A reminder to Bloomberg: the Constitution is SUPPOSED to define our rights
Recently a pro-Bloomberg poster on Daily Gotham claimed that New Yorkers have not lost any rights under Bloomberg. I, of course, pointed out the detentions during the RNC that violated the time limit a person can be held before a hearing and the blanket arrests of Critical Mass bicyclists and the fact that simply publicizing Critical Mass is illegal. But the newest abuse of our rights is the searching of bags in the subway. One question is: is it an effective deterrent? I would argue that this is irrelavent legally beacuse, quite simply, these random searches seem very definitely to be a violation of the Bill of Rights.
Here it is:
Amendment IV
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.
Let's repeat the key part there:
"...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."
Bloomberg's random searches of our backpacks does not fulfill these requirements! Where is Betsy Gotbaum? Isn't it HER JOB to speak out against such abuses?
We need a new mayor, one who respects the Constitution of the US, and a new Public Advocate, one who actually stands up for our rights.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Politics | Subways | New York City
And yet...
Submitted by mole333 on 25 July 2005 - 8:33am.
The REAUIREMENT that is very specifically stated is that probable cause must be established and there must be specificity as to the place and the persons. Random searches by definition do not have such specificity. You are looking at the ends, hoping they justify the means. But the Bill of Rights focuses on the MEANS, preventing vioations of rights even if a good result will come of it. The probable cause and specificity of person requirements cannot be violated just because the actions will be a deterrent.
pro-Bloomberg poster here.
Submitted by abraham on 25 July 2005 - 4:37pm.
Now, I am no lawyer so I leave the legalese up to others. But if these searches are in fact illegal, then why hasn't NYCLU done anything about it? As I said, I am no lawyer, so I don't have an informed opinion on the legal aspects of the searches, but on a personal note I think that Bloomberg and Kelly are trying their best at keeping ALL of us safe. If these searches scare off a would be threat, I say "OK".
Re: Gotbaum. I agree. Where the heck is she on this? I agree with the searches but I also apreciate a public office whose job it is to look out for us and ADVOCATE for us and she is completely silent on this. That's why I am voting for someone else.
Those who are willing...
Submitted by mole333 on 25 July 2005 - 8:42pm.
"Those who are willing to give up their rights for a little bit of safety deserve neither..."
Rights are rights. If we abandon our Constitution to make ourselves safer, then we have lost the war.
Uh? NYCLU is building a federal case
Submitted by atomicBirdsong on 25 July 2005 - 7:09pm.
jeez...this is even well publicized - not to mention the fact that within an hour of the story breaking the NYCLU released a statement against these searches. The NYCLU also has a form on their website where they are taking complaints about the searches. So, uh...they are doing something about it!
Also - these searches are completely ineffectual at detering anything. They wouldn't scare a fly. I mean for crying out loud, if you are a bomber and see the police you can simply turn around and go into another train station...or pop the bomb as the police search you, or get on a bus and pop it there, or walk into the middle of time square and pop it there, or....how many times do we really have to go over how completely stupid this idea is. Its not even close to rational. Why not have searches all over midtown, times square, downtown, etc?
Also as mole333 mentions - Bloomberg's record on civil rights is atrocious [disclaimer: link is to my blog].
We disagree as to which part
We disagree as to which part of the 4th amendment text quoted above is "key". Is the search "unreasonable"? (while searches without warrent are often unreasonable, not all unwarrented searches are. If the searches are appropriate under the circumstances, they may well be lawful. The proponents of such searches should, I think, have the burden of showing the reasonableness of the search. That's why, in my view, the effectiveness of the searches is important. If, as I suspect, they dont really protect any one, they are unreasonable.