Replies

However, I believe that this type of search does not violate the Fifth Amendment. Here's why: The police are not stopping people on the street and randomly searching them. The city is saying that as a condition of riding the subway, you might be subject to a bag search. If someone doesn't consent to the search, they are free to do two things: leave their bag at home, or not ride the subway. That is not a violation of the Constitution.

The city is saying that as a condition of riding the subway, you might be subject to a bag search. If someone doesn't consent to the search, they are free to do two things: leave their bag at home, or not ride the subway. That is not a violation of the Constitution.

I think you are wrong. If you can't ride the public subway, then maybe you can't use the public parks, or walk on the public sidewalk either. You are basically saying that it within the consitution to make one housebound if they don't agree to random searches, and I don't think it is.

A sincere thank you for replying in the spirit of this debate.

IMO, that argument doesn't answer the randomness question.

See my post #49, and you'll see I'm not saying searches are a 5th Amendment violation. Only random searches.

All fo these complaints about violations of our Constitutional rights are pretty meaningless in the context of public transportation, but they do illustrate a very important point. The whole notion of "public transportation" has no foundation in Constitutional law, since the Constitution could not possibly have envisioned a scenario in which government agencies would oversee the operation of this kind of public infrastructure.

The only "Constitutional" approach to this situation is to shut down the damn subway system and fill all those tunnels with concrete. This type of thing simply isn't conducive to a free society.

However, I believe that this type of search does not violate the Fifth Amendment. Here's why: The police are not stopping people on the street and randomly searching them. The city is saying that as a condition of riding the subway, you might be subject to a bag search. If someone doesn't consent to the search, they are free to do two things: leave their bag at home, or not ride the subway. That is not a violation of the Constitution.

Let's take this out to it's logical conclusion then.

Bombs in London on mass transit. New York, Washington, etc. say (to quote your words) "as a condition of riding the subway, you might be subject to a bag search. If someone doesn't consent to the search, they are free to do two things: leave their bag at home, or not ride the subway"

Now no Americans have been killed by the bombs in London, but we've had many Americans (soldiers) killed by car & truck bombs in Iraq.

What if some cities said (to use your words, only replacing a few words - bolded):

"as a condition of using the roads, you might be subject to an automobile search. If someone doesn't consent to the search, they are free to do two things: leave their car at home, or not use the roads"

Puts a twist on things, doesn't it.