TSA at Train Stations

[Palmpilot]

This topic was locked on the Red Board.

Apparently even people getting OFF the train were subjected to wanding and pat downs.

http://news.travel.aol.com/2011/02/...?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl1|sec1_lnk3|203969

So, has anyone seen a TSA list of items that you're not allowed to have with you at a train station?

Do the same rules apply as at airline terminals, e.g., $10,000 fine if you refuse the search?

 

[Ghery]

I don't ride trains all that much (no need where I live), but I'd be inclined to tell them to buzz off if they were doing it as I was leaving the train. What were they hoping to prove? That their management has no brains? We already know that.

 

[sba55]

Evil marches on. It's scary to see history repeating itself - both the overzealous security machine as well as those who say "oh but it's not that bad".

A few years ago, I would have thought that this was a good thing because it would make people more fed up with this nonsense. Now, though, I'm not so sure. People are very good at not learning anything from history, and they're very good at finding justifications for everything.

Most amazingly, the vast majority are sheep. I can't imagine why not a single person told the TSA to f off. Looking at history, though, maybe that isn't amazing at all.

 

[Palmpilot]

My guess is that most people see a uniform and assume that they have to follow orders.

I'd be interested to know the legal authority for such searches though, and whether people could get into legal hot water for not submitting to the search. Does anyone know?

 

[murphey]

My guess is that most people see a uniform and assume that they have to follow orders.

I'd be interested to know the legal authority for such searches though, and whether people could get into legal hot water for not submitting to the search. Does anyone know?

Haven't we already seen this with Don't Touch My Junk?

If you read the entire story, it seems that it was a total communications failure on the part of the TSA and the local TSA office. It was supposed to be people entering the station from the outside and the local TSA interpreted that to mean entering from any location including the trains.

So what's new?

 

[Palmpilot]

Haven't we already seen this with Don't Touch My Junk?

If you read the entire story, it seems that it was a total communications failure on the part of the TSA and the local TSA office. It was supposed to be people entering the station from the outside and the local TSA interpreted that to mean entering from any location including the trains.

So what's new?

Yes, it does appear that putting inbound pax in the to-be-searched line was inadvertent, but I am still wondering how an outgoing passenger is supposed to know what items are prohibited on trains.

I'm also concerned about the possibility that, as TSA searches are extended to more and more types of transportation, one's ability to engage in activities that are otherwise legal will be curtailed to a greater and greater degree if engaging in those activities involves bringing prohibited items with you. The premise for implied consent making searches at airline terminals constitutional seems to be that if you don't want to be searched, you can avoid it by not riding on airliners. But if the searches extend to enough modes of transportation, it seems to me that the lack of alternate means of transportation would mean that the "consent" was effectively coerced.

I wonder how intrusive Big Brother has to get before the sheeple wake up?

 

[John Baker]

First airplanes, few complained. Next trains, fewer will complain. Then highway check points, "it's for our safety". How long before neighborhood security checkpoints?

It ain't a free country no more.

John

 

[mikea]

Next: "It was merely a case of missed communications. The home office ordered the regional office to mangle the passengers but the order went out to strangle the passengers...." and any further information is being withheld for reasons of national security.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

...
I'd be interested to know the legal authority for such searches though....

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

It all depends on whether these searches can be called "unreasonable."

There's also the issue of waiver. If you don't want to waive your 4th Amdmt. rights - presuming that they exist here - don't take the train. There's a guarantee to interstate travel, but there's no guarantee to any particular means of interstate travel.

 

[Bob Noel]

First airplanes, few complained. Next trains, fewer will complain. Then highway check points, "it's for our safety". How long before neighborhood security checkpoints?

It ain't a free country no more.

John

Just remember, our right to travel by a specific means is not guarenteed.

Of course, the case where all means of travel have restrictions seems to be overlooked.

 

[wsuffa]

Just remember, our right to travel by a specific means is not guarenteed.

Of course, the case where all means of travel have restrictions seems to be overlooked.

It's getting to the point where all means of travel have restrictions.

Link

TSA plans to perform a detailed on-site review....

The BASE reviews, which will occur at agencies that provide bus, rail transit, long-distance rail and other less common forms of transportation (such as cable cars, inclined railways, funiculars and automated guideway systems), will gather data about the effectiveness of current federal government security initiatives.

“The BASE checklist guides the collection of information and encompasses review of security plans, programs, and procedures employed by transit agencies in implementing the recommended Action Items,” says a notice published by TSA in the Federal Register on Feb. 17.

This would, I presume, include the monorail at Disney World.

 

[Palmpilot]

It all depends on whether these searches can be called "unreasonable."

That, to me, is the big flaw in the Fourth Amendment, because determining what's unreasonable is inevitably subjective.

There's also the issue of waiver. If you don't want to waive your 4th Amdmt. rights - presuming that they exist here - don't take the train. There's a guarantee to interstate travel, but there's no guarantee to any particular means of interstate travel.

At what point does the expansion of the TSA into more and more forms of travel make that argument fail?

At what point does it become "If you don't want to waive your 4th Amdmt. rights - presuming that they exist here - don't leave your home"?

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Riding a train is a privilege.

Just like flying.

And riding a bus (TSA has already hit bus terminals).

And driving your car.

And walking on a public sidewalk.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

...

At what point does it become "If you don't want to waive your 4th Amdmt. rights - presuming that they exist here - don't leave your home"?

It reached that point - in fact if not in express words - a long time ago. For instance, say you're driving your car - you're subject to having it sniffed by a drug dog at any point with no cause whatsoever. The justification is that the smells that would be detected are outside your car and that you thus have no privacy interest in them, and it's therefore not unreasonable (double negative purposeful).

 

[chucky]

Doing pat-downs getting off the trains? Why is it that every TSA story I read feels more and more like it was written by the Onion?

 

[Palmpilot]

It reached that point - in fact if not in express words - a long time ago. For instance, say you're driving your car - you're subject to having it sniffed by a drug dog at any point with no cause whatsoever. The justification is that the smells that would be detected are outside your car and that you thus have no privacy interest in them, and it's therefore not unreasonable (double negative purposeful).

Letting a dog sniff the outside of my car would seem a lot more reasonable to me than making me submit to X-rays or groping before I can drive or ride in it.

The ACLU seems to think that "I do not consent to any searches" has some legal impact when you're stopped by the police while driving your car. Are they wrong?

What about searching your person when you are walking somewhere and haven't been arrested? Walking is a form of transportation too, you know. I can just hear it now: "You consented to the search when you left your home."

Does the 4th Amendment have any meaning at all anymore, or is it completely and totally dead?

Where is the line between reasonable and unreasonable searches of travelers?

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Letting a dog sniff the outside of my car would seem a lot more reasonable to me than making me submit to X-rays or groping before I can drive or ride in it.

The ACLU seems to think that "I do not consent to any searches" has some legal impact when you're stopped by the police while driving your car. Are they wrong?

Yes and no. They're correct if you're asked to consent to a search - you don't have to; if you're being asked, it's because a search would otherwise be invalid. But if independent cause exists, it doesn't matter whether you consent or not.

What about searching your person when you are walking somewhere and haven't been arrested? Walking is a form of transportation too, you know. I can just hear it now: "You consented to the search when you left your home."

Does the 4th Amendment have any meaning at all anymore, or is it completely and totally dead?

Where is the line between reasonable and unreasonable searches of travelers?

This all depends on what "unreasonable" means. There's no set test for that; the standard is pretty much "does it set off alarm bells in the brain of the average person."

One thing is abundantly clear, though - the standard is not measured by what a hypersensitive person thinks.

And, here's my prediction: your average person is not going to say that going through an x-ray machine to get on an airplane is unreasonable. Probably not even to get on a train.

But to get into your car? No way; that's absurd.

 

[wsuffa]

It reached that point - in fact if not in express words - a long time ago. For instance, say you're driving your car - you're subject to having it sniffed by a drug dog at any point with no cause whatsoever. The justification is that the smells that would be detected are outside your car and that you thus have no privacy interest in them, and it's therefore not unreasonable (double negative purposeful).

And how do these giant new x-ray machines that DHS is using along highways fit into the picture? Link to article

Or the other, similar technology that can see through walls of houses that is being deployed for homeland security purposes? Link to Forbes article

DHS Article: Link

Can either of those technologies be used to justify "probable cause"?

 

[flav8r]

Does the 4th Amendment have any meaning at all anymore, or is it completely and totally dead?

Where is the line between reasonable and unreasonable searches of travelers?

Look into the "Patriot Act" and you may find your answer there.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

And how do these giant new x-ray machines that DHS is using along highways fit into the picture? Link to article

Or the other, similar technology that can see through walls of houses that is being deployed for homeland security purposes? Link to Forbes article

DHS Article: Link

Can either of those technologies be used to justify "probable cause"?

Looks to me like they're only being used to check tractor trailers, which have been subject to random inspections for a long time.

 

[mikea]

Letting a dog sniff the outside of my car would seem a lot more reasonable to me than making me submit to X-rays or groping before I can drive or ride in it.
...
What about searching your person when you are walking somewhere and haven't been arrested? Walking is a form of transportation too, you know. I can just hear it now: "You consented to the search when you left your home."

Looks to me like they're only being used to check tractor trailers, which have been subject to random inspections for a long time.

Prepare to be amazed, citizen. It turns out the TSA has commissioned research into scanning the populace, even groups of pedestrians with mobile versions of the backscatter X-ray machines. http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenbe...an-to-body-scan-pedestrians-train-passengers/
The actual documents released under FOIA: http://www.scribd.com/doc/49888474/Epic-Body-Scan-Foia-Docs-Feb-2011-1

You know, being limited to airports, train stations and bus terminals would have been too much of a market limiter for vendors.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Prepare to be amazed, citizen. It turns out the TSA has commissioned research into scanning the populace, even groups of pedestrians with mobile versions of the backscatter X-ray machines. http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenbe...an-to-body-scan-pedestrians-train-passengers/
The actual documents released under FOIA: http://www.scribd.com/doc/49888474/Epic-Body-Scan-Foia-Docs-Feb-2011-1

You know, being limited to airports, train stations and bus terminals would have been too much of a market limiter for vendors.

I see the reason for concern, but I don't consider it to be a problem until it's actually employed against the populace (and make no mistake: "against" is the appropriate word to use). Looking at whether it can be done is one thing; actually doing it is another.

Regardless, the time for objecting to these sorts of things was in the 1950's. Seriously. I'm not saying that to be a smart ass - this is the direct result of the mindset that brought us the Cold War, the War on Drugs and, now, the War on Terrorism. This is what comes of allowing the ends to justify the means.

You get the government you elect in this country. It would be no problem whatsoever for our elected legislators to put the nix on this. If this is what the majority wants, so be it. That's when it gets into the constitutional issues.

 

[wsuffa]

Joseph McCarthy lives on.

 

[PilotAlan]

There's also the issue of waiver. If you don't want to waive your 4th Amdmt. rights - presuming that they exist here - don't take the train. There's a guarantee to interstate travel, but there's no guarantee to any particular means of interstate travel.

I think there's a significant legal issue here.
With airlines, everyone knows that there is 100% screening, and you presumable consented when you bought the ticket. I don't like that argument, but I can see it.
The list of prohibited items is well posted and publicly known.

With trains and such, there is no such list of prohibited items. I can carry my pistol on the train, or a pocketknife, or whatever else. I did not consent to search when I entered the train station, and I sure has heck did not consent on the back end.

Additionally, there's also an argument that planes are private transport, and as such they can enact rules and prohibitions higher than public agencies can. United can also require that you go through screening as a condition of use of their privately airline.
That changes when you're talking about a publicly owned train or subway or something else.

 

[John Baker]

It really does not matter what us little **** ants think, it's for the safety of our nation.

I can't recall who said it, or the exact wording, but it went something like this; "The best way to maintain control of a population is to convince them that there is a foreign threat to them and their nation." "It's population control through fear."

We really have relinquished our rights to the government, just a little at a time over the years. Now however, the pace has been significantly picked up, we are starting to notice, but there is little or nothing we can actually do about it.

What it all boils down to is that in the name of national security, and our own safety, we must do as ordered, or suffer the consequences. The consequences are nothing blatant or severe..........yet. As the security vice tightens, so will the consequences for refusing to comply. We are not all that far away from having to possess on our persons, travel documents for any and all domestic travel.

But then, nothing bad happens to us personally, it's always someone else, someone who probably deserves whatever happens to them. So why should we care?

John

 

[wsuffa]

I think there's a significant legal issue here.
With airlines, everyone knows that there is 100% screening, and you presumable consented when you bought the ticket. I don't like that argument, but I can see it.
The list of prohibited items is well posted and publicly known.

Amtrak has a posted warning on their website and in most stations that you're subject to random search.

With trains and such, there is no such list of prohibited items. I can carry my pistol on the train, or a pocketknife, or whatever else. I did not consent to search when I entered the train station, and I sure has heck did not consent on the back end.

Actually, there is. see this page (link to Amtrak site)

Additionally, there's also an argument that planes are private transport, and as such they can enact rules and prohibitions higher than public agencies can. United can also require that you go through screening as a condition of use of their privately airline.
That changes when you're talking about a publicly owned train or subway or something else.

Technically, Amtrak is a private corporation. It may receive public funds and subsidies, but it is a corporation.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Amtrak has a posted warning on their website and in most stations that you're subject to random search.



Actually, there is. see this page (link to Amtrak site)



Technically, Amtrak is a private corporation. It may receive public funds and subsidies, but it is a corporation.

The public can ride trains other than Amtrak, but they may have similar rules.The NYC area has the NY subway, MetroNorth (part of the subway system?), LIRR, NJ Transit, and PATH

 

[Jeanie]

Well, this is a little off subject but similar in my mind. We were driving to Ft Stockton on a 2 lane highway yesterday from Alpine - there was a border patrol checkpoint set up where you had to stop and they had a drug dog and about 10 guys standing around. We asked the questioner at our window - something must be goin on huh, looking for someone? They said, No, this is a random checkpoint.... Mind you it's about 150 miles north of the border...
Kevin said," We're both US Citizens." when the guy asked where we were going - Kevin said "That way." and pointed in the direction the car was pointing... the guy just looked at him, Kevin looked back, nothing was said for a few beats and the guy said, "Have a nice day"
We refuse to answer any questions other than saying we're US Citizens.

So, is this really 2011 or is it 1984?

 

[flav8r]

So, is this really 2011 or is it 1984?

I'm assuming your reference to 1984 is the movie...

 

[gprellwitz]

I'm assuming your reference to 1984 is the movie...

Or the book by Eric Blair (aka George Orwelll) upon which the movie was based.

 

[Everskyward]

Well, this is a little off subject but similar in my mind. We were driving to Ft Stockton on a 2 lane highway yesterday from Alpine - there was a border patrol checkpoint set up where you had to stop and they had a drug dog and about 10 guys standing around. We asked the questioner at our window - something must be goin on huh, looking for someone? They said, No, this is a random checkpoint.... Mind you it's about 150 miles north of the border...
Kevin said," We're both US Citizens." when the guy asked where we were going - Kevin said "That way." and pointed in the direction the car was pointing... the guy just looked at him, Kevin looked back, nothing was said for a few beats and the guy said, "Have a nice day"
We refuse to answer any questions other than saying we're US Citizens.

So, is this really 2011 or is it 1984?

Good thing you weren't in the same situation as Willie Nelson.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/legal-experts-question-willie-nelson-pot-bust-20101130

Willie Nelson was arrested last Friday by federal Border Patrol agents at a checkpoint in Sierra Blanca, Texas after they seized six ounces of pot off his tour bus. If convicted, the 77-year-old country legend could face extended jail time — the offense carries a minimum sentence of 180 days in jail and a maximum sentence of two years plus a $10,000 fine.
But the arrest doesn't sit well with Texas attorney Dick DeGuerin, a criminal defense lawyer who recently represented Tom Delay and country singer Billy Joe Shaver, and was lawyer to David Koresh during the 1993 FBI siege of the Branch Davidian ranch outside Waco, Texas. DeGuerin questions the lawfulness of the search, which he says occurred 100 miles from the Mexican border. "It needs to be contested," he says.
"It's supposed to be a checkpoint only for aliens, and [agents] overstep their authority all the time," he says. "I've had several cases from that checkpoint and they just use the opportunity to check out anybody they want to. If you have long hair, if you're driving a van or it looks like you're from California or you look like a hippie, they do profiling."

 

[Jim Logajan]

Or the book by Eric Blair (aka George Orwelll) upon which the movie was based.

I've actually heard of these "book" things - they were mentioned in the movie Fahrenheit 451.
:wink2:

 

[fgcason]

So, is this really 2011 or is it 1984?

You were less than 100 miles from the border, not 150 miles. Ft Stockton to the south tip of Big Bend is less than 150 miles straight line. Alpine is about 70 miles.

Was it one of the big covered fixed checkpoints or one of the smaller mobile ones?

There are several checkpoints around there. I ran across two of them about 50mi north of Big Bend in the motorhome last year and my sister has run across quite a few more in the area. One guy distracts you with polite chatter, another is standing around out of your field of view with a big gun, another walks a big klutzy dog around that bumps into everything then they send you on your way.
IMO: Hunting for drugs or illegals. They've been doing that since at least the early 90's and likely before, it's nothing new.

I gave them the same kind of answers you did:
"Where are you from?" "Big Bend this morning, right here at the moment..I live in my motorhome." (laugh) Oh.
"Where are you going?" "Um, that-a-way at the moment. No clue beyond that actually, I'll figure it out when I get there." (more laughter) "Have a nice trip where ever you end up." "Peace out."
No searches, no probing questions, no looking inside, no odd gustappoish behavior. It was the same thing you'd get, or at least use to get, when crossing the border if you're just traveling honestly like any tourist.

 

[mikea]

It gets funnier!

The TSA did not, as the blog said, funnel people who arrived by train into the station for a search. Instead, the TSA took over the station and posted notes outside saying that anyone who entered would be “subject to mandatory screening.” Those who know the Savannah station realize that it generally is not necessary for anyone arriving or departing by train to go into the station. It is much easier to park the car or be dropped off near the platform.

Therefore, why was the TSA searching only anyone entering the station? It might even be easier to explain why they might have searched everyone. For instance, such questions as, did they have a tip someone was carrying a small atomic bomb? In the end, it is not even possible to discern a reason for what they actually did. Why search only people unfortunate enough to need to enter the station – people who needed to buy tickets, an elderly person who was dropped off and needed a place to sit while waiting, a mom whose infant badly needed a diaper change?

So....

Amtrak police chief bars Transportation Security Administration from some security operations

WASHINGTON — In late February, the Transportation Security Administration took over the Amtrak station in Savannah, Ga., and thoroughly searched every person who entered. None of the passengers got into trouble, but the TSA certainly did — big time.

Amtrak Police Chief John O’Connor said he first thought a blog posting about the incident was a joke. When he discovered that the TSA’s VIPR team did at least some of what the blog said, he was livid. He ordered the VIPR teams off Amtrak property, at least until a firm agreement can be drawn up to prevent the TSA from taking actions that the chief said were illegal and clearly contrary to Amtrak policy.

“When I saw it, I didn’t believe it was real,” O’Connor said. When it developed that the posting on an anti-TSA blog was not a joke, “I hit the ceiling.”

O’Connor said the TSA VIPR teams have no right to do more than what Amtrak police do occasionally, which has produced few if any protests and which O’Connor said is clearly within the law and the Constitution. More than a thousand times, Amtrak teams (sometimes including VIPR) have performed security screenings at Amtrak stations. These screenings are only occasional and random, and inspect the bags of only about one in 10 passengers. There is no wanding of passengers and no sterile area. O’Connor said the TSA violated every one of these rules.

http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/p/188504/2059127.aspx

Once again, "Your puny rules are no concern to the mighty TSA!"

"OK, guyz, I know we haven't been trained on how to handle train security but let's do it just like the airports and screen people entering the terminal. Same. Same. Easy, right?"

"Remember. No liquids...and carry on bags must be weighed."

 

[SCCutler]

Well, this is a little off subject but similar in my mind. We were driving to Ft Stockton on a 2 lane highway yesterday from Alpine - there was a border patrol checkpoint set up where you had to stop and they had a drug dog and about 10 guys standing around. We asked the questioner at our window - something must be goin on huh, looking for someone? They said, No, this is a random checkpoint.... Mind you it's about 150 miles north of the border...
Kevin said," We're both US Citizens." when the guy asked where we were going - Kevin said "That way." and pointed in the direction the car was pointing... the guy just looked at him, Kevin looked back, nothing was said for a few beats and the guy said, "Have a nice day"
We refuse to answer any questions other than saying we're US Citizens.

So, is this really 2011 or is it 1984?

Good question. Your answers were the right ones.

I've actually heard of these "book" things - they were mentioned in the movie Fahrenheit 451.
:wink2:

Apt reference, that!

---

Zwei worten: "Papieren, bitte!"

 

[Trapper John]

It gets funnier!

...the TSA took over the station and posted notes outside saying that anyone who entered would be “subject to mandatory screening.” Those who know the Savannah station realize that it generally is not necessary for anyone arriving or departing by train to go into the station. It is much easier to park the car or be dropped off near the platform.

And I thought Chief Wiggum was just a cartoon character...guess not.

 

[JesseD]

So, is this really 2011 or is it 1984?

On September 12th, 2001 it became "Unamerican" to oppose the "security" imposed upon us. After that people, that opposed continuing it, were labeled as "soft on terror" or even "terrorist sympathizers" by their opponents. This is especially during votes and elections and continues to this very day. Heck, the first time the so-called Patriot Act passed only one person in office had the stones to vote against it.

Such a sad thing that hath been wrought. What's even worse is that Americans would rather live on their knees in slavery than die free on their feet. One day this may end. Hopefully, later generations will look at this time in disgust at the rank cowardice of the voters and not make the same mistakes.

 

[flav8r]

On September 12th, 2001 it became "Unamerican" to oppose the "security" imposed upon us. After that people, that opposed continuing it, were labeled as "soft on terror" or even "terrorist sympathizers" by their opponents. This is especially during votes and elections and continues to this very day. Heck, the first time the so-called Patriot Act passed only one person in office had the stones to vote against it.

Such a sad thing that hath been wrought. What's even worse is that Americans would rather live on their knees in slavery than die free on their feet. One day this may end. Hopefully, later generations will look at this time in disgust at the rank cowardice of the voters and not make the same mistakes.

Your statement should be emblazoned on a historical marker that should be placed in front of the fence line of every general aviation airport that now looks like a federal penitentiary with its high barbedwire fences for future generations to hear how it once was.


Very well said, now let me get off the internet before they track my IP address and arrest me on some trumped up charges.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

On September 12th, 2001 it became "Unamerican" to oppose the "security" imposed upon us. After that people, that opposed continuing it, were labeled as "soft on terror" or even "terrorist sympathizers" by their opponents. This is especially during votes and elections and continues to this very day. Heck, the first time the so-called Patriot Act passed only one person in office had the stones to vote against it.

Such a sad thing that hath been wrought. What's even worse is that Americans would rather live on their knees in slavery than die free on their feet. One day this may end. Hopefully, later generations will look at this time in disgust at the rank cowardice of the voters and not make the same mistakes.

It could just be that people don't see going through security at an airport as unreasonable.

 

[TMetzinger]

It could just be that people don't see going through security at an airport as unreasonable.

And that there's LOTS of statutes and follow-on case law that is airport-specific. Not all of that will apply to trains or other modes of transportation.

And Amtrak is about as "private" as the Post Office. Their police, for example, are Federal LE the same way that Postal Inspectors are.