"Let me see your papers!"

[livendive 8]

"What is your business here?"
"What's in your briefcase?"

Boston transit system to institute a random stop-and-search policy on trains

What about the following quote is so difficult to understand?

Quote

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.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[lifewithoutanet 0]

Quote

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.

Okay, I see your point... However, the alternative to this is a security checkpoint at the turnstiles, upon entering the stations. It's a mass-mode of transportation, not unlike an airplane. We're not talking about them stopping random people on a street.
So, while I see your point, I think the differentiator is that once you're in the train system, you're subject to search as a reasonable means of deterence of terrorist actions. If it were to spill over to the streets, I'd agree that it would be stepping over a line.
Just my take on it.
-C.

[unformed 0]

Right, *when* they move it on to the streets, you'll agree it'll be stepping over the line. However, the way it happens, is they institue in the train stations, wait a year or two so everyone is used to it, then move it to the streets, so everybody says:
"Well, they can already check us in the trains, so what's the problem with checking us on the roads. When they come into our houses, I'll agree, it'll be stepping over the line."


-------
When they took away the Fifth Amendment, I didn't say anything, because I wasn't guilty. When they took away the Fourth Amendment, I didn't say anything because I didn't carry drugs. When they took away the Second Amendment, I didn't say anything, because I didn't own a gun. Now they've taken away the First Amendment, and I can't say anything.

This ad space for sale.

[Gravitymaster 0]

I don't think the police should do anything. You want to get on a train or airplane? Hey, you know the risks. If thousands of people die because of inaction it's just too bad. They knew the risks and chose to get on mass transpotation anyway. Besides, it's all Bushs' fault anyway.

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

Okay, I see your point... However, the alternative to this is a security checkpoint at the turnstiles, upon entering the stations. It's a mass-mode of transportation, not unlike an airplane. We're not talking about them stopping random people on a street.

I don't see your point. Yes, someone with a bomb in their breifcase could do a lot of damage on a train/subway/buss but so could someone with a carbomb. Should we start having the cops conduct random searches of cars because someone might have a car bomb. How about searching people entering a shopping mall? I think we are pretty damn close to the slippery slope here, better be carefull what liberties you are willing to give up on.

Edited to add:
How pissed off are you going to be whenthe subway cop pops your reserve to see what you are hiding in there?

illegible usually

[lifewithoutanet 0]

Hey, Unformed. I don't think we've met. You're infering a little too far into my opinion on this. Incorrectly, I might add. Maybe I didn't elaborate enough.
*When* they attempt to institute random search or siezure on the streets (and I, too, believe *they* at some point will), I will have a serious problem w/ it, but with context. In a broader view of scrutinizing or subjecting citizens to random search, I'm against it. However, if the time comes where we're living in absolute fear of suicide bombers on buses, in cafes, movie theatre's or malls--like present-day Isreal--I can see my stance on this changing somewhat. The question then will be, "too little/too late?".
-C.

[Ron 7]

Quote

What about the following quote is so difficult to understand?

Quote

``The Fourth Amendment doesn't stop at your wrist when you carry a briefcase; it includes your bag,'' Rose said. ``It either has to be truly random, or it has to have a root in a reasonable basis of suspicion.''

You mind airport screening? Screening to see the President? Screening at court houses?

I don't see this as any different than an airport. It is for the greater good of ALL.

Quote

Far from being crippled by the U.S.-led war on terror, al-Qaida has more than 18,000 potential terrorists scattered around the world

Al-Qaida is probably working on plans for major attacks on the United States and Europe, and it may be seeking weapons of mass destruction in its desire to inflict as many casualties as possible, the International Institute of Strategic Studies said in its annual survey of world affairs.

Quote

http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=29434
Al-Qaida is determined to launch a U.S. attack in the next few months that could be linked to a major event such as the upcoming international economic summit or the summer political conventions, Attorney General John Ashcroft said Wednesday, citing "credible intelligence from multiple sources."

Ashcroft noted that following the March 11 train bombings in Madrid an al-Qaida spokesman said the terrorist organization's plans for an attack on America were 90 percent complete. That, coupled with a steady stream of intelligence about al-Qaida gathered before and after the Spain bombings, "suggest that it's almost ready to attack the United States," he said at a Justice Department news conference with FBI Director Robert Mueller.

Remember they killed 192 in Madrid.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[lifewithoutanet 0]

Quote

I don't see your point. Yes, someone with a bomb in their breifcase could do a lot of damage on a train/subway/buss but so could someone with a carbomb. Should we start having the cops conduct random searches of cars because someone might have a car bomb. How about searching people entering a shopping mall? I think we are pretty damn close to the slippery slope here, better be carefull what liberties you are willing to give up on.

Random stops of cars? Seems impractical to me. Shopping malls? That, too. For now, at least.

You are right...we are damn close to a slippery slope here and soon the danger is going to slide elsewhere. Terrorists seem fixated on our airlines, but how long is that going to last? When will the threat move to another area at which we're more vulnerable? When we've secured our planes to the point that they become impractical targets, they'll find another place to target us.
Compromises must be made in order to mediate terrorist threats, but neither side is willing to budge. Compromising civil liberties could lead, as Unformed warned, to regressive change and a decline of the liberties this nation was founded on. Not compromising leads to vulnerabilities which open us up to possible attacks.
What are we willing to sacrifice? Liberties or victims? The odds of being killed in a terrorist attack, overall, are slim enough that most people take the familiar position of "It won't happen to *me*." This is different for people in areas such as NYC or DC. Fact is, there's a *me* out there that it will happen to.
How do we go about mitigating that risk?
-C.

Edited to add:

Quote

How pissed off are you going to be whenthe subway cop pops your reserve to see what you are hiding in there?

Well, the only rig I could see myself carrying on a subway is a BASE rig, unless you know of a downtown DZ. Those don't have reserves and I don't BASE, so I guess, personally, "That won't happen to *me*".

[Kennedy 0]

Who thinks Bahstan is the only place this is an issue?

edit: another good case from NC
http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-22-04.html

Check out Nevada:

Quote

Supreme Court hears privacy case
Rancher fined for refusing to ID himself to deputy

WASHINGTON - Do you have to tell the police your name? Depending on how the Supreme Court rules, the answer could be the difference between arrest and freedom.

The justices heard arguments Monday in a first-of-its-kind case that asks whether people can be punished for refusing to identify themselves.

The court took up the appeal of a Nevada cattle rancher who was arrested after he told a sheriff’s deputy that he had done nothing wrong and did not have to reveal his name or show identification during an encounter on a rural road four years ago.

Larry “Dudley” Hiibel, 59, was prosecuted for his silence and finds himself at the center of a significant privacy rights battle.

“I would do it all over again,” Hiibel, dressed in cowboy hat, boots and a bolo tie, said outside the court Monday. “That’s one of our fundamental rights as American citizens, to remain silent.”

The case will clarify police powers in the post-Sept. 11 era, determining whether officials can demand to see identification whenever they deem it necessary.

Nevada’s senior deputy attorney general, Conrad Hafen, told the justices that “identifying yourself is a neutral act” that helps police in their investigations and does not by itself incriminate anyone.

But if that is allowed, several justices asked, what will be next? A fingerprint? Telephone number? E-mail address? What about a national identification card?

“The government could require name tags, color codes,” Hiibel’s attorney, Robert Dolan, told the court.

Competing constitutional claims
At the heart of the case is an intersection of the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches, and the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Hiibel claims that both of those rights were violated.

Justice Antonin Scalia, however, expressed doubts. He said officers faced with suspicious people needed authority to get the facts.

“I cannot imagine any responsible citizen would have objected to giving the name,” Scalia said.

Justices are revisiting a 1968 decision that said police may briefly detain someone on reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, without the stronger standard of probable cause, to get more information. Nevada argues that during such brief detentions, known as Terry stops after the 1968 ruling, people should be required to answer questions about their identities.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor pointed out the court has never given police the authority to demand someone’s identification without probable cause that they have done something wrong. But she also acknowledged that police might want to run someone’s name through computers to check for a criminal history.

Argument with daughter
The encounter in this case, which was videotaped, shows Hiibel by a pickup truck parked off a road near Winnemucca, Nev., on May 21, 2000.

A deputy, who was called to the scene because of a complaint about arguing between Hiibel and his daughter in the truck, asked Hiibel 11 times for his identification or his name.

Hiibel refused, at one point saying, “If you’ve got something, take me to jail” and “I don’t want to talk. I’ve done nothing. I’ve broken no laws.”

Hiibel never acted in a threatening manner and cooperated when handcuffed. His daughter, a teenager at the time, was thrown to the ground and arrested when she protested his arrest, the videotape shows. She was not convicted of any crime.

Hiibel was convicted of a misdemeanor charge of resisting arrest. He was fined $250.

Nevada is supported by the Bush administration and two criminal justice groups. Organizations backing Hiibel include the American Civil Liberties Union, the Cato Institute, privacy groups and advocates for the homeless.

Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said that if Hiibel loses, the government will be free to use its extensive databases to keep tabs on people.

“A name is now no longer a simple identifier; it is the key to a vast, cross-referenced system of public and private databases, which lay bare the most intimate features of an individual’s life,” Rotenberg told the court in a filing.

The case is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, 03-5554.

From MSNBC

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

I think we are pretty damn close to the slippery slope here, better be carefull what liberties you are willing to give up on.

Close?

We're well on our way down the slope. It started years ago, I can't pinpoint when, but the "war on drugs" really got us moving downhill fast.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[livendive 8]

Quote

What are we willing to sacrifice? Liberties or victims?

I believe that question has been answered several times in our national history. We lost quite a few people in the revolutionary war on the premise that liberty and freedom are causes worth sacrificing for.

Quote

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[lifewithoutanet 0]

Quote

I believe that question has been answered several times in our national history. We lost quite a few people in the revolutionary war on the premise that liberty and freedom are causes worth sacrificing for.

***They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin

One broad, generalist statement deserves another...or two...

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Without the former, there can be none of the latter.

I will not sit idle under the premise that a terrorist can attempt to kill me, but damned if someone tries to look in my backpack.
-C.

[livendive 8]

Quote

It is for the greater good of ALL.

Will you apply the same rationale when the government decides to trash the 2nd amendment rather than the 4th? What if they decide to remove all guns from private ownership "for the greater good of ALL"?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

Yeah, I was already aware of the Hiibel case. I'm glad to see someone else is paying attention.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Kennedy 0]

Well, that's two....

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[lifewithoutanet 0]

Quote

Well, that's two....

This is part of what I'm getting at. It's counter-productive to universally subscribe to one particular side of an issue. There are circumstances in which a policy or position, while 'right' in one instance will be 'wrong' in another.
In Hiibel's case, it's perfectly within his right to remain silent, but what are his next choices of action? Law enforcement was brought to the scene somehow and has an obligation by their sworn duty to investigate matters that have been brought to their attention. Hiibel could "lawyer up" and demand an attorney. Does that require that he be first taken into custody? If so, what choice does law enforcement have but charge him with something?
I don't know the whole of the circumstances, but if I were a cop and was dispatched to the scene of an argument between an older man and a younger girl, I'd act on the side of caution and do a little bit of investigating to see what's going on.
If a cop simply walked up to Hiibel and said "What is your name?", sure, he's got a right to refuse, but we need to look at the circumstances that led up to the question in the first place. In this case, the circumstances certainly seemed to warrant a few questions.
This reminds me of something a more experienced jumper recently told me after I made a stupid decision on approach. "Stupid decisions are rarely spontaneous in nature. They're typically the result of a poor choice a few decisions back." We can dissect these issues and separate each step, one from another for singular, unrelated analysis...but doing so rarely paints an accurate portrait of a sequence of events.
Basically, pick your battles wisely. Some don't need to be fought.
-C.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Basically, pick your battles wisely. Some don't need to be fought.

Apparently, the Supreme Court disagrees with you in this case. They feel that this 'battle' does need to be 'fought.' They decide whether cases are significant and address constitutional issues before they accept a case.

My understanding is that if an officer arrests a person legitimately (on probable cause or after observing a crime), that person must give his name (and sometimes other information).

Quote

I don't know the whole of the circumstances, but if I were a cop and was dispatched to the scene of an argument between an older man and a younger girl, I'd act on the side of caution and do a little bit of investigating to see what's going on.

We need to put this in perspective. Have you ever argued with your family in public? Would you expect cops to show up if you did?

The man was arguing with his daughter. Until that becomes a crime, WTF was the officer investigating? If there's no crime, how is it a criminal investigation?

Quote

If a cop simply walked up to Hiibel and said "What is your name?", sure, he's got a right to refuse, but we need to look at the circumstances that led up to the question in the first place. In this case, the circumstances certainly seemed to warrant a few questions.

From Hiibel's viewpoint, that's exactly what happened.

Quote

Hiibel never acted in a threatening manner and cooperated when handcuffed. His daughter, a teenager at the time, was thrown to the ground and arrested when she protested his arrest, the videotape shows. She was not convicted of any crime.

Hiibel was convicted of a misdemeanor charge of resisting arrest. He was fined $250.

He never resisted arrest, so I still wonder how he was convicted of that.

Also, for what crime was he arrested?

If there was no crime committed, was it not false arrest, wrongful detention, or a similar circumstance?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[unformed 0]

lifewithoutanet: no, we haven't met, at least i wouldn't expect us to. i just came on to dz.com, and have only jumped at one dropzone.

I do understand that *if and when* we get to the point that we are in constant fear of suicide bombers, things might be different. But are we in that much fear right now? Who decides when we are in fear or danger? According to the government, we are in constant danger. But, then again, they have ulterior motives.

This country was founded on the basis of pure and complete freedom, for the right of everybody to do as they please without negatively affecting others. This is no longer the case. As someone else stated above, the WoD is one extremely obvious example.

Furthermore, with 9/11, there is now another even more "reason" for security. That's "terrorism". Pretty much anything anti-American or subversive is now associated with terrorism. Did you see the commercials linking marijuana use with terrorism? WTF is that? I belive its far more likely that the heavy gas guzzling in this country funds terrorists much more than marijuana use.

Have you seen the Patriot Act, which gives the Feds the right to enter our houses for whatever reason, search it, and not be required to notify us of said search for the next six months? That they're allowed to demand librarians for books we have checked out and the library is not allowed to nnotify us? This is just the beginning.

We don't know what will happen. We don't know if in the next five years the police will be allowed to enter our homes and demand identification. Or maybe everything will just work out. Are you willing to just sit back and see what happens?

We can't allow our liberties to be taken away out of fear. Our founders fought to their death for their freedom, we should do the same, *whether or not* we actually use the rights provided to us.

I love this country, I love the fact that I can say anything, write anything, without the fear of being arrested. I hope my future children will be able to do the same.

This ad space for sale.

[lifewithoutanet 0]

Quote

Apparently, the Supreme Court disagrees with you in this case. They feel that this 'battle' does need to be 'fought.' They decide whether cases are significant and address constitutional issues before they accept a case.

Touche`. Good point. You got me there.

Quote

We need to put this in perspective. Have you ever argued with your family in public? Would you expect cops to show up if you did?

The man was arguing with his daughter. Until that becomes a crime, WTF was the officer investigating? If there's no crime, how is it a criminal investigation?

Something brought the officer(s) there. Whether s/he witnessed it or was called by some "nosey onlooker", keeping the peace is his/her job. And I never said 'criminal investigation'. I simply said 'investigation': a detailed inquiry or examination.

Let's say, hypothetically, that you and I are in a bar...scratch that, bad example. We're somewhere public and we get into an argument. To any onlooker who doesn't know us, this could be one of a few things. We could be friends in an argument that will amount to nothing or we could be two strangers about to start throwing punches. We'll keep it at those two hypothetical outcomes for now.
A cop witnesses this and walks over to check things out. Would you expect him/her not to? If they stood back and waited for something more to happen, you could argue after the fact that they could have intervened.

You can armchair quarterback it all you want, but looking into a scene that seems volatile, as it's happening, you don't know what relation any two people hold with each other.

Walking up to the situation a "What's going on here?" wouldn't necessarily serve to diffuse it. Both parties are going to want to tell their sides. "What's your name?", on the other hand, is a simple question that serves to interrupt the argument and doesn't offer the chance for either to continue arguing. Seems like a good tactic to me.

If he never resisted arrest and cooperated fully, then I don't understand what crime he was guilty of, either. I don't know what led to his daughter being thrown to the ground and arrested nor why she wasn't convicted. But, the case in front of the Supreme Court is billed as a privacy issue, not false arrest or wrongful detention. The police had cause to determine what was going on there and Hiibel's decision to not identify himself could easily be interpreted as suspicious, not to mention a bit unreasonable.
-C.

[lifewithoutanet 0]

Hey, Unformed. The "I don't think we've met" was my knee-jerk reaction to your "you'll agree it'll be stepping over the line" and a feeling that someone was trying to put words in my mouth. That, and a poor attempt at humor. If we ever do meet, whoever has the most recent "first" buys the beer. Deal?

I agree with a lot of what you're saying in concept. A lot of what we're faced with is alarmist, partisan politics and sensationalist media. I'm still at a loss to decide who I dislike most, politicians or the press. We can blame ourselves for our elected officials, but any schmuck who can afford to go to Columbia can get a degree in journalism and become an editor (yes, that was a blanket-generalization and stereotype of journalists, apologies to any newsies who might also be skydivers). That national "mood ring" of terrorist activity still trips me up and the marijuana link to terrorism was a stretch (on the link terrorism has to heroin). The fact remains, that in a country that was founded on the basis of pure and complete freedom exist people--our own citizens as well as foreigners--who seek to exploit our principles and hide among them safely until they strike. Something must be done about that and I'd prefer a proactive approach to a reactive one.

Yes, I've seen the Patriot Act and no, I'm not in full support of it. I believe that at the heart of it lie good intentions, even if those good intentions were not intended by the people who sponsored it. The ramifications of the abuses it could lead to are frightening.

Still, in as much as I believe that the media and government use scare-tactics to push their agenda and sell newspapers, I worry that the opponents of government push the boundaries and are guilty of the same scare-tactics when taken to the extreme. There's a lot of bullshit to sift through and these days it's coming from every angle. Look out, you probably see some of my opinions as BS, too.

In any case, we can agree to disagree on this, but if we ever meet, I'm going to insist that each of you tell me your names.
-C.

[Kennedy 0]

I was questioning the government's choice to pursue charges, not your attempt to portray both sides. I recognized that and respect it.

My issue is what qualifies as an investigation in their eyes.


If you and I are standing by a truck after an argument, and an officer rolls up because someone called in our argument (no signs of the argument when he arrives), I have to tell you, I wouldn't expect wither of us to be arrested for not telling him our names.

Hell, if he doesn't see you and I acting hostile to each other, and we're on public land at the side of the road, he shouldn't even have the power to tell us to leave the area.

Quote

If he never resisted arrest and cooperated fully, then I don't understand what crime he was guilty of, either.

Well, we're definitely in agreement there. (I really want to see the tape from the cruiser's dashboard cam in this one)

Quote

I don't know what led to his daughter being thrown to the ground and arrested nor why she wasn't convicted.

This one I do understand. She became (understandably) enraged when her father was arrested. An officer, for his own protection, can handcuff people interfering with an arrest. As for her being thrown to the ground, well, officers will take a resisting person to the ground before handcuffing them because it is safer for both parties, whether the person being restrained understands that or not.

Quote

But, the case in front of the Supreme Court is billed as a privacy issue, not false arrest or wrongful detention. The police had cause to determine what was going on there and Hiibel's decision to not identify himself could easily be interpreted as suspicious, not to mention a bit unreasonable.

The privacy issue is the constitutional one, and the more important one, in this case. I still wonder though, if the $250 fine for resisting arrest can be legally justified. Can they really claim that not giving a name is resisting arrest?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[nightjumps 1]

Quote

It is for the greater good of ALL.

Circa 1937

[Guest]

"You wanna see my papers?!"

Harju reaches into his pocket and pulls out a packet of Zig-Zags...

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Ron 7]

Remember they killed 192 in Madrid.

They killed 3,000 in NYC.

They want to kill more....And more and more. Subways are a great target.

Like it or not some personal freedom has to be sacrificed for saftey....Would you rather be searched once in a while (Just like at airports already), or be killed?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Quote

Will you apply the same rationale when the government decides to trash the 2nd amendment rather than the 4th? What if they decide to remove all guns from private ownership "for the greater good of ALL"?

No, because searching me, and preventing me from having something are two different things....

If you are not hiding anything, you have nothing to hide from a search.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334