Hey, there! Log in / Register
MBTA may be getting tougher with bag searches
By adamg on Tue, 02/22/2011 - 9:14am
Time was, people who didn't want their bags searched at one of the random checkpoints could just turn around and find another station - or even just another entrance to the same station.
Dan reports that when he arrived at Porter this morning and got pulled aside for screening, he declined to submit and walked out to look for a cab. Finding none, he started to board a T bus, but "two plainclothes MBTA police stopped me because I refused bag screening." He says he walked to Harvard Square, where he did find a cab.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
I would definitely like to
I would definitely like to know more about Dan's encounter with the two cops as he was boarding the bus at Porter. Was he detained for questioning? For how long? Did they demand that he identify himself? I hope he got the names of those two cops.
The pamphlet handed out by cops during these searches states the following --
"Any person refusing to allow a security inspection will be either denied entry or requested to leave MBTA property."
So even though the search was in a subway station, does "MBTA property" now extend to buses outside the station too? Or to the commuter rail at Porter? If he was using a CharlieCard, can the cops track his movement (as we have seen posted before in criminal cases, where surveillance video was synced up with card swipes) and wait for him as he is about to enter or leave another station? Not so preposterous.
(It's worth noting that these searches are conducted in cooperation with the TSA.)
It doesn't seem unreasonable
It doesn't seem unreasonable that "mbta property" include buses. (The T does own/operate them after all.)
So essentially, if you
So essentially, if you decline a search at one entrance, you are barred from the entire system?
Yep, seems reasonable. I sure feel safe that T police are pawing through passengers' bags (or swabbing them for explosives) instead of, you know, riding the buses and trains. Not like any non-terroristic crime ever happens on those buses and trains, so it's good that the T police have so much time on their hands.
No, I actually agree that it
No, I actually agree that it would be overboard if (with no additional cause) they followed you to Harvard and prevented you from boarding a train there. But if we're talking about boarding a bus at that same station, or going in a different door at that same station, I don't see that that's so unreasonable.
Except that Dan was boarding a bus on the street
Except that Dan was boarding a bus on the street, completely unrelated to the Porter station.
I just read Dan's update below
I just read Dan's update below. When I read the original post I had assumed he tried to board the bus at the station --there are a couple of bus stops right next to the entrances-- but yeah, following someone through the shopping center is getting pretty close to the limit of what I'd be comfortable with. I guess for me personally "line of sight from the T station" might be around where I draw the line --if it's beyond the point where someone can stick their head out the door and say "hey, isn't that the guy who was just here?" then they should need additional cause to follow someone around.
Suppose Dan had ignored the
Suppose Dan had ignored the two guys and insisted on holding the bus doors open so that the driver could not close them. (Dan says: They addressed the driver and said "he's all set" and sent the bus away. So the driver is taking orders from two random plainclothes guys?) Would the cops -- and I'd like to know whether they identified themselves as such, and as an afterthought, why are *plainclothes* cops needed for such an operation? Bag searches aren't exactly a secret -- have physically detained him from boarding? Would they have followed him on and held the bus at the stop?
But, hey, as long as we save one life, who cares that two guys in plainclothes can come up to a bus stop and stop you from boarding.
Porter has no bus way, all
Porter has no bus way, all buses load on the street.
Encounter with the cops
So, here's how the encounter with the cops went, and here's my concern about monitoring after I leave the train station.
I was asked to submit to bag screening at Porter MBTA train station, and declined. I left the station and walked off MBTA property: to the taxi stand in the Porter Square shopping center. I looked around and there were no taxis, and I didn't see any coming. I walked to the opposite side of the shopping center from the Porter MBTA station (Elm St, Somerville) and there still weren't any taxis in sight, but the 87 Bus was pulling up.
The bus stopped, people queued up to get in, and I happened to be last in line. Two people coming up the street started calling out "sir, sir!".
I didn't know what they wanted or who they were, so I didn't assume they were talking to me until they were pretty close. One said "can we talk to you, sir?" and I said "I need to catch this bus". They addressed the driver and said "he's all set" and sent the bus away. At which point they asked if I understood the security program. I said I did understand it, but I didn't agree with it, so I preferred not to participate. They said that I could do that, but that this meant I was not allowed on any of the MBTA system. I told them OK, and walked away.
I did not get names. I was thrown because this is the second time I've been followed out of the station for refusing the bag screening. Actually, the last time was almost exactly a year ago (Feb 23, 2010):
http://www.unopposablethumb.com/2010/02/adventures...
When I was followed in 2010, they stopped me on the sidewalk at the subway station, arguably still on MBTA property. This time, they followed me off the property -- not far, but I find it a concern. At any rate, I'm wondering how far off MBTA property they feel they have a right to follow me. Is it until I get to work?
Search and seizure issues aside,
I believe the MBTA police can follow you as long and as far as they want (as could any non-government agent).
They can follow you all you
They can follow you all they want, but you're under no obligation to talk to them or even acknowledge their presence. They can briefly detain you for questioning if they suspect that you have just committed, or are about to commit, a crime. But again, you're under no obligation to talk to them, answer their questions, and engage them in small talk about the Constitution.
um, wrong
They can briefly detain you for questioning if they suspect that you have just committed, or are about to commit, a crime
Being ordered off MBTA property and then getting right back on would be.
Then why wasn't he arrested
Then why wasn't he arrested right there, if he really was banned from the entire T, and had just tried to board a bus? And was he ordered off of T property, or just told to leave Porter station? If it's a system-wide ban, for how long? Two hours? That day? A month?
Part of the appeals court ruling that the NY bag searches were legal was that a passenger was free to leave the station.
http://www.masstransitmag.com/web/online/Top-Trans...$697
"Judge Charles Brieant pointed out that a passenger was free to leave one station and take a train from a different station."
Even though T bag searches started during the 2004 DNC convention, Romney used this ruling as his basis for reinstating the T searches.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/break...
"Instead, Romney said a more immediate trigger for the checks was a federal appeals court ruling in August that upheld random bag searches on New York subways. The ruling, which does not apply to Massachusetts, said the searches are constitutional and an effective and minimally invasive way to help protect a prime target for terrorists."
So now it appears that passengers who decline the searches are not just banned from entering that station, but are banned from the entire system -- trains, buses, ferries -- for some undefined time? And suppose Dan didn't try to board a bus a few blocks from the station, but decided to walk to his destination. It would have been okay for the cops to follow him around to ensure he does not try to re-enter the T?
do you know what "crime"
do you know what "crime" means?
They were doing what they had
They were doing what they had to do to make sure you didnt get to use public transportation after refusing a search. I doubt they would follow you around the city, but keeping an eye on you in close proximity to where you refuse to submit to a search I do not find unreasonable.
Well, some of don't find it
Well, some of don't find it reasonable to have cops eyeing our every movement within 500 feet of a station because we objected to a search and did not enter said station.
"MBTA property" would
"MBTA property" would logically include the buses and the boarding area for them. I find this less problematic than what happened to the "Don't touch my junk" guy. In that case the TSA asserted that once he entered the system he had no ability to decline to be searched, even if he decided it wasn't worth flying. In this case it sounds like the cops became suspicious that the guy declined a bag search and followed him outside where they saw him trying to board a bus and pulled him aside.
Declining a search
is not sufficient probable cause for a police officer to be "suspicious." You have every right to refuse to be detained or have your movement restricted unless you are under arrest. You also have the right to refuse to have your persons and/or belongings be searched and that also doesn't rise to the level of probable cause.
Well said. Which is why I
Well said. Which is why I wonder what would have happened next if Dan simply ignored the two plainclothes guys and held onto the bus doors and boarded. Would they have physically restrained him? Accompanied him on board and held the bus as they questioned him?
As Brett pointed out...
Once you decline to be searched, the MBTA can tell you that you are not allowed on MBTA property (trespassing). If you go back onto MBTA property, you are committing a crime and are subject to arrest. So yes, they would have had the legal right to stop him from getting on that bus.
As to how much property and how long someone would be banned? I do not know the answer to that. I would take an educated guess that if you refused a search and told to stay off of MBTA property, you would be banned for that day with that bag. If you went home and then back out again on the MBTA I would say you would probably be ok.
I'm sure the MBTA has some sort of policy as to how long they can ban people for certain things.
I would not be so positive
I would not be so positive that there is a policy in writing about the duration during which someone is barred from the system for declining a bag search. I am inclined to believe that it would take a lawsuit against the MBTA Police, or a trial of someone arrested for trespassing in another station or bus after declining a search, to get a policy in writing.
Such a system-wide ban also goes against the NY ruling that allowed for the NY subway searches, and on which the T's justification for searches is based.
Legalities aside, it is still silly to assume that a system-wide ban for declining a search would deter someone intent on doing harm. Can't get on at Porter? Walk or hop in a cab to Davis or Alewife or Harvard. Or get a bite to eat and come back two hours later, when the checkpoint is gone. Or, if you're a suicide bomber, just detonate yourself right there at the search checkpoint.
With the bag in question I would say the time frame would be..
as long as you had the bag. I think the policy is basically "you don't have to let us search your bag, but you can't bring that bag on any MBTA property ever again without the bag being searched". That seems reasonable since the bag is the object of the random search, not the person. This gives people with things they don't want the government to see a chance to not let them see it (does sound kind of silly if you actually did want to bomb the station and you could just bring your bomb home for another day where there is no search).
But you don't want people playing games with the police either.
In the end it has more to do with the bag and not the person.
In the end it has more to do
So the airport body scanners and friskings/patdowns/gropings are just for fun then? Phew!
If the TSA is so concerned about passengers carrying explosives on their body onto airplanes, then why not the same concern for subway passengers? Or perhaps this really is all just for show, and provides absolutely zero added safety, at the expense of a violation of our freedom from unnecessary and unreasonable searches by the government.
(Yes, I am eagerly awaiting the reply that advocates body scanners at T entrances.)
It comes down to the degree of reasonableness
The powers that be have basically concluded that the reasonable amount of privacy people have going onto airplanes is different than the amount of privacy that you have going onto a train. The same would go for other 4th amendment issues (your person, car, home).
Searching everyone going on a train is not feasable. The line has to be drawn somewhere.
Searching everyone going on a
And searching a minuscule tiny percentage of all train passengers, in the tiny chance that one of those screened passengers will turn out to be a bomber who will surrender to police instead of blowing himself up right there, is a complete waste of money and police manpower.
Too bad we don't have judges who realize this and who instead cave into the same fear and paranoia that our government has instilled in us so well the past decade.
The thing tha always got me
is that checkpoints themselves become the next big targets.
Lines at airports are huge, and usually pretty dense. So a suspect might not be able to get through security, but we just gave him a huge new target, with hundreds of people packed together in a wrap around line in the terminal.
The tradeoff for liberty is not always being totally secure in your person. People need to stop fretting over the statistically irrelevancy of terrorism and give it the gesture it deserves, a big "meh".
Yep, just like a line of
Yep, just like a line of passengers all funneling through one subway entrance checkpoint in a confined space provides a much nicer target than those same passengers spread out over multiple fare gates (especially at a station like Porter) entering at different times.
I'd love for a real reporter to have the balls to ask the police chief, "Chief MacMillan, what is the protocol if one of these bag searches does uncover someone with a bag full of explosives or who himself is laden with explosive material? Do you politely ask the guy not to blow himself up and hope he listens?"
I think the theory behind the search is that
the bomber wont get that far. He will either think twice about bombing MBTA stations in general or he will strap them on his person.
And haven't we had this conversation before about the easiest way to kill the most amount of people and what terrorists like to do? In America, terrorists do not like to kill people in crowds. They like to bomb planes in the air, and possibly blow up trains underground.
We probably have had this
We probably have had this conversation before because the same nonsense keeps getting spewed about this country's response to terrorism.
Of course, the T Police brass can go off all they want about how these measures have been effective because no one has bombed the T. Kind of an impossible statement to prove or dispute.
Tell that to the families of the seven victims of the first WTC attack 18 years ago this week or of the Oklahoma City bombing.
Anyone who thinks that T Police screening a few hundred of the million or so daily passenger trips is making us safer and keeping the bad guys away is deluding themselves.
When you start with "As Brett
When you start with "As Brett points out," there's nothing we can do for you.
Ha true.
But I find Brett to be right on the money 90% of the time and completly clueless 10% of the time. But is is also a dink 85% of the times where he is right.
RIP: 4TH Amendment. yes, yes,
RIP: 4TH Amendment.
yes, yes, i know if a terrorist attack occurred everyone would be asking why didn't the MBTA do enough.
Not everyone. Only those
Not everyone. Only those whose mindset is, "I have nothing to hide, and if it saves just one life, then I'm all for it."
MBTA is a privilege
Like flying, use of the MBTA is a privilege and not a right. These agencies both also have the right to build whatever terms into their terms of use that they see is fit. If you don't like it, don't use it, like that guy did... but it's entirely absurd not to. $1.70 trip vs $12 cab ride. It's just completely foolish, a waste of time, and a waste of money just because you didn't want someone to peek in your bag with your laptop, work shoes, and maybe a notebook.
Like flying and taking the T,
Like flying and taking the T, use of Storrow Drive, the Mass Pike, the Sumner Tunnel, Mass Ave and Comm Ave is a privilege and not a right. DCR, the city's Transportation Department and MassDOT have the right to build whatever terms into their terms of use that they see is fit. If you don't like it, don't use it.
datadyne007, would you be okay with random vehicle and passenger searches when you drive on the above roads and bridges and tunnels? If yes, then you can stop reading now. If no, then why should riding the T be any different? What do you expect for your $1.25 Mass Pike toll or $3.50 tunnel toll? Privacy?
To answer your question:
To answer your question: Yes.
What makes you think that I'm so inclined to driving and might be put off by a stupid addition to their ToS? Heck, it would get some people off the roads because of the foolish protesting. The idea is sounding better by the minute.
You're either a troll or have
You're either a troll or have no understanding of the Fourth Amendment. Maybe we can have one of those T cops permanently stationed at your front door to search you as you leave home every morning.
Never mind that the 4th
Never mind that the 4th Amendment is for unreasonable searches, and the act of searching a bag when using a public system to protect public safety is a reasonable search.
... is a reasonable search
... has declared Judge K2.
Legally, reasonable searches
Legally, reasonable searches to maintain public safety are fine. Searching your car on Storrow randomly probably doesn't pass the reasonable test. Taking a quick look at your bag to make sure it doesn't contain anything that might explode and cause death and injury in a confined space like a subway is pretty reasonable, especially since the search takes a few seconds.
You are well within your right to refuse a bag search, understanding that you then forfeit your right to taking the T that day. That is a choice that you can make. And if for some reason you have something in your bag that you don't want transit police to see, maybe you should not have brought it with you.
That was exactly my point.
That was exactly my point. Thank you.
As opposed to a concrete and metal tube
As opposed to a concrete and metal tube under the harbor such as the Sumner or Ted Williams tunnels? Or the Pike under the Pru and Hynes and adjacent to Back Say Station?
I'm sorry, you cannot argue that searches are reasonable for passengers in the subway but totally out of line for users of the equivalent road infrastructure.
Would you approve of
Would you approve of never-ending traffic and accidents caused by a checkpoint much like at the border because you wanted to drive in the tunnels under the harbor? No, because it's completely unreasonable to create more public safety hazards in order to prevent one that is not incredibly likely to happen. That's where probable cause comes in for car searches.
Violence on the T happens fairly often, as we have seen, and in terms of disruption and creation of further hazards, asking someone to open their bag and swab it is not that disrupting and doesn't harm anyone. And, since the T is technically a subdivision of the Commonwealth, it is well within their power to create a regulation that involves reasonable searches to protect public safety.
Would you approve of
If you approve of the T searches, then yes.
By the way, did you ever think that the mass of passengers waiting to have their bags searched, all funneling through one checkpoint, is the suicide bomber's dream? Instead of having those same passengers spread over multiple fare gates, they're now clustered in one small area. And just what would happen if the searches do find such a suicide bomber? He or she would likely just blow themselves up right there, taking out the cops and that mass of passengers awaiting the search.
So again, I don't buy your argument that a chokepoint before a tunnel precludes road searches but a similar chokepoint in a confined subway entrance is okay.
If your true feelings (and I'm not implying they are) are that those who can't afford or don't want their own car and have to rely on mass transit should be subjected to searches of their possessions, but those who can afford their own car and associated expenses should not be, then please come out and say so.
risks
Are you implying that a subway bombing is likely to happen? Do you know something we don't? Because we all know that cars have never been used for bombings but subways are being bombed all the time.
"Fairly often"
The SUV suburbanites crack me up. 20 incidents in a year at my station isn't "fairly often," it's downright quaint. I love seeing the commuter rail station statistics that are through the roof, but don't get the same reaction. Johnny Sixpack From The Suburbs' post-Happy Hour punchup at the station or brawl after a long trip of brown baggin' it is cute and part of the local charm. Some moron getting an iPhone snagged out of his hand because he's too stupid to keep it close or put it away as he stands near the train door is considered a tragedy that's driving our society into decay. Oh, and it's a terrorist threat on par with the 9/11 hijackers.
That's too much. But yeah, go swabbing bags just because people who ride public transportation are dangerous. It's not like people in vehicles bombed the World Trade Center the first time or the federal building in Oklahoma City. It's not like a bomb on the Zakim would be a possibility or a highly symbolic terrorist strike. Besides, why hold up traffic? It's not like other cities like New York or Chicago have checkpoints for vehicles that in no way impede the flow of traffic. It's not like we have toll collection facilities ringing the city that could just as easily be used for checkpoints or scanning. Nope, it's all those violent, city-dwelling, public transit riders' fault -- especially the ones at the "bad stops."
you can pack a hell of alot
you can pack a hell of alot more explosives into a buick than a handbag, no?
Sure, but only good ol' American
<sarcasm>
Sure, but only good ol' American boys drive Buicks. They wouldn't be packing any explosives.
But those dirty mass transit riders? You never know what they're packing.
</sarcasm>
Random bag searches on an open system are...
[A]
.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
Until someone can explain to me a persuasive (heck, I'd settle for plausable) explanation on how random bag searches in an open system such as the MBTA in any way adds to security of the system I'm going to complain about the wastefulness of resources that this bit of Security Theater represents. And that's before I get around to pointing out the violations of riders' 4th and 5th amendment rights.
I'm not saying it is right or that it makes it safer but...
they do random searches for the same reason the TSA does random bag searches. This is to avoid profiling issues and lawsuits.
They basically write up a search policy that courts have accepted as reasonable searches under the 4th amendment. Searching someone based on looks is a grey area and government agents can get around those grey areas by searching people at random. By searching 100 "random" people every day, government agents can get away with searching 5 "suspucious" people every day.
Except everyone is searched at the airport
Except everyone is searched at the airport. What would be the reaction if, say, only .05% of airline passengers were screened on any given day, and the rest just went right on through? Isn't that what's happening on the T? So putting aside the constitutional concerns, how is this effective in any shape or form?
Yea true but
Not everyone or everyones bags get the same look through as others. Like I said, they have policy that I assume was approved by the legal department which has some sort of legal standard.
I'm sure I'm a quota search
So let me re-word the question a little;
How does searching anything less the 100% of bags brought into the MBTA system enhance security?
You can come a lot closer at an airport (though as of this date, 100% of cargo isn't being searched, so the benefits of harrassing even 100% of the passangers is suspect...), but of course this would be impossible on the T. So any self-respecting (yes, intentional oxymoron there) terrorist, upon spying a screening station at stop A will simply turn around and enter the system at stop B. Hynes, where I encounter Security Theater most often is within a mile of four other stops, three of them above ground.
Where is the security?
There is no security
There is no security added.
There is:
Exactly!
Well, at least #3 has some benefit in that it generates economic activity, but that is probably just cancelled out by #2. :) :)
Given its recent performance...
...and the posts about it on this blog and in the 'twittersphere' I would say you'd be taking your life in your hands if you stood up in the Orange or Red lines or maybe the commuter rail and loudly proclaimed "The MBTA is a Privilege!!"
No matter how many explosive swabs or bag checks they implement, nothing will stop riders from stomping the living shit out of people on the T. Except perhaps getting the Transit police actually onto the platforms, trains and buses as someone else mentioned.
In all seriousness, yes driving is a privilege, but free movement on publicly supported infrastructure as a passenger...does that really mean I give up all civil liberties if I step off property that I own? What if I'm just walking down the Comm Ave mall? I could have a bomb on me. As always where does one reasonably draw the line?
(Any argument that begins with "well, if you don't have anything to hide..." is automatically disqualified under the "what if it was your sister?" clause.)
The location of where the
The location of where the line is drawn is the grayest of all areas. I argue it ends at mass transit, but there is a risk of someone driving a bomb through the Pru tunnel. The list of scenarios you could come up with is endless. The reason I personally include mass transit is because of the high density of people that use the system and could potentially be harmed. Driving on the MassPike or walking down Comm Ave and detonating an explosive device would cause damage and maybe some fatalities, but it wouldn't be quite as devastating if it were to happen on the T.
This said, the searches really are just to satisfy the TSA grants the MBTA is getting. It's an extremely ineffective security system to implement. If anything, they shouldn't have these cops standing around. Each one of them should be at an inspection station doing their job to get the most that is possible (not much, tbh) out of this system.
have you ever seen these
have you ever seen these checkpoints? it usually consist of 8-10 officers of which maybe 2 are doing anything at all. the rest are standing around, chatting, racking up the overtime. it's a total boondoggle.
I didn't say the system was
I didn't say the system was perfect. I've noticed the same thing going on at Gov't Center during my daily commute.
I think the MBTA needs to step up security in general, but it's a small step. Those excess officers should be patrolling Orange Line trains and stations.
Are these checkpoints even at the "bad stops" (s. of Back Bay) on the Orange Line?
"Bad stops"
Green Street had a whopping four crimes committed in all of 2010. Roxbury Crossing had 8. Meanwhile, Downtown Crossing had 26, Oak Grove had 20, Malden had 18, State Street had 13 and Haymarket had 11. Ruggles, Jackson and Forest Hills are no dream, but don't insinuate that the "bad stops" are all "south of Back Bay."
And P.S.: T security is a dream compared to Philly's Septa and Chicago's L, where dimwits learned a long time ago not to just wave a $200 gadget around and expect thieves not to take notice. Those "thugs" (always code for persons of color) are the least of the T's worries, as the rate of idiots getting taken for tablets and smartphones is much greater on the Red Line. This doesn't require increased security, it requires smarter riders.
Even at Ruggles, Jackson, and
Even at Ruggles, Jackson, and Forest Hills, the higher crime numbers are mostly due to utilization. All three are major transfer points, and total boardings are significantly higher. I feel quite safe at Forest Hills.
Meanwhile, on the Orange Line . . . .
Teenage thugs are robbing phones and IPods. A stabbing on the Red Line yesterday, perp escapes.
When was the last time you saw a T cop on a subway platform? They're too busy riding around in their cruisers.
Like I said, tongue in cheek,
Like I said, tongue in cheek, it's a good thing the T police are now busy keeping us free from bombs since they've already taken care of all the other crime on the system.
And I've said this before but I don't know how true it is.
These types of "checkpoints" are paid for by federal grants funded by the federal government. The MBTA police can't use that money to put extra cops on platforms to fight fare evaders or fight crime.
Don't quote me on that but I heard it was what happens.
I've heard that too, about
I've heard that too, about funding, and have seen TSA workers accompanying the screening.
Doesn't change the situation though. It's good that Homeland Security is so much more concerned about a passenger being blown up than being, oh, mugged or stabbed. Because, as I said, the former apparently happens all the time and the latter never happens.
Hysteria and cowardice
People are absolutely hysterical about terrorism. It's really a sad and pathetic commentary on the state of our country.
If you point out that 30,000+ people a year are killed in traffic accidents, you get a yawn.
Some guy lights his underwear on fire, and it's RED ALERT!!!
The most obvious way to fight terrorism is "Don't be terrified" but for some reason this concept is completely lost on the majority of the population.
Not to mention that "Dept of Homeland Security" sounds like the name came straight out of a Soviet state.
Could not have said it
Could not have said it better.
To anyone who says that the world changed on 9/11/01: terrorism existed long before that day, and the world is no more dangerous today than it was on September 10, 2001.
What has changed is any true sense of risk on the part of our alleged leaders, and the unwillingness of the public to question what has been spoon-fed to them over and over and over. Don't be fooled: fear is a huge business and there's tons of money to be made exploiting those fears.
Thank Gods! Someone with Brains!
Saul, Chicken, thank you for seriously making my day. I'm glad we have at least a couple of people here who have thought through the situation and come to the correct conclusions about the banality of 9/11 and the environment of fear the government has created for its own purposes.
The government doesn't want to keep us safe, the government wants to keep itself in power. Doesn't matter if you're Republican, Democratic, Socialist, or Fascist.
Mahketing
As any good ad man knows -- it's fear, sex and puppies. They sell. So why can't the govt give out black lab puppies and blowjobs (how come cunnilingus doesn't have its own 'job'?) instead of color-coded alert systems?
Exactly
This gets to the whole "security" issue. The stops at the T entrances are security theater, as it has been mentioned, paid for by the Feds for their purposes. It makes certain people feel better.
For people "south of the Back Bay Orange line stop" security has a much different definition (job security, freedom from street crime, domestic[relationship] security, security in educational opportunities) and the people in charge really don't care about it.
I'm against it, but understand the issue you raised before about having to keep things "random" so they can target people at times without taking flack about profiling (which of course is what is done). The other rationale is that if it has happened (exploding shoes, underwear, liquid-based bombs, subway bombings, etc.), you are expected to prevent it from happening again.
We just have really poor abilities to analyze risk and come to conclusions that aren't completely contradictory or out of whack with our supposed priorities. In the end it's all about maintaining an atmosphere of paranoia and, of course, government contracts.
That says it all
That says it all. Constitution be damned, if there's money to be doled out in the name of keeping us safe from terrorists, it will be doled out.
"teenage thugs"
Good lord, stop the code. If you're going to hide behind anonymity anyway, you may as well say what you mean.
You'd think there was some sort of phone-stealing epidemic on the Orange Line. That's just not the case. As a regular rider, I see thousands of idiots each week tapping away at their smartphones, tablets and e-readers without being jacked for them. There have been phone thefts on the Orange Line since the Sidekick era, but nothing to get all Death Wish over.
Besides, it's damned near impossible to have officers at every T station all the time. That doesn't happen on any subway system in the world.
The better solution is to give the system better passengers. Entitled morons who take up two seats while spreading out with their kindle or ipad, play Angry Birds three-abreast in the middle of the doorway, play downloaded songs at volume instead of putting in the damned earbuds or let everyone in on their ringtone instead of setting you phone on vibrate like a functional member of society are easy marks for a thief with knowledge of the subway system and a good pair of running shoes.
Instead of pretending like they live in Pleasantville, perhaps they should use incidents like these to remind them that they live in a city, that they should be carefull and that it could be a lot worse -- you could have your wallet cut out of your pocket, bag cut off your shoulder or your phone taken at knife or gun point as is the case in larger cities.
Code for what?
Tell us all what YOU beleive "teenage thugs" is "code" for... other than, well, teenage thugs.
I'm curious as to what you believe it is "code" for, and why you believe that.
Please
On this site and in Boston in general, "teenage thugs" is the racist's term du jour for "teens of a certain skin pigmentation." Usually that pigmentation is one the racist doesn't share. That term, combined with the specific criticism of Orange Line stops "south of Back Bay" squarely places generalized and unwarranted blame on a very specific target.
And go ahead, Code Warrior, tell us again how Boston isn't racist and never, EVER makes implications like that. Because every time Boston says "Hey, we're not racist" and acts indignant, it so goes a long way toward dispelling the belief that this is a racist town/area.
Well, YOU certainly seem obsessed
with race, anyway. And that DOESN'T dispel the implication that some- such as yourself- in Boston are racist?
What a narrow way to go thru life. Open your mind and see people for the individuals they are, not the little boxes you would like to consign them to.
Whatever, holmes
It's this town's obsession with not talking about race that I'm obsessed with. Race is just one of the many factors that define our relationships with one another, for better or worse. The only "narrow little boxes" I'm gazing into are the ones that folks around here use to block out the context when it comes to loaded terminology like "thugs."
Look how defensive you just got over my explanation. Can't even contain the urge to show me just how colorblind you are. Typical.
He's probably just a racist
He's probably just a racist trolling by trying to insinuate other people are racist for pointing up there are thugs in the inner city. Mind you we have thugs of every color in this city because of our diverse neighborhoods.
I myself don't see how it's racist to point out if thugs rob someone in a neighborhood, odds are they probably match the dominant ethnicity in the neighborhood. If I'm accosted in Southie, odds are it's by a bunch of white Irish guys. East Boston, likely South or Central Americans. Chinatown, likely a gang of Asians. Roxbury, probably men of African descent.
What's the big deal with describing the statistically supported most frequent suspects for a type of crime in a given neighborhood? Are we no longer going to be able to describe the common teenage thug as "teenage" because it is 'profiling' or 'stereotyping' young people that happen to commit a significant amount of crime?
Next thing you know, we will be banned from describing the height or weight of criminals. Muggers might be offended from being described as short and fat on a wanted poster!
Was wondering when the Grand Wizard would show up
What's the matter, Haviland, run out of rocks to throw at the school buses this morning?
You really are a simple, simple man who never met a situation he couldn't oversimplify or overgeneralize. Let's take a look at this little gem:
Awesome. So instead of getting, you know, the actual description of a criminal, you'd rather just base it on those who historically occupied the neighborhoods where these crimes take place. In Southie, it's likely those no-good, drunken, pasty, r-dropping Irish, right? Because nobody else has moved into Southie in 40 years and nobody else makes it into their crime report. Oh, and we can't forget about all the Hispanics in Eastie! Why, it's gotta be them committing all the crimes because who in their right mind would want to go into a neighborhood with businesses like Santarpio's, Scup's or, oh, the airport and commit an act of violence. That's exactly why all the 9/11 hijackers at Logan were r-rolling Hispanics, possibly from MS-13. And Chinatown: Yeah, it's just always Triads running off scared, innocent whites who just didn't want to eat birds nest soup or shark fin. It's never guys with names like Harvey or Yves who can't handle their liquor during late-night lo mein runs. It's not like those restaurant patrons are the root of much of Chinatown's crime or anything. And lastly, there's Roxbury. Yep, all the shootings and stabbings that go on there just have to be caused by black guys, right? That's why we needed James Brown to come to town, right? Yeah, because a white guy would never break into a church and steal the poor boxes and nobody but a black guy would break into a house and shoot a guy.
So yeah, I can see now why you're so upset about not being able to just profile crime suspects willy nilly based on your own preconceived notions. It's a real detriment to the police officers who have to gather facts and evidence not to have your wild stab in the dark just so they can pick up someone who fits a profile and call it a night. Because throwing "teenage thugs" and ethnic sterotypes into prison: That's justice.
Teens? Try GEEZER thugs.
Fresh out of jail after finishing multi-decade sentences.
You know, you could just
You know, you could just point out that people from all neighborhoods crossover all the time so trying to assume race based on neighborhood is a flawed strategy. Without calling him a racist, accusing him of throwing rocks like Bostonian from the 1980's (?), and claiming he's a Grand Wizard.
Also, you straw-manned like hell as he was noting statistical likelihood and and not a blanker all _____ statement where a single counter-example can disprove the claim. So anecdotal evidence doesn't prove or disprove his statement at all. Getting the BPD reports of how much each race commits crime can prove or disprove his statement. Giving 3 examples could just be the exception to the possible rule.
A Google search of BPD crime statistics reveals this site. http://www.cityofboston.gov/Images_Documents/2008C...
The statistics about race and crime rates starts around page 64, but I don't have time to read it right now.
You know, you could have just not made
the most passive-aggressive argument possible, but since you're spending the day on the comments field calling people fatties and unsuccessfully defending yourself, why should I have expected you to behave any differently on this thread.
I called him a racist because he is one. I called him a Grand Wizard because there's still a little device called irony that exists whether the online masses want it to or not. I accused him of throwing rocks at school buses like a Bostonian in the 70s because that's what Boston racists of his age did at the time.
Did you check any links at all, or did you just get all fired up and write this retort and find the most overbroad piece of data you could get your hands on -- a 2008 crime summary? really? -- in a bid to satiate your need for self-righteousness? Had you checked the links, you'd see that Adam's site alone is a great database for crime information and -- especially with the Chinatown example -- provides a great deal of evidence contrary to David Haviland Duke's assertion. And "how much each race commits a crime" is irrelevant when the accuser is profiling by neighborhood.
RhoninFire, you're having a bad day and me smacking you around here isn't going to make it any better. Get some rest, sleep it off and get your bearings again. That's why they make tomorrow.
Facts are pesky things
JP, I know this intrudes on your blinkered and ideological view of the world, but the Orange Line has far more robberies than other lines.
Crime stats are here: http://www.mbta.com/transitpolice/crimestats/
Fortunately, the USA is past the time when you can't say the truth for fear of being called a racist. We lived through that BS in the 70s and 80s.
I know this will just melt your face, but
the red line had 261 Level I crimes committed in its stations last year. The Orange Line had 202. Maybe you should have read that report instead of just linking to it.
When you see that "truth" you're talking about, let me know.
The Orange Line
It doesn't just go through JP and Roxbury.
Downtown crossing and the Orange Line stations south
have the highest rates of crime on the system. Yeah, it's easy to add up the 29 Red Line stations and get a bigger number than the 19 Orange Line stations. But the crime on the Red Line is highest in Dorchester/Mattapan.
Is it that hard to ignore the truth and try to refute my assertion that the MBTA needs more policing in high-crime areas, where the crimes are? Why be deluded?
Accusing a black man of being
Accusing a black man of being a Grand Wizard, now that's rich.
I went to a segregated school before busing. If I had attended school a few years later, the rocks would have been thrown AT ME.
And in the spirit of civility, as expressed first by you.
FUCK YOU!
Not my first time at the Rodeo, Haviland
I've been on this board long enough to know exactly what your race is, Haviland. It doesn't make you less of a racist. Others have had this discussion with you before.
As I told fatty-hating Rhoninsomethingorother, there's still a little device called irony that doesn't cease to exist just because it goes whizzing over people's heads. If you're going to spend the rest of your life making narrow, pithy generalizations about broad swaths of people, why would you expect the "revelation" that you're black to shield you from criticism for doing so?
Your regular proclamations on this site, including those you just made here on the Orange Line, don't help your cause.
As for your last line, I guess there's only one appropriate response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc0mxOXbWIU
How about you calm down, I
How about you calm down, I can speak civilly if you are willing as well. Calling me a fatty-hating Rhoninsomethingorother isn't advancing your argument nor writing to me the way you are is going to make me want to go to sleep.
Now responding to the post talking replied directly at me above me. I will make these few comments.
1. Making a statement earlier that studies (with citation) that fatties will have harder time and people react differently to an overweight person versus a normal weight person is a rational statement. I don't see how criticism of my grammar (I know it is bad and I am unbelievably blind to it) and dismissal of using the word "studies" is a strong rebuttal of that statement.
2. I will first give this apology. I only clicked only one of the three links. So I not noticed that two links lead to the same article. That was a hasty action that hurts my argument.
3. I will also concede I did sounded too passive aggressive. I changed my tone a little because I didn't want to give a super aggressive tone as my last few posts and that I don't disagree with you completely. You have a point using neighborhoods as who is causing the crime is a flawed strategy.
4. What I did not like was how your backed up your argument (I prefer statistics, and articles, even from this site, is still anecdotal evidence) and calling him racist and everything. It is not a civil way to argue against his points nor add anything to your argument. If your problem is he using location as a basis of who is committing the crime, calling racist just brings another confusing element that brings me to write what I wrote.
5. Adam have a great database of recent crime, but is not a full aggregate of all crime (to my knowledge). Picking an article or two is still anecdotal. I want statistics and numbers for they are what can truly reflect what's happening. Picking (or worse, cherry picking) doesn't achieve that goal. If you take all the articles and break down the the races into areas, then we have some statistics. Assuming that it fully reflects the crimes committed in the area. Taking a 2008 document (I don't think 3 years old is that out of date, crimes stats changes, but not that fast) from the BPD seems to be a reasonable way to present evidence for and against your argument.
Here's another issue with the
Here's another issue with the bag searches. I wonder just how "random" they are. I've seen a number of the bag search stations but never had to submit to one myself and I think I'm a fairly suspicious looking guy. Whenever I pass by one it seems that there's a suspiciously high number of 20 something women at the table getting their bags searched (the officer conducting it are mostly men). There have been accusations that the TSA singles out attractive women for enhanced interrogation and I wonder to what extent the same might be going on here. Certainly a heterosexual male cop would rather spend a few seconds chatting to some cute woman while searching her bag than a hulking guy.
Maybe I'm missing the point...
I understand if you're opposed to the idea of random bag searches, but unless you actually do have something to hide, what's the point in going to such lengths to avoid one? I mean was it really worth it?
I don't particularly care to have the MBTA police looking in my bag, nor do I think it's an effective measure against violence/terrorism, but I certainly don't think it's worth the trouble he went through to avoid being searched - talk about a waste of time/money.
but unless you actually do have something to hide
Here we go again. Where do you draw the line in the government searching you and your possessions in the name of "safety"? If T entrances are okay, what about sidewalks on overpasses and underpasses above and below the Pike or 93?
It's none of the government's business what I happen to be carrying with me as I travel within my city or state.
I'm not saying you're wrong,
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that given the circumstances Dan was faced with, I don't see it being worth the trouble. That's just my opinion though. It's the same reason (though of course on a lesser scale) that I'm still going to submit to searches to fly to California and not drive there, though I realize (and understand) that other people might not be ok with it.
Considering what other people have done to protest
the violation of our constitutional rights (or to protect them), I don't think refusing a search and walking to work constitutes much of a hassle. I refuse the idiotic bag search and the ridiculous nudescan every time I am asked. I will walk or at least have my rights violated in front of the public and not in some back room. I will take a little hassle over compromising my principles any day.
The cowardice of the American general public is downright grim.
I'm a coward for allowing the
I'm a coward for allowing the MBTA Police to look in my bag and see what I'm having for lunch that day or reading on the ride home rather than walking to find a cab and spending several more dollars on a cab ride?
Do your constitutional rights mean nothing to you?
For thought:
"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me."
You're willing to give up your 4th and 5th amendment rights
for no discernable benefit. Where do you draw the line?
When do you decide that it is time to speak up?
Talk about overreacting! My
Talk about overreacting! My god...
The Nazi analogy might be an
The Nazi analogy might be an overreaction. But Lecil asks a very valid question. Where do you draw the line? If bag searches entering subway stations are okay, how about at post offices? At the RMV? At shopping malls? (Before you say that malls are privately run, remember that Homeland Security was very involved in the also privately run Super Bowl.) At hospitals if you're visiting a patient?
Tell me, if you think that subway bag searches are okay, with what kinds of searches are you not okay?
Just to clarify
It's legally permissible for private owners to require bag searches before entering a private property. For example, Fenway Park does it. The private ownership has to weigh their desire for searches against the possible decrease in business. There's no constitutional question here, that only comes up with regard to government actions.
I was also searched prior to entering Dorchester District Court for the first time, as is anyone who wants to enter. That's more along the lines of something like the RMV, or the post office. (Though, amusingly enough, I was waved through security on subsequent occasions). Is this reasonable?
The reason why every American should never consent to searches is to protect their Fourth and Fifth amendment rights, and also to avoid self-incrimination: because you never know what might happen. You might think that you are perfectly law-abiding, but you do not know all the laws. You don't know that someone didn't drop something in your bag, either, while you weren't looking.
You may be searched anyway, but refusing consent gives you a strong case if for some reason you end up in court.
Frog, meet pot...
Sure, it would be an overreation to equate bag checks on the MBTA
with the Nazis herding people into death camps. I'm not going to
dispute that. The point is that we have to be careful to make sure that bag checks on the MBTA are not just the beginning
of a slippery slope.
If you give up this particular privacy right, why do you think it'll stop there?
Write to your legislators
If you don't like bag searches, write to your legislators.
In theory, the government is us. In practice it isn't, but you can at least try.
Yet another reason to avoid the MBTA
You're not allowed to have fascism unless your trains run on time.
Is there a ban limit when an inspection is refused?
Does the T website provide any information about the package inspection policy? I did not find anything.
I wonder whether this is part of cyclical period of paranoia. Fifty years have passed since the House Committee on Un-American activities the drunken demagoguery of Joseph McCarthy. Given the strident anti-government attitudes of many Republicans, and the government is evil mantra of Tea Partiers, as well as the invasive and offensive tactics of body scans and feels, it seems that people who prefer a society based on fear and even terror today have the upper hand.
If the T security apparatus must inspect bags could they extend their services to making the T less unpleasant? Regulations ban the use of radios that can be heard by other passengers. But the T security apparatus does nothing to stop the noise pollution from bleeding earbuds and cell phones. That one step would be to me an act of genuine belief of making the T something that is more than a necessary evil.
But the digression aside, does anyone know what is the policy when I choose to exercise my right to not have my person or personal possessions inspected without a warrant?
So am I permantly banned just because I exercise a right?
Does the T website provide any information about the package inspection policy? I did not find anything.
I wonder whether this is part of cyclical period of paranoia. Fifty years have passed since the House Committee on Un-American activities the drunken demagoguery of Joseph McCarthy. Given the strident anti-government attitudes of many Republicans, and the government is evil mantra of Tea Partiers, as well as the invasive and offensive tactics of body scans and feels, it seems that people who prefer a society based on fear and even terror today have the upper hand.
If the T security apparatus must inspect bags could they extend their services to making the T less unpleasant? Regulations ban the use of radios that can be heard by other passengers. But the T security apparatus does nothing to stop the noise pollution from bleeding earbuds and cell phones. That one step would be to me an act of genuine belief of making the T something that is more than a necessary evil.
But the digression aside, does anyone know what is the policy when I choose to exercise my right to not have my person or personal possessions inspected without a warrant?
The pamphlet -- scanned at
The pamphlet -- scanned at http://twitpic.com/42quth -- handed out by cops during these searches states the following --
"Any person refusing to allow a security inspection will be either denied entry or requested to leave MBTA property."
Interesting wording. I am not a lawyer, but there appear to be two alternatives to being searched:
Neither one forbids you from getting on a bus or walking to the next station. As I posted earlier, to really test the policy -- e.g. if a cop approached you on the street and you did not obey his demand to get off the bus or leave another station -- would probably require you to risk getting arrested and then challenging the T Police in court. And that's not a risk most people would probably want to take.
So if you do decline a search in the future, the best course is probably to simply leave the station and walk away for several minutes, out of sight of that station's entrance. If a cop comes up to you on the street as you're walking away, don't engage him in conversation, and don't answer his questions. Just walk away, as he has no grounds to detain you. You declined a search, you left MBTA property, police interaction over. He can try talking to you all he wants, but you have no obligation whatsoever to answer. If he keeps following you and asking you questions, at most say, "I decline to answer any questions."
If a cop does approach you on
If a cop does approach you on the street after you have left the station, if he asks (or demands) to look inside your bags, say that you do not consent to such a search. Do not forcibly resist, but keep repeating that you do not consent to the search on the street. And Massachusetts does not have a "stop-and-identify" statute, so he can ask you for your name or ID, but you have no obligation to give it to him.
It's important for civilians to know their rights when stopped by the police on the street.
http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/bustcard_eng_2010...
The cop certainly has no self-interest in informing you of your rights, and will attempt to intimidate you into surrendering some of those rights.
Saul ranks #1 on this thread for
That said, what are the three most recent attempts of domestic terrorism in Boston, if any.
These were not:
MBTA random bag searches
Infuriating. And predictable. How long before they start handcuffing us if we refuse??
They've just implemented these stupid, pointless, abusive searches in the DC Metro as well (and of course they've been going on in New York for years). But there are so few of us who object. So few of us who see the writing on the wall. The tiny -- the minuscule -- amount of courage it takes to stand up and say "No" -- even that eludes most so-called citizens.
Thanks to the sheeple, these "searches" are coming to all of us sooner or later, everywhere, all the time. People really do get the government they deserve.
Still don't know how long to wait before using the T again
I sent an email asking how long a person has to wait before using the T if they decline to let their bags be inspected.
The answer sounded like a canned response that was designed to avoid any specifics. I hoped for a detailed response. I guess that was too much to hope for.
Their response:
Thank you for contacting the MBTA. We appreciate your business and value your feedback.
The MBTA Transit Police re-instituted regular random bag inspections on the public transit system in order to shake up normal routines and make it more difficult to plan and carry out a potential terrorist act at the direction of the Federal governments Department of Homeland Security.
The MBTA Transit Police may conduct random bag searches at anytime and are not a violation of an individual's Constitutional rights.
MBTA customers have the right to expect that the MBTA Transit Police will do all in their power to ensure passenger safety.
The federal appeals court found that random bag inspections do not violate the Fourth Amendment and MBTA Transit Police may conduct inspections without a warrant and are tailored to protect the rights of individual riders.
For more information about the MBTA Transit Police visit http://www.mbta.com/transitpolice/
If you have questions or concerns regarding the MBTA Transit Policy Policy on bag inspections, please direct your inquiries to the MBTA Transit Police. Contact information for the specific transit areas is available at the link provided above.
Should you have additional questions or concerns regarding this issue, please contact the MBTA's Customer Communications Center at 617-222-3200 or 800-392-6100, Monday through Friday, 6:30am to 8:00pm and Saturday/Sunday from 7:30am to 6:00pm or visit our website at www.MBTA.com
Well they did give you a phone number to call.
Might not be the answer you wanted but it was kind of an answer.
In this case, I suspect that
In this case, I suspect that they're trying to avoid the liability of putting in writing something that might later be found unconstitutional.
Or it could just be usual MBTA incompetence.