# 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:** 7
**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, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/121 "2005-07-22T16:48:31Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > [[URL=reason.com/bi/bi-forf.shtml](http://URL=reason.com/bi/bi-forf.shtml)]Took about ten seconds. Yes. Perhaps a few extra seconds catchinup on the discussion which followed would have been useful. In 2000, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act was passed. It forbids forfeitures the type that plagued Mr. Jones and others. This was a problem before the Act, certainly. It’s not a problem NOW. > [@](#): > > Huh? Unless my monitor is playing tricks on me, there is an explicit mention of “watch lists” in your Post#50. Yes, in reply to **Squink** ’s post #14. He brought up “watch lists,” whatever they might be. I was replying to his term. Commentary on Texas dildos follows. ---
**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, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/122 "2005-07-22T16:50:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So what? > > Your story indicates that there are cops that will act in violation of the law and established NYPD policy. > > Why is it relevant what policy we put it place, then? According to that story, these cops are willing to ignore whatever rules exist. So a discussion about what rules should exist is utterly irrelevant to the problem presented by the cops in the story you offer. It’s relevant because the new policy explicitly authorizes officers to carry out searches, in a particular area, of anyone they see fit to search. When cops have shown some propensity to break the rules governing their actions, it’s dangerous to give them even more opportunities to put such tendencies into practice. Of course, you might argue that a rogue cop will always be able to find someone upon whom he can carry out his nefarious intention but, as the RNC arrests demonstrate quite effectively, there are certain situations in which the potential for abuse rises exponentially, and i think that the case in question is one of them. One could also argue that, as long as the right people are found “not guilty,” or the charges are dismissed, then no harm has really been done. But that’s rather cold comfort to someone who’s already spect 24-48 hours in a crowded lockup based on an arrest that never should have been made in the first place. Anyway, even in every single member of the NYPD were pure as the driven snow, the most honest and able peace officers ever to don a uniform, this policy would still be essentially nothing more than window-dressing. ---
**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, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/123 "2005-07-22T16:51:34Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > By this reasoning, we might as well just have anarchy, since some people will ignore whatever laws exist. Whose side of the argument are you on? I agree, but you’re making my point. We’re discussing what the law and procedure should be. If we all agree that there should be no random searches, then how can we reconcile the story of the lying cops with this decision? If all agree there SHOULD be random searches, how can we reconcile the lying cops with the decision? Either way we decide, the conduct of those cops is beyond the pale. It’s wrong. But how does that help us decide what the search policy should be? ---
**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, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/124 "2005-07-22T16:55:27Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > It’s relevant because the new policy explicitly authorizes officers to carry out searches, in a particular area, of anyone they see fit to search. When cops have shown some propensity to break the rules governing their actions, it’s dangerous to give them even more opportunities to put such tendencies into practice. OK, valid point. But have cops shown “propensity,” as you say, or is this the result of a very small number of bad cops? > [@](#): > > Of course, you might argue that a rogue cop will always be able to find someone upon whom he can carry out his nefarious intention but, as the RNC arrests demonstrate quite effectively, there are certain situations in which the potential for abuse rises exponentially, and i think that the case in question is one of them. How so? What potential for abuse is there? People being arrested after searches, even though they’ve done nothing wrong? If an epidemic of such arrests were to happen, I’d revise my opinion. But I see no evidence that this is likely. > [@](#): > > Anyway, even in every single member of the NYPD were pure as the driven snow, the most honest and able peace officers ever to don a uniform, this policy would still be essentially nothing more than window-dressing. That’s a valid argument. I express no opinion on it. I’m refuting the silly ideas. That idea is not silly; it’s a perfectly valid attack on the plan. I have no comment on it. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/125 "2005-07-22T17:01:51Z")
Who mentioned anything about innocence or guilt? YOU may be willing to trust the LAW to treat you fairly once they have your bag open, I don’t trust them to treat me fairly. Part of your confidence comes from your “protection” as a lawyer…I’m not a lawyer; just some guy and I’ll be damned to give anyone the ability to decide whether or not I’m breaking the law AFTER they’ve culled me from the herd. Your refutation of silly ideas comes from your knowledge, do you really believe that the average New Yorker knows that the police can’t take your money anymore? I trust the LAW, not it’s enforcers. Give me a clearly, written procedure: A, B, C, D and you may have my compliance, any leaving it to “judgement” calls and I’m out. ---
**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, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/126 "2005-07-22T17:04:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK, valid point. > > But have cops shown “propensity,” as you say, or is this the result of a very small number of bad cops? Well, to be honest, i’m not sure how many is required to show a propensity. But when 1806 people are arrested, 1670 cases run their full course, and over 90 percent of those result in dismissals or “not guilty” verdicts, and when, in about 400 of those cases, the dismissals are the result of video evidence that directly contradicts police reports, then i think that if “propensity” is not the right word, we can at least use the term “tendency” or “inclination.” Whichever term is used, i think those numbers are a little worrying. > [@Bricker](#): > > How so? What potential for abuse is there? People being arrested after searches, even though they’ve done nothing wrong? > > If an epidemic of such arrests were to happen, I’d revise my opinion. But I see no evidence that this is likely. What evidence would there be? I mean, before last year’s RNC i had no evidence that police were likely to fabricate stories in order to justify arresting law-abiding citizens. And yet it happened. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/127 "2005-07-22T17:04:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So what? > > Your story indicates that there are cops that will act in violation of the law and established NYPD policy. > > Why is it relevant what policy we put it place, then? According to that story, these cops are willing to ignore whatever rules exist. So a discussion about what rules should exist is utterly irrelevant to the problem presented by the cops in the story you offer. Um, because now they have more leeway to abuse the law? ---
**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, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/128 "2005-07-22T17:04:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Either way we decide, the conduct of those cops is beyond the pale. It’s wrong. But how does that help us decide what the search policy should be? You don’t believe that people’s past track records has any bearing on the question of how much autonomy they should be permitted to exercise in their work? ---
**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, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/129 "2005-07-22T17:06:30Z")
With respect to Texas, the law that you quote has been found to be unconstitutional in _Hall v. State_, 646 S.W. 489 (Tex.App. Houston {1st Dist.} 1982) rev’d on other grounds, 661 S.W.2d 101 (Tex.Crim.App.1983). I’m no expert on Texas law, and I welcome a clarification on this point. But from where I sit, the courts have already struck down the six dildo presumption. ---
**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, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/130 "2005-07-22T17:08:43Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > You don’t believe that people’s past track records has any bearing on the question of how much autonomy they should be permitted to exercise in their work? Individual people? Sure. “Cops” as a monolithic entity? No. ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/131 "2005-07-22T17:09:00Z")
> [@slaphead](#): > > I live in London. I ride the tube twice every single weekday, and usually weekends too. The tube bombs a fortnight ago were a short walk from my flat, my office and my girlfriend’s university, respectively. I have a fair idea of some of the issues here. > > This is a dumb idea. Why? > 1 Because, as has been pointed out, a determined bomber can easily get round this. > 2 Even if they can’t, they will just move on to the next most attractive target. In which case, you start guarding the next target on the list, searching people etc. > > Repeat 1 and 2 endlessly, until you get to the situation you currently have in Israel, where guards stop and pat you down before you can go into a pizza parlour or a nightclub and people STILL get killed by suicide bombers. This should be repeated. Often. A real life example of how THIS JUST DOES NOT WORK. Or let’s use a totally unrealistic senario and see how this random search will work out. Let’s say there are 7 bombers waiting for the big day and the day has arrived. There are _over_ 7 million riders a day on the subways and buses (we’ll just talk about the subway and buses, too keep things simple). And let’s also say, for the sake of simplicity, that the bombers won’t try to hide and will walk in with everybody else and show the police the bombs in their bags. If we have a police officer at every bus stop and subway entrance in NYC and they check 10,000 random bags in the 24 hours of the the big day, what are the odds of them finding all 7 bombs? As always, my math is suspect, but my calculations tell me the odds of them finding just one bomb is 1 in 700. And you still get several big KABOOMS. ---
**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, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/132 "2005-07-22T17:10:33Z")
> [@holmes](#): > > Who mentioned anything about innocence or guilt? YOU may be willing to trust the LAW to treat you fairly once they have your bag open, I don’t trust them to treat me fairly. Part of your confidence comes from your “protection” as a lawyer…I’m not a lawyer; just some guy and I’ll be damned to give anyone the ability to decide whether or not I’m breaking the law AFTER they’ve culled me from the herd. > > Your refutation of silly ideas comes from your knowledge, do you really believe that the average New Yorker knows that the police can’t take your money anymore? > > I trust the LAW, not it’s enforcers. Give me a clearly, written procedure: A, B, C, D and you may have my compliance, any leaving it to “judgement” calls and I’m out. I still don’t understand. What, specifically, are you picturing could happen to you? ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/133 "2005-07-22T17:12:46Z")
> [@Biggirl](#): > > This should be repeated. Often. A real life example of how THIS JUST DOES NOT WORK. > > Or let’s use a totally unrealistic senario and see how this random search will work out. > > Let’s say there are 7 bombers waiting for the big day and the day has arrived. There are _over_ 7 million riders a day on the subways and buses (we’ll just talk about the subway and buses, too keep things simple). And let’s also say, for the sake of simplicity, that the bombers won’t try to hide and will walk in with everybody else and show the police the bombs in their bags. > > If we have a police officer at every bus stop and subway entrance in NYC and they check 10,000 random bags in the 24 hours of the the big day, what are the odds of them finding all 7 bombs? As always, my math is suspect, but my calculations tell me the odds of them finding just one bomb is 1 in 700. And you still get several big KABOOMS. Plus if I were a terrorist, I would send in the most obvious looking “brown guy” with a huge backpack as a dummy. No one moves on him, I would assume I could get in the station without being searched. BTW there were no cops at the Wall St. 4/5 station today when I left work. Wall St. for fucking sakes! These pathetic “lock the barn door after the horse has bolted” solutions are a waste of time and money. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/134 "2005-07-22T17:18:45Z")
I don’t know **Bricker** you tell me. Random search. I’m a young black male, with $5,000 in cash in my backpack. They search and find the money. They let me go. Is it unreasonable for me to be worried that somewhere down the line, there’s going to be Narc waiting for me to exit the train? ---
**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, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/135 "2005-07-22T17:21:41Z")
> [@holmes](#): > > I don’t know **Bricker** you tell me. Random search. I’m a young black male, with $5,000 in cash in my backpack. They search and find the money. They let me go. > > Is it unreasonable for me to be worried that somewhere down the line, there’s going to be Narc waiting for me to exit the train? Let’s say, for the purposes of this discussion, that it’s reasonable. A narcotics officer is wating for you to exit the train. Then what happens? ---
**Author:** ![Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e47c2d/32.png) [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/136 "2005-07-22T17:24:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > With respect to Texas, the law that you quote has been found to be unconstitutional in _Hall v. State_, 646 S.W. 489 (Tex.App. Houston {1st Dist.} 1982) rev’d on other grounds, 661 S.W.2d 101 (Tex.Crim.App.1983). > > I’m no expert on Texas law, and I welcome a clarification on this point. But from where I sit, the courts have already struck down the six dildo presumption. I think not. From that 1983 decision: > [@](#): > > we need not, and do not, reach the holding that s 43.23(f), as well as section 43.23(e), is unconstitutional. According to [this opinion](http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/lo47mattox/lo89-097.htm) regarding the section from the state attorney general’s office, at least as of 1989, the possession section of the law seems to be provisionally constitutional. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/137 "2005-07-22T17:24:14Z")
Is it reasonable or not? ---
**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, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/138 "2005-07-22T17:24:57Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > I mean, before last year’s RNC i had no evidence that police were likely to fabricate stories in order to justify arresting law-abiding citizens. And yet it happened. Not only that but, as i said in my post above, i’ve not yet seen any evidence that the police who lied were subjected to any disciplinary action. And if those police officers are still on the force, then surely we can reasonably express concern about the way that the NYPD does its job? I admit that it’s possible that disciplinary action has occurred, and that it escaped my notice. A search [reveals](http://www.saveourcivilliberties.org/en/2005/01/868.shtml) that the officer mentioned in the story i linked to above, Matthew Wohl, was under investigation by the Manhattan DA back in January, but i haven’t found any updates detailing what happened next. Here’s more detail about what happened that day: > [@](#): > > During his testimony at the trial, Officer Wohl asserted that he was present at the library as part of a mobile response team during the RNC. Wohl claimed he saw Mr. Kyne yelling in a “boisterous” manner, and according to the Accusatory Instrument signed by Officer Wohl on September 1st, Mr. Kyne was supposedly shouting, “Look what they are doing. The government is taking away our rights. They lied to you; they lied to me.” The document also asserted that Kyne yelled in a “violent and tumultuous manner.” Officer Wohl said that he personally arrested Dennis Kyne, with two other officers assisting, and that Mr. Kyne was “screaming, yelling, and moving around” during the arrest. Wohl’s testimony goes on to claim that Kyne dropped to the ground and four officers (including Wohl) had to pick him up and carry him while Kyne “squirmed and screamed”. Asked explicitly how Mr. Kyne had resisted arrest, Wohl stated that Kyne’s “mouth, heart, and eyes” moved while he lunged around. > > However, the videotapes and photographs of the events in front of the library showed Mr. Kyne walking away from the library while police arrested several people, when a police officer in a white shirt yelled “That’s a collar!”, in an apparent reference to Kyne. At this point, two other officers grabbed Mr. Kyne and forced him onto his knees, then applied plastic cuffs. None of the officers in the videotape or photographs is Officer Wohl. Another officer in a white shirt then approaches and tells the arresting officers to charge Kyne with “Dis con [disorderly conduct] and resisting.” During this process, Mr. Kyne can be heard saying, “I’m not resisting.” None of the events described by Officer Wohl took place, as the images make clear, and Wohl was not present in the videos and did not participate in the arrest. Wohl himself, and many of the other officers on the scene that day, were members of a Task Force designed to respond to riots and shooting. They had apparently received “extensive additional training throughout the year” in order to be able to do his work properly. And yet this extensively trained officer > [@](#): > > stated that he could not really tell the difference between protestors, bystanders, and people merely coming and going from the library. The combination of an officer unable to discern between supposed suspects and innocent pedestrians, and an order from superior officers to make mass arrests based on geographic location rather than specific incidents, would seem to suggest there is a very real potential that large numbers of detainees were wrongly arrested and incarcerated. That sort of policy, on the part of superior officers _and_ the cops on the street, should not inspire much confidence among people subjected to random searches on the subway, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/139 "2005-07-22T17:25:18Z")
Move to NY and find out yourself. Your narrow nitpicking outlook on how the world actually operates is totally devoid of reality. Hint: They think the nigger is up to no good ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545/140 "2005-07-22T17:27:21Z")
My post was addressed to **Bricker** , don’t know why it didn’t quote. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/random-searches-on-the-new-york-subway/313545.md?page=8)