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...