Okay, maybe not just yet, but read this latest news out of New York:


NEW YORK (AP) - The agency best known for enforcing security at the nation's airports will soon be sending its marshals onto New York's commuter railroads.

The Transportation Security Administration is among several policing agencies that will boost the law enforcement presence on the Metro-North Railroad, the Long Island Rail Road and the Staten Island Railway, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority announced Wednesday.

"This combined deployment of MTA police and officers from a variety of federal and regional sources will give our commuter railroads the kind of police presence our customers deserve and the post-9/11 environment requires," said Elliot G. Sander, the MTA's executive director.

Citing security concerns, officials would not say how many new officers would be patrolling the trains and platforms, but MTA spokesman Jeremy Soffin said the number would be "dramatically higher."

The new security plan is called the Directed Patrol Strategy. It began last week with a new deployment plan for MTA officers and 50 dogs trained to sniff out explosives.

Beginning next week, other agencies will join the program. Besides TSA marshals, passengers will see state police, county police from Westchester, Nassau, Suffolk and other counties and local police from dozens of towns and villages, Soffin said.

New York City police will take part at railroad stations in the Bronx, Queens and Staten Island. All patrols will be assigned in random patterns.

Officials said the new patrols could do random bag searches. They said the bulked-up force would be a permanent addition to the MTA security plan.

Sander said the federal government should spend more on rail security. The MTA said Washington spends $7.50 per airline passenger but just a cent and a half per mass transit passenger.

But Robert Jamison, deputy administrator of the TSA, said, "We are focused on our nation's high-risk, high-consequence rail systems and delivering visible, unpredictable deterrents to these systems."


So much for packing heat in the big apple now. With the dogs out, there's a chance they will key on the powder, so not worth the risk anymore, and what's this about random bag searches??? How about probable cause? It's one thing to deny entry into the train, another to then require compulsory bag search while you're on it. I liken this to the metal detectors on the sidewalks of London looking to bust people toting knives around.

So if they don't find a bomb in your bag, then can they bust you if they find something else they don't like, like drugs or tools or booze or pornographic material or negative political pamphlets or whatever else they want?

I think this is wholly inappropriate, and not at all likely to stop any terrorist activity. Who do they think they are kidding here?

Was there ever any question that Big Brother is here, and constantly improving "his" abilities to observe and intrude?

Citizen, be joyous and submissive, we of the United States Federal Police Force would like to look in your bag.

*gags*

Using Feds to handle local issues is a bad idea. The TSA Keystones are a bad idea. Bad^2, just what we need.

I'm STILL waiting for them to inspect me!! I've been past more than one checkpoint, but was never selected

Can you imagine them inspecting 40+ lbs of "go bag"

I wonder what they will do when they find THREE HTs, 2 of which are the same model THEY carry...

If the ETS forum allowed political discussion I would go off right now.
This will not make us safe in fact it reeks of more federal policing and more eroision of our liberties.

I will stop here before I go too far.

Somewhere up there, George Orwell is saying "I told you so"...

Referring to the London metal detectors.... wouldn't it be funny if a lot of people started carrying random chunks of metal in their bags?

Sue

It wouldn't be funny, but it would be appropriate. Just like I might use a bag in NYC (if I ever went to NYC) that had previously been used to carry guns and ammo to the range. Are empty shell casings contraband in NYC?

Yes, this would point out the uselessness of the whole thing, but of greater concern; if the dog tags you for the scent, and they do a search and find something wholly unassociated but still illegal, then can they bust you for the non-terrorist contraband? What if it is completely random, and they are just checking your bag this time, and they find something other than a bomb or a weapon, but which is suspect. What are they going to do then? The dog could justify reasonable suspicion, but if it is just a random search, wouldn't that violate the 4th?

'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.'

Except for this from the same extract:

'Even in the law enforcement context, the State may interfere with an individual's Fourth Amendment interests with less than probable cause and without a warrant if the intrusion is only minimal and is justified by law enforcement purposes. E.g., Michigan State Police Dept v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 450 ('90); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 ('68).'

Then again, there's this:

'Blanket searches are unreasonable, however 'evenhanded' they may be, in the traditional criminal law enforcement context. See, e.g., Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91-2, 92 n.4 ('79) (invalidating a blanket patdown search of all patrons in a tavern, even though there was probable cause to search the bartender and the premises). The ill that the Fourth Amendment prevents is not merely the arbitrariness of police discretion to single out individuals for attention, but also the unwarranted domination and control of the citizenry through fear of baseless but 'evenhanded' general police searches.'

and this:

'Fourth Amendment protects the 'right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures.' The essence of that protection is a prohibition against some modes of law enforcement because the cost of police intrusion into personal liberty is too high, even though the intrusion undoubtedly would result in an enormous boon to the public if the efficient apprehension of criminals were the sole criterion to be considered. 'The easiest course for [law enforcement] officials is not always one that our Constitution allows them to take.' Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 595 (Stevens, dissenting).'

So, how secure will you feel when you are sitting on the train with briefcase in hand and Mr. Investigator flops his badge at you and says "Open it", and when he sees your kit and your leatherman in there, and maybe some cds from work, he says he's gonna have to confiscate them as evidence and you'll have to come down to the station later after they've looked at the cds to make sure there's nothing bad on them, and you can pick up the cds and those parts of the kit that couldn't be used as weapons, but the Leatherman will have to be destroyed, and you will be cited for carrying an illegal knife, or worse.


I wonder what happens when you refuse to show them what's inside. Do they kick you off the train, or take you to jail?

If I gotta go to jail for something, I think it will be for more than what they find in my briefcase, should such a reality actually unfold.

Things like this, they always gotta make an example of a few otherwise peaceful law abiding citizens before the public makes the government realize the error of their ways. I sure am glad I ain't working in New York right now, cuz one of the poor saps could've been me.

One thing's for certain, I won't be taking any container on the train or bus when I get back that doesn't have a real good lock mechanism on it. If they want in they are going to have to work for it.

I suppose the next thing will be holding random searches at the tunnel and bridge entrances into Manhattan. As if traffic ain't bad enough now...

I'm living and working in NYC now. I have been through a few bag searches entering the subway. The cops basically just peek in. The have never rummaged through the individual items. I carry enough junk in my knapsack that if I wanted to sneak a small bomb onto the subway, this search would probably not have stopped it. Also, a friend of mine on the NYPD tells me that if they do find illegal substances or items unrelated to terrorism, then yes, they will make an arrest. But on the other hand, I haven't seen anyone arrested or heard of anyone being arrested at the bag checkpoints. It looks to me more like the cops just want to make their presence known, and keep the bad guys guessing.

IMHO they are violating my fourth amendment rights. I've read the cases cited by benjammin, and it seems pretty clear the authorities are out of line, but since I don't have an extra $250,00-$500,000 to take the case to the Supreme Court, my only real choices are to refrain from carrying illegal items on the train, or take a cab.

As for searching people after they have boarded a train, that seems to be an even more egregious infringment of the fourth amendment than the false "choice" they give you at the gate.

So here we are. Bag searches that won't stop a determined bomber and incremental infingement of rights (so we get used to it?).

Hopefully, the government isnt organized enough that this is a grand conspiracy to deprive us of our rights. More than likely, its buraucrats running around saying "we have to do SOMETHING." Even if it is totally ineffective. We'll see.