First of all, sorry for posting this in comments, I couldn't find an e-mail contact. You have a very informative blog and I thought I would suggest that you put up a link to our website and US Central Command. www.centcom.mil I think you will find it is a very helpful resource for you and you readers. While your there you can sign up for our weekly newsletter to keep you posted on Iraq and Afghanistan. Just a suggestion.

All the best,

SPC Richardson
Central Command Public Affairs
Soldier | Homepage | 10.31.05 - 9:37 am | #

Thanks. I'll add the link to my reference links.
lawhawk | Homepage | 10.31.05 - 11:13 am | #

The constitution should not be violated in order for a city to protect itself against a lawsuit. The city could still be sued because the bag search program only covers a fraction of subway entraces, and even then, only suring rush hour. So your arguemnt falls flat.

I'm a plaintiff in this case, and we officially lost today. Here's my take:

The court intentionally delayed releasing their decision until after a big terrorist scare. Their decision is lazy on 2 points:

1. They agree with the NYCLU that passengers should have a full expectation of privacy going into and travelling within the MTA subway system. So the argument that passengers should have a lowered expectation of privacy (such as at an airport terminal or courthouse) was not accepted. So NYCLU scores on that very important point - that someone in the subways system should have the same expectation of privacy as someone walking down a city street. There are occassional video cameras, yes, but pedestrians do not expect to be stopped by a uniformed, armed officer and asked to open their bags for visual inspection.

2. BUT despite this, the court agreed with every other argument made by the NYPD, saying that the bag search program is effective, because the NYPD says so. In a classic case of judicial laziness, the decision does not cite any of the NYPD expert testimony to support its decision. No footnotes, no quotes, no numbers or charts. It's incredible, frankly. The court just took the NYPD's word that the police are in the best position to administer a search program and declare its effectiveness.

This case, (MacWade v. Kelly) will be cited in a future Supreme Court 4th Amendment case for sure, for this decision makes the 4th Amendment a Dead Letter.

In the years to come, nothing would stop the NYPD from setting-up search stations in front of movie theatres, clubs, entrances to parks, or even restaurants. This is the new police state.

I'm dealing with it. But this is a serious blow to personal freedom.
Valerie_Flame | 08.11.06 - 4:42 pm | #