(no subject)

[camwyn]

So.

New York City's gonna do random searches of people's bags if they wanna get on the subway and 'people who don't want to be searched are perfectly free to turn around and leave the station'.

Show of hands- do I start carrying a bag full of mousetraps, or should I start carrying a bag full of some formulation of Play-Doh that feels like dog crap if a cop puts his hand on it? Not that I dislike the members of the NYPD; I'm very fond of cops in general. But since the city doesn't seem to think that the Constitution matters any more (small surprise, since Washington doesn't either)- or that this constitutes a reasonable search and seizure- I'd like to make it plain that if you're going to search me, ever, you are going to have to pay for that privilege.

I'm thinkin' the play-doh. Or a can of non-dairy creamer with a lid that comes off easily- no, then they'd go "ACK ANTHRAX" and I'd be late for work. But you get the idea.

Suggestions?

Comments

[zsero.livejournal.com]

Walk, bike, taxi. Essentially, that's your problem. Since when do you have an inherent right to use the subway?

Now assume that you have no access to any of these methods, and without the subway you have no way to get to work at all without consenting to be searched. If you don't consent to be searched, you're screwed. Explain to me exactly how this makes the search unconstitutional. So long as you have a choice in the matter, and can refuse to be searched at the price of leaving the system immediately, I don't see a constitutional problem, even if the search is both unreasonable and warrantless.

Of course, if the search is reasonable then it requires neither consent nor a warrant; or if there's actual evidence that can justify a warrant then it requires neither reasonableness nor consent. Consent, reasonableness, and a warrant issued upon probable cause, are each independent conditions, any one of which justifies a search.

[paradisacorbasi.livejournal.com]

Simple solution.

The Joggers.

They started walking and biking and carpooling during the subway strike.

If people don't take the subway out of protest, the loss of revenue may very well make them reconsider.

May.

[lyorn.livejournal.com]

Since when do you have an inherent right to use the subway?

Since I paid for it -- probably twice?

[zsero.livejournal.com]

Huh?

[lyorn.livejournal.com]

Once for the ticket, twice with my taxes.

[zsero.livejournal.com]

AIUI, the searches are before you enter the system, so you haven't paid yet. If you are asked to consent to a search after you have entered the system, and you refuse and are accordingly sent out, then I agree you should get your $2 back.

The fact that the MTA is subsidised by the state government does not entitle you to use the subway, any more than it entitles you to enter any other property whose owner receives a subsidy. Entry is always on the terms set by the owner. Otherwise they couldn't charge you that $2, could they?

The bottom line is that you have no legal entitlement to use the subway. The MTA has the right to set any reasonable conditions it likes for the use of its services. One of those conditions is the payment of a fare. And now another is consent to a search of your bags, if asked. If you don't consent, feel free not to use the subway.