Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NYCLU sues city over subway searches
NYNewsday ^ | August 4, 2005 | Joshua Robin and Dan Janison

Posted on 08/04/2005 7:34:11 AM PDT by bobsunshine

The New York Civil Liberties Union will file suit against the city Thursday to keep police from searching the bags of passengers entering the subway, organization lawyers said.

The suit, which will be filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, will claim that the two-week old policy violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and prohibitions against unlawful searches and seizures, while doing almost nothing to shield the city from terrorism.

It argues that the measure also allows the possibility for racial profiling, even though officers are ordered to randomly screen passengers. "While concerns about terrorism of course justify -- indeed, require -- aggressive police tactics, those concerns cannot justify the Police Department's unprecedented policy of subjecting millions of innocent people to suspicionless searches," states the suit, a partial copy of which was provided to Newsday.

Names of the plaintiffs -- subway riders who object to the searches -- were redacted in the copy, but are expected to be released Thursday morning.

A city Law Department spokeswoman said that since officials had not yet received the suit, she could not yet comment. The city is named as a defendant, along with the police department and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. Thursday, before the suit was released, Kelly said that the searches were "just one more layer, one more tool." "No one thinks that will be the solution, but it does give a potential terrorist something more to think about," he said.

The civil liberties union has criticized the searches as over-reaching since Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced the measure on July 21, after terrorists targeted London's mass transit system for the second time in two weeks. It also calls the stops ineffective because terrorists can walk through entrances where police are not screening.

(Excerpt) Read more at nynewsday.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; US: New York
KEYWORDS: aclu; bloomberg; homelandsecurity; lawsuit; nysubway; profiling; searches
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-129 next last
To: bobsunshine

There's a simple solution to this that seems to escape the powers that be here.

Turn the mass transit system over to private companies. Get the government out of it altogether.

Then the private companies can search anyone and everyone they desire before getting on their "PRIVATE" transit system.

The ACLU or the NYCLU wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

No Government, not alleged infraction of rights.

At least according to all of the business people around here, this would work. Profiling would then be ok too because it's a private company and not publicly owned.


41 posted on 08/04/2005 9:45:39 AM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (3-7-77 (No that's not a Date))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tfecw
Hmm I should also be able to have a gun on my own property in NYC, DC, San Fran, etc.

That's why I live in Virginia, a priviledge I do not want to give up :)

42 posted on 08/04/2005 9:49:29 AM PDT by Zavien Doombringer (Have you gotten your Viking Kittie Patch today? http://www.visualops.com/patch.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer
The false sense of security, is it for the government or for the populace?
Good question. I think it's a little of both. NYC gets to do several things with this. The first is it's a cheap way for votes. They get to point at the security measures and say we are doing something.

This also protects them in a few years if/when (god forbid) some other POS terrorist detonates in NYC. The government can use this as a get out of jail free card. Instead of letting the people arm themselves and tossing out all the trash (radicals, illegals, criminals), in what would be career suicide in their liberal bastion, they can say, "We had check points, we were just out smarted."
43 posted on 08/04/2005 9:49:55 AM PDT by tfecw (Vote Democrat, It's easier than working)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer
Driving isn't a right, it is a priviledge in all states.

What do you mean by priviledge? Are there other privileges, like, say, gun ownership, that the government is empowered by our Constituution to restrict?

44 posted on 08/04/2005 9:57:08 AM PDT by Haru Hara Haruko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer

Do you mean to say that my rights are enumerated in the Constitution?


45 posted on 08/04/2005 10:01:47 AM PDT by Haru Hara Haruko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi
Then lets get rid of the screening of bags in airports

When we stop allowing young moslem males to fly without extensive checks, we could readily do that. Are you against that happening?

Do you know how ineffective the bag screening was when it was tested? It found approximately ZERO of the weapons that were intentionally concealed, and less than half that were placed in bags with no attempt to conceal them.

46 posted on 08/04/2005 10:07:08 AM PDT by Haru Hara Haruko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Haru Hara Haruko
The state gave you the privilege of driving on the Public Roads - through a license. It can be taken away from you by the state (i.e. DWI, not paying for tags, etc.).

Gun ownership is protected by the Constitution, but it can be restricted by the State (gun laws, etc.)

I see no problem in searching the bags if you want to use Public transit. And I think we should do more "social" profiling, that is, the Muslim social group of men between the ages of 17 and 34.

I also think we should install more cameras in the Public Areas. This is not a violation of your privacy since they are used in Public (not private) areas.
47 posted on 08/04/2005 10:29:02 AM PDT by bobsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine

IF I pay my taxes and commit no egregious offenses, the state cannot take away my drivers license. Moreover, if I am not operating a vehicle, the state has no power at all to restrict my travel.

Are you saying that rights not enumerated in the Constitution are mere privileges?


48 posted on 08/04/2005 10:40:03 AM PDT by Haru Hara Haruko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine

Readily available lasers easily destroy CCD sensors. Put up all the cameras you like.


49 posted on 08/04/2005 10:41:04 AM PDT by Haru Hara Haruko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine

Oh, and while your genius legl mind is at work, please explain how "resticted" differs from "infringed."

Or are you one of those people who think there are no unconstitutional and illegitimate laws?


50 posted on 08/04/2005 11:13:00 AM PDT by Haru Hara Haruko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Haru Hara Haruko

yes they are...Your rights are the ones that the Government is not allowed to touch...


51 posted on 08/04/2005 11:39:02 AM PDT by Zavien Doombringer (Have you gotten your Viking Kittie Patch today? http://www.visualops.com/patch.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Haru Hara Haruko
sheeesh, it would be foolish to not know that there are unconstitutional laws and illegitmate laws, but they are laws non the less and must be obeyed until revoked or changed through legislation.

No matter how stupid they are in the present

52 posted on 08/04/2005 11:42:20 AM PDT by Zavien Doombringer (Have you gotten your Viking Kittie Patch today? http://www.visualops.com/patch.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer
but they are laws non the less ...

BZZZT wrong. I'll give it to you in multiple choice.

An unconstitutional law is...

A. ...like any other law.

B. ...permanent until reapealed by legislation.

C. ...no law at all.

For extra credit, who said it, and in what case?

53 posted on 08/04/2005 12:09:17 PM PDT by Haru Hara Haruko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer
yes they are...

Really! The Constituion is a very short document. We must not have very many rights. You can point me to the list, eh?

54 posted on 08/04/2005 12:10:25 PM PDT by Haru Hara Haruko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: bobsunshine

Why doesn't the aclu sue the airlines for unreasonably searching people's bags?


55 posted on 08/04/2005 12:19:38 PM PDT by mudblood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Haru Hara Haruko

so, Blue laws didn't exist and were never enforced. yet they are unconstitutional, they were still laws...


56 posted on 08/04/2005 1:04:14 PM PDT by Zavien Doombringer (Have you gotten your Viking Kittie Patch today? http://www.visualops.com/patch.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Haru Hara Haruko

The first 10 admendments are you bill of rights...


57 posted on 08/04/2005 1:05:14 PM PDT by Zavien Doombringer (Have you gotten your Viking Kittie Patch today? http://www.visualops.com/patch.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Haru Hara Haruko

so, who was it that said, "a moral people do not need a government"?


58 posted on 08/04/2005 1:06:55 PM PDT by Zavien Doombringer (Have you gotten your Viking Kittie Patch today? http://www.visualops.com/patch.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Haru Hara Haruko; Darksheare; meowmeow; Constitution Day; 4mycountry; Poohbah; Grampa Dave; ...
Really! The Constituion is a very short document. We must not have very many rights. You can point me to the list, eh?

*sniff* *sniff*

59 posted on 08/04/2005 1:14:05 PM PDT by Zavien Doombringer (Have you gotten your Viking Kittie Patch today? http://www.visualops.com/patch.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Haru Hara Haruko

Say, you sound just like..
Naaaah.
Can't be.


60 posted on 08/04/2005 1:14:59 PM PDT by Darksheare ("Just because I have a paper heart, doesn't mean tearing it is okay." -The man with the candy face)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-129 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson