. It is doing what you think is right. And we should all do what we think is right. And not abiding by a law that violates the Bill of Rights is actually an OBLIGATION that all patriotic Americans have. Yes, I realize that it is impractical, and "not the way things work" ... but it's presicely our passivity to the deterioration of the Consitution that has gotten us to this point. Now since we've made 4/5th of the journey to totalitarianism people just say "we might as well go the rest of the way", but I don't begrudge the small number of people who try to preserve what the military is fighting for. Freedom.