# Random searches on the New York Subway **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 21, 2005, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545 "2005-07-21T22:32:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/181 "2005-07-22T20:16:48Z")
> [@Garfield226](#): > > What you’re failing to grasp is that if a bomber decides not to enter the train or bus because of the search…HE’S NOT GOING TO BE BLOWING UP THAT PARTICULAR TRAIN OR BUS. Now is he? Well, we’ve already had two New Yorkers tell us that there were no police today at some of Manhattan’s most crowded subway stations. My guess is that any potential bomber is not going to decide not to enter the subway at all; rather, he’s simply going to enter at a station that has no police. It’s not very difficult to check whether police are on duty at a particular station and delay your attack for a later time or move to another station. > [@Cheesesteak](#): > > There has not been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11, why is that? We are the drivers of the Iraq war, we are leading the charge against Al Qaeda, we are the guys running Guantanamo, yet they don’t attack here. All I hear is how it is SO simple to attack us, how our efforts at security are laughable and nothing more than feel-good window dressing, yet we are not being attacked. Well, as others have already pointed out, the connection you draw between security measures and the absence of attacks has not been established. Secondly, your own argument undermines your case. There have been no attacks on the New York subway system, despite the absence of random searches over the past three years. And the vanishingly small percentage of people who might be subjected to the search measures means that those measures are very unlikely to discourage someone who might really want to carry out an attack. And, as i said earlier, this is one of those scenarios where people who argue in favour of these increased “security” measures can’t lose. If we haven’t been attacked, it’s because the measures worked. And if we have, it just shows that even more measures are needed. Personally, my own strategy for reducing terrorism on US soil in the period since 9/11 has been to masturbate at least once a week. The absence of terror attacks in that period shows that my strategy must be working. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/182 "2005-07-22T20:17:46Z")
> [@Garfield226](#): > > “Well, it’s going to happen anyway and there’s nothing we can do about it. Boo hoo.” > > Why don’t you all paint big fucking targets on your backs? of course no one said that. what **was** said was that these particular measures wouldn’t prevent an attack, so why infringe on our rights **when it wouldn’t be likely to work**?? ---
**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/183 "2005-07-22T20:20:33Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Gee whiz, these bombers must REALLY be morons since so easy to just bomb something without the suicide part, and 8 suicide bombers have attacked London recently. Shit, it’s apparently the easiest thing in the world to sneak into the NYC subway and leave a timed bomb to kill people. Yet, for some unimaginable reason, they carry bombs onto London subways and die in the attack. Actually there is a very specific difference. London’s Tube is a largely a “deep bore” system – it lies beneath the bedrock of the city (like the DC Metro). NYC’s system is a shallow bore system, it lies just below the street and runs above ground in large sections. This means the are far, far more aboveground access points in the NYC system. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/184 "2005-07-22T20:29:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, I’ll grant that it was confiscated. > > However, Mr. Jones’ case is not relevant. It happened in 1991. > > In 2000, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act went into effect. It prevents the government from confiscating money in circumstances similar to Mr. Jones. As far as I know, the Act changed the phrasing from “a preponderance of the evidence” to “by clear and convincing evidence”, and didn’t change the fact that the seizure continues to happen before guilt and innocence are ironed out. Oh, and Willie Jone’s case is relevant. Even when the victim is given more leeway to fight, it’s still not as easy as just going downtown and asking for your money. Feel free to share with the board how long it took for Willie to get his money, and what he had to do to get it. Livelihoods can be destroyed due to forfeiture, which is basically punishment, without due process. > [@](#): > > So I’ll allow that if we were having this discussion before 2000, the concerns would be well-founded. In response to valid concerns, the government changed the law. Problem solved. Would you care to show exactly what you feel changed everything so drastically in the new act? Admittedly, its intent was to cut down on the abuse of forfeiture powers by law enforcement, but it appears to mostly be about giving victims of forfeiture a bit more leeway to regain their property, but truly eliminate the problem. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/185 "2005-07-22T20:32:13Z")
> [@Kaspar Hauser](#): > > I remember all the searches after Sept. 11 made me cut down on my porn buying. There is no doubt in my mind now that the terrorists have won. ---
**Author:** ![Eve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Eve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eve)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/186 "2005-07-22T20:34:39Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Personally, my own strategy for reducing terrorism on US soil in the period since 9/11 has been to masturbate at least once a week. The absence of terror attacks in that period shows that my strategy must be working. Damn—are you the guy I see masturbating on the uptown 6 train all the time? ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/187 "2005-07-22T20:44:59Z")
> [@BwanaBob](#): > > Yes you get a cookie because you live in the “trenches” here. I respect your opinion even though I disagree with it. I don’t see how letting a cop look in your knapsack is equal to “cowering in fear”. Staying home is cowering in fear. > I would never advocate that. We should go about our business. > > I just get all ticked off at people who live far from the danger zone who throw around “principles” and dismiss the realities. So you never have opinions about being a cop (f your not a cop), prisons (if you dont work in a prison), war (if you are not presently in the war), abortion (if your are not a woman or not pregnant)… need I go on? The fact is, the very people who should provide oversight to these situations are those who ARE NOT in the trenches. The opinions and concerns of people in any “trench” need to be assesed. However, history has shown when you allow individuals who have an emotional stake in the matter make the decisions, the results are typically bad. For laws in our society, we have “moral panics”, now we have “terror panic”. Principles are not something to be thrown aside when the situation gets tough. This is against the very notion of what it means to have a principle in the first place. In addition, lighten up on this “trenches” notion, living in New York does not entitle you to some holier than thou terrorist knowledge/opinion. Maybe, just maybe, if you were in Iraq, or the West Bank, I would give you “the trenches” line. Then, I would want someone who was not in the trenches calling the shots since we can see how well those who live in the “trenches” have solved the problem of middle eastern violence and hatred. ---
**Author:** ![boret](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@boret](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boret)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/188 "2005-07-22T20:47:07Z")
A really good question (but perhaps somewhat of a hijack of the OP) is why there hasn’t been any sort of attack in the NYC transit system so far (someone asked it earlier but I forget who - sorry). As said, it would be very easy, increased security or not. Could it be that there are no active al-Qaida type terrorist cells in NYC who are both willing and prepared to do such a thing? Could it be that the local intel has sussed out and thwarted any potential cells? Could it be that this sort of _pre-emptive intel_ is the best bet to _prevent_ well planned and orchestrated attacks? Of course there is always the possibility that some loner will just go nuts and decide to create violent mayhem, but the fact is that so far we have not seen attempts of _any_ sort of terrorism in the transit system, even though it would be so easy to accomplish. Any thoughts on why that is so? I believe it a pertinent question, especially for those who are so worried in a generalized “free floating anxiety” way. IMO, prevention is the “better idea”. Anything beyond that is either just “busywork”, or (as in the case of the cctv cameras) something that will possibly aid the investigation “after the fact”. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/189 "2005-07-22T20:59:00Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > c) bomb a section of aboveground track or sneak in via maintenance tunnels, like the graffiti artists do (coincidentally, making it possible for me to NOT be a suicide bomber, but just a bomber) The downside is that when the bomber finally does die, instead of 72 virgins he only gets 36, and half of them have been as far as third base with some other guy and knows how poorly he compares (that’s the real reason they’re so big on **virgins** , you know…). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/190 "2005-07-22T23:52:09Z")
> [@holmes](#): > > Unacceptable. Is it a reasonable concern for our fellow to be worried that there’s a narc waiting for him down the line? Yes or no? No, it’s no reasonable. But rather than debate that point, I am willing to concede it for the purposes of this discussion. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2005, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/191 "2005-07-23T00:01:40Z")
> [@Hello Again](#): > > Actually there is a very specific difference. London’s Tube is a largely a “deep bore” system – it lies beneath the bedrock of the city (like the DC Metro). > > NYC’s system is a shallow bore system, it lies just below the street and runs above ground in large sections. > > This means the are far, far more aboveground access points in the NYC system. Sorry, but this isn’t correct. Less than half the Underground is actually underground, and less than a third is in deep level tunnels. There’s immense opportunities for easy surface access to the network (over the fence at the bottom of my gran’s garden, for one.) ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2005, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/192 "2005-07-23T00:13:04Z")
> [@](#): > > So, tell me, what law was it that I broke? That it’s just so impossible to keep track of that I failed and will now be hauled away for? Well, the white briefs ought to be some sort of violation, but apparently they’re not, so you’re free to go. Before you do, however, you might explain how emptying your pockets for us enhanced anyone’s security. It certainly didn’t enhance mine. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2005, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/193 "2005-07-23T00:16:52Z")
Sorry **Bricker** but you have a habit of holding back information that you as a lawyer may know; that some of us layman don’t…until you decide to drop the hammer. While I may never be on equal footing with you legally, I perfer not to walk into quicksand. Why is it unreasonable for our poster child of “profiling” not to be concerned that the officer that inspected his bag and discovered a large amount of cash in small denominations; hasn’t signalled one of the many undercover officers in the area and are waiting to see where he goes with the money? ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2005, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/194 "2005-07-23T01:57:51Z")
Well, file me under those against dinging our liberties for something that isn’t even likely to work. But I guess since I don’t live in NYC that my opinion doesn’t matter (and honey, there ain’t just enough :rolleyes: for that remark). That’s not why I’m here though. > [@Revtim](#): > > I’m no lawyer or Constitutional scholar; can somebody remind me again why random searches aren’t prohibited by the 4th Amendment? Is it because “unreasonable” is such a subjective term? This was my first thought when I heard about this. How are they getting around the constitution? Is there a legal justification to merit these searches? Can this be answered before we reach page 6? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2005, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/195 "2005-07-23T02:17:21Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > Well, the white briefs ought to be some sort of violation, but apparently they’re not, so you’re free to go. > > Before you do, however, you might explain how emptying your pockets for us enhanced anyone’s security. It certainly didn’t enhance mine. You should try out for a football team. Moving the goalposts is a valuable skill there, unlike in a debate. Here’s what you defended, and what I was responding to: > [@](#): > > The pragmatic reason law-abiding citizens are concerned about intrusive search is the realization that, if the police look hard enough, there really are no law-abiding citizens – it’s simply not possible to keep up with, much less obey, all the rules. Now, again, tell me how I’m not a law-abiding citizen, based on that search. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2005, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/196 "2005-07-23T02:24:34Z")
> [@Garfield226](#): > > Now, again, tell me how I’m not a law-abiding citizen, based on that search. A friend of mine got charged w/carrying a concealed weapon b-cuz of what he thought was a legal knife - we called the attorney generals office - lawyer there was surprised to find what constituted a legal knife. for example ---
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2005, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/197 "2005-07-23T02:30:31Z")
> [@wring](#): > > A friend of mine got charged w/carrying a concealed weapon b-cuz of what he thought was a legal knife - we called the attorney generals office - lawyer there was surprised to find what constituted a legal knife. for example Are you following the thread at all? I posted a list of what was on me at that time. Tell me what about that broke any laws, since we’re ALL apparently criminals. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2005, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/198 "2005-07-23T02:38:25Z")
> [@Garfield226](#): > > Are you following the thread at all? I posted a list of what was on me at that time. Tell me what about that broke any laws, since we’re ALL apparently criminals. you personally ain’t the issue to me -average person who has no reason to believe they are a criminal nor do they wish to give up their constitutional rights -is. ---
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2005, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/199 "2005-07-23T02:41:04Z")
Thank you for completely missing the point you were ostensibly trying to defend. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2005, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/200 "2005-07-23T02:47:03Z")
> [@Garfield226](#): > > Thank you for completely missing the point you were ostensibly trying to defend. really?? this is all about you specifically & what you have on you? the searches would only apply to you??? hey -if you’re cool w/it, fine. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545.md?page=11)