WASHINGTON, D.C. IS A FOURTH AMENDMENT-FREE ZONE

[ihunt49]

WASHINGTON, D.C. IS A FOURTH AMENDMENT-FREE ZONE







By Charles Peña

November 30, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

While the Fourth Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons … and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,” the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) made it clear earlier this month that the Constitution does not apply in D.C. According to Metro Transit Police Chief Michael Taborn, “Inspections could take place at any Metrorail station or Metrobus stop. They will be random, unannounced and focused on explosive detection.” While the justification supplied for ignoring the Constitution was one of deterring terrorists, the unfortunate reality is that this gross violation of rights is likely to be completely ineffective.

Comprising 86 Metrorail stations (many with more than one entrance) and over 12,000 bus stops, the WMATA operates the second-largest rail transit system and fifth-largest bus network in the United States. Given that there aren’t enough officers (WMATA or D.C. police) to conduct searches at all those stations and stops, a would-be terrorist only has to find a location without a checkpoint. Also, searches aren’t likely to be conducted 24 hours a day, which creates another easy way to exploit the program.

Moreover, because the searches will be random, the odds of catching anyone are low. Let’s assume that 700,000 people ride Metrorail on any given day and that ridership is evenly distributed between all 86 stations. Let’s also assume that searches are being conducted at half the stations. That means 350,000 people would be subject to search. If 1 in 10 persons are searched, only 35,000 out of 700,000 total riders (about 5 percent) will be searched. If there are 10 possible terrorists amongst 700,000 riders (an almost infinitesimally small percentage of the population), the probability of catching even a single terrorist as a result of a random search is near zero. In other words, it amounts to a finding-a-needle-in-the-haystack operation with odds that are only slightly better than winning a million dollars in D.C.’s Powerball lottery.

And it’s worth pointing out that by planning to conduct thousands of random bag searches, the WMATA assumes that terrorists would be too dim to adapt by, say, strapping bombs to their bodies. Yet adaptive behavior is almost second nature to a terrorist. If bombs are the threat the WMATA is worried about, a better idea is to have bomb-sniffing dogs at Metrorail stations and bus stops—but even then they can’t be everywhere at once.

Random searches reflect the post-9/11 preoccupation with trying to prevent the unpreventable. We would do well to remember what the IRA once said after a failed attempt on the life of then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher: “Today we were unlucky, but remember, we only have to be lucky once—you will have to be lucky always.” And it’s telling that British authorities chose not to institute random searches on the London tube system after the July 2005 bombings, recognizing that doing so would be ineffective and cripple their transportation system. Instead of trying to be lucky always, we would be better off adopting an approach based on resiliency—“the ability to recover readily from misfortune”—which accepts the cruel reality that terrorist attacks can happen.

So rather than playing the lottery with random searches with dubious effectiveness in preventing terrorist attacks, we would be better off ensuring that we have the capability to quickly recover from an attack while keeping the Metrorail and buses running (rather than having to shut down the entire system, which was the response on 9/11). This is exactly the approach the Israeli government has taken in response to the threat of suicide bombers on buses.

Benjamin Franklin once wrote, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” The WMATA’s random searches will guarantee that we have neither.

© 2008 - Charles Peña - All Rights Reserved

[Legion_Prime]

No different than the dipshits in airport security. Cocksuckers tried to search me when I was flying home from Fort Sill. Fortunately the guy at the ticket counter who had not only put me on standby for an earlier flight so I would have an extra 4 hours at O'Hare rather than in OKC was nice enough to stamp my ticket with an exemption, didn't stop them from trying to search me though. Not like DC has any history of respecting the Bill of Rights to begin with.

[gprimr1]

It's also a 2nd amendment free zone as well.

And to think I almost worked in DC as an Amtrak cop.

[Lysander]

A couple of things:

WMATA =/= Washington, DC. Separate entities, separate powers, separate legal status.

Now, if DC was doing random searches anywhere within the District, I'd say we have something. However, DC is not WMATA, nor is WMATA the District.

Second, maybe I missed the memo, but last I remembered, no US based airline was government-run. With that in mind, an airline (within the law) can set its conditions fo4r entry/use of its property. Or did that change without my knowing?

[headcase]

A couple of things:

WMATA =/= Washington, DC. Separate entities, separate powers, separate legal status.

Now, if DC was doing random searches anywhere within the District, I'd say we have something. However, DC is not WMATA, nor is WMATA the District.

Second, maybe I missed the memo, but last I remembered, no US based airline was government-run. With that in mind, an airline (within the law) can set its conditions fo4r entry/use of its property. Or did that change without my knowing?

I would agree completely with your reasoning, Lysander, except that the TSA is a government entity and the WMATA is, TTBOMK, uses people designated as LEO's which makes them the government. If we were talking about Wal-Mart I would agree whole heartedly, but we are not.

[Lysander]

I would agree completely with your reasoning, Lysander, except that the TSA is a government entity and the WMATA is, TTBOMK, uses people designated as LEO's which makes them the government. If we were talking about Wal-Mart I would agree whole heartedly, but we are not.

WMATA is semi-governmental (ironically, I tried to get their charter document from their website, but Adobe reported that the PDF was corrupt..... ) operating in what might be characterized as a commercial enterprise.

My statement was also directed at the fact that use of Metro is entirely voluntary; in fact, to get to some parts of DC taking Metro versus driving increases the commute time 6 times (NoVa to upper NW DC a 3 hour Metro experience versus a 30 minute drive. Door-to-door both ways, non-rush hour... actually, closer to non-anything. From memory I did that at some oint within 2 months after 9/11, when traffic patterns were completely screwed up, but nowhere near rush hour.)

TSA and the Airports themselves are an interesting situation (given what type of entity typically owns most airports) but the planes themselves are private. Also, is the right to travel automatically expanded to include air travel, when other modes are available?

[Legion_Prime]

WMATA is semi-governmental (ironically, I tried to get their charter document from their website, but Adobe reported that the PDF was corrupt..... )

Now that right there's funny!

TSA and the Airports themselves are an interesting situation (given what type of entity typically owns most airports) but the planes themselves are private. Also, is the right to travel automatically expanded to include air travel, when other modes are available?

I may be wrong but isn't most flying done interstate which it is illegal for the government to regulate?

[talldean]

I would agree completely with your reasoning, Lysander, except that the TSA is a government entity and the WMATA is, TTBOMK, uses people designated as LEO's which makes them the government. If we were talking about Wal-Mart I would agree whole heartedly, but we are not.

DC actually has seven operating police departments in it's borders, including Metro Police. City, Capitol, Park, Metro, Pentagon, Mint, Secret Service, if I remember right. That's not including the five college departments; GW, GTown, Howard, American, and Catholic, nor including the FBI.

That said, I can see granting WMATA the rights of a private company, as they essentially are. They operate only on their own land, and they set the rules for that land, give or take.

[headcase]

Again, I simply do not agree. I believe that having armed police randomly stopping and searching you, on public or private property, is wrong and against the Constitution. Singling individuals out, IMO, makes the searches unreasonable. Using armed police, or even insinuating that these people are authority figures, turns the scenario, again IMO, from the terms of use being accepted if you want to indeed use the service, to violating the 4Th Amendment.

Don't get me wrong, I am certain that the courts would agree with you guys. I am not, however, so sure our FF's would....

[Mosinshooter762]

That said, I can see granting WMATA the rights of a private company, as they essentially are. They operate only on their own land, and they set the rules for that land, give or take.

Even if that is true, that WMATA is a private company, which I doubt (more like quasi government), about the only thing they can ask you to do is leave. Wal-mart is clearly private property, however I do not think they could rightfully require me to walk around the store naked as a condition of entry. So this private property distinction has limits to it, especially in regards to privacy. This is especially true if the hypothetical Wal-mart police force, peace officers under the laws of Pennsylvania, were demanding that everyone strip naked in the store, and walk around naked. This would clearly be a constitutional violation, in my opinion. Although, with our spineless federal courts these days I wouldn't be shocked if they carved in another gaping hole in the constitution, and found this constitutional somehow.