Drugs moving by Amtrak - Southwest Chief? Texas Eagle?

I was interviewed by DEA last year at CUS in my bedroom on my trip to visit my parents in Texas. They were pleasant enough though they glanced through my backpack.

I told the officers they are checking on the wrong end of the route - people are bringing guns and drugs IN to Chicago - they don't need them in Texas where they already have them.

They grinned and told me to have a nice day.

I've seen several Drug busts @ Union Station in Dallas ( Texas Eagle/DART/TRE)by the Fed's and of course the infamous shake downs by the Reno 911 Clowns (Zephyr).

Couple of checks in El Paso by the Heat ( Sunset Ltd.)too.

MikefromCrete said:

Getting back to the original story, I believe the drugs in question were being shipped via Amtrak Express and the Amtrak employee in question made sure that the shipments got to their destinations undetected.

Click to expand...

I remember a few years ago, the local station SAO was in the news because a drug dealer got off the train, and forgot to grab his large backpack full of drugs.

He was caught when he tried to retrieve it from lost and found at POR station. That story led to other stories about how all the stops on the Downeaster route have seen higher drug-related crimes then in the surrounded areas, implying that a large amount of drugs is coming through via amtrak, distributed in the cities with stations.

At the time it seemed bizarre. I get that Amtrak has virtually no security with the smaller routes. I personally love that I can show up for a 9am train at 8:59 and walk right on. But.... is it better then just driving?

HP_Lovecraft said:

At the time it seemed bizarre. I get that Amtrak has virtually no security with the smaller routes. I personally love that I can show up for a 9am train at 8:59 and walk right on. But.... is it better then just driving?

Click to expand...

It is if for some reason (physical, financial, logistics) you don't have access to a car. Or if you want to spend your time doing something other than keeping it between the white lines.

Just like a hotel room, law enforcement should need a warrant to search someone's sleeper room in a train. Paying in cash or booking tickets close to departure is a really flimsy pretense for an invasive search.

bms said:

Just like a hotel room, law enforcement should need a warrant to search someone's sleeper room in a train. Paying in cash or booking tickets close to departure is a really flimsy pretense for an invasive search.

Click to expand...

Legally it's transportation though, and Amtrak employees can require a passenger to consent to a search or be forced off the train.

Also - a hotel can legally search someone's personal belongings, although they can't allow police to search without a warrant. But if they find something illegal, then the police don't need a search warrant.

Yeah, we need to restore the Fourth Amendment. As it was understood by the Founders and throughout the early 19th century, no, they couldn't search your personal possessions without a specific warrant. Ever. Certainly not just because you were taking a train. A warrantless search was considered a criminal action which would subject the police to arrest and prosecution.

It's about time we legalized all drug transportation and possession just to end the unconstitutional tactics of the worthless DEA. There's documentation that DEA agents are among the biggest drug traffickers in the country anyway; I'm tired of paying taxes so that DEA agents can steal and resell drugs, which they do.

For some reason a great number of people still believe that saying something makes it so. Prohibition - fail War on Drugs - fail Abortions not legal - fail Smoking - fail Instead of creating an understanding of why something is bad or wrong, we just make it illegal or difficult, creating the industries reaping billions on both sides of the issue.

BISHOP: But that you owe obedience to the King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty and sign.

MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat. It is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign. (a favorite interchange from "A Man for All Seasons")

I'm personally a fan of "It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world ... but for Wales?"

Anyhow, I tend to agree that the War on Drugs has been rather a flop and a waste of taxpayer money.

This all being said, there's been a reputation that a few of the Western LD trains have been used in this way for some time, albeit not as a "major" conduit.

Yes, another great line, but I was looking for applicability to the thread. Scofield was a rarity (one of nine actors) in that he won both a Tony and an Oscar for the same role.

PVD said:

For some reason a great number of people still believe that saying something makes it so. Prohibition - fail War on Drugs - fail Abortions not legal - fail Smoking - fail Instead of creating an understanding of why something is bad or wrong, we just make it illegal or difficult, creating the industries reaping billions on both sides of the issue.

BISHOP: But that you owe obedience to the King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty and sign.

MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat. It is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign. (a favorite interchange from "A Man for All Seasons")

Click to expand...

I'd say the war on smoking has made progress. Back in the 1960s a much larger percentage of adults smoked than now. Poorer people may not smoke much less than 50 years ago (I don't know about that at all) but middle class and up smoke much less.

Failure isn't always bad. Sometimes the better choice is to do something even if the odds are it may fail.

Not the campaign to convince less people to smoke, as much as the legal moves. Sales of cigarettes to minors are still rampant, untaxed cigarettes move in large quantities, and people commonly smoke in places where it is prohibited. That is the failure I refer to. And a whole new generation is being hooked with e-cigarettes.

crescent-zephyr said:

I've been questioned and had my luggage searched in Chicago by Amtrak police after boarding my Roomette on the Zephyr. I had bought a one way ticket from Chicago to Salt Lake City. They specifically asked if I had any drugs or large amounts of cash.

Pretty sure they just look at the manifest for men of a certain age traveling on a one way ticket to certain city pairs.

I've seen the "random" searches in Albuquerque and Reno too.. I always plan on being in the diner or lounge while stopped at Reno and off the train wandering while in Albuquerque to avoid them.

Also... I never buy tickets with cash (got to earn those bonus points!) so that doesn't seem to make a difference.

Click to expand...

Would that work, though? Would the Amtrak Police not just wait for you if they really wanted to target you, or go ahead and search your belongings anyway, even if you weren't there (after all, you do agree to be subject to search by boarding the train so there's no warrant needed)?

I have to wonder if traveling in a "circle" offers the same concern as traveling "one way." That is, if you're planning travel starting in one city, taking several different trains that will, eventually take you back to the city of origin (perhaps with layover stops at each terminus) and never traveling in the reverse direction on any of those trains, is that the same concern as if someone were traveling "one way?" I can see where it might pose some problems for the traveler.

It's always worked for me. Once on the Chief, the passengers across from me had their room searched and even questioned the SCA why my room had not been searched and theirs was.

They still ask for permission to search your luggage, one time I said "well if you're asking the answer is no" and the response was "well look you have the right to deny a search, that's your right. But I can insist that this luggage be gone over by a k-9, and I can't guarantee that will happen before your train leaves." After that of course I said yes and he said "thanks for your cooperation"

All that to say, they appear to need your permission to search your luggage.

crescent-zephyr said:

It's always worked for me. Once on the Chief, the passengers across from me had their room searched and even questioned the SCA why my room had not been searched and theirs was.

They still ask for permission to search your luggage, one time I said "well if you're asking the answer is no" and the response was "well look you have the right to deny a search, that's your right. But I can insist that this luggage be gone over by a k-9, and I can't guarantee that will happen before your train leaves." After that of course I said yes and he said "thanks for your cooperation"

All that to say, they appear to need your permission to search your luggage.

Click to expand...

In other words, they get what they want, anyway.... Ah well. I'm always at risk because I'm a single male traveling alone. But I'm probably a lot older than their "profile" age.

crescent-zephyr said:

It's always worked for me. Once on the Chief, the passengers across from me had their room searched and even questioned the SCA why my room had not been searched and theirs was.

They still ask for permission to search your luggage, one time I said "well if you're asking the answer is no" and the response was "well look you have the right to deny a search, that's your right. But I can insist that this luggage be gone over by a k-9, and I can't guarantee that will happen before your train leaves." After that of course I said yes and he said "thanks for your cooperation"

All that to say, they appear to need your permission to search your luggage.

Click to expand...

"Well that's fine, my luggage and I will stay right here on the train, I hope you and your dog have a ticket."

I don't think that reply would have gone over well... He got pretty annoyed when I asked that question. He was making it very clear that he wasn't going to be so friendly if I didn't agree to the search.

The search was done in front of me, and was very thorough. Like he took dirty clothes out of my hotel laundry bag and inspected the lining of my suitcase as if something could be hidden in there.

I have no record. No reason to be flagged except I was traveling from Chicago to Salt Lake on a one way ticket.

crescent-zephyr said:

I don't think that reply would have gone over well... He got pretty annoyed when I asked that question. He was making it very clear that he wasn't going to be so friendly if I didn't agree to the search.

The search was done in front of me, and was very thorough. Like he took dirty clothes out of my hotel laundry bag and inspected the lining of my suitcase as if something could be hidden in there.

I have no record. No reason to be flagged except I was traveling from Chicago to Salt Lake on a one way ticket.

Click to expand...

When you say he "inspected the lining of my suitcase" did he cut into the lining and damage the suitcase? If so, I'd file a complaint for damages.

I despise bag searches.

No... He inspected the lining looking for a place where it may have been torn / sewn shut and he tugged on it to see if it came loose.

AutoTrDvr said:

crescent-zephyr said:

I don't think that reply would have gone over well... He got pretty annoyed when I asked that question. He was making it very clear that he wasn't going to be so friendly if I didn't agree to the search.

The search was done in front of me, and was very thorough. Like he took dirty clothes out of my hotel laundry bag and inspected the lining of my suitcase as if something could be hidden in there.

I have no record. No reason to be flagged except I was traveling from Chicago to Salt Lake on a one way ticket.

Click to expand...

When you say he "inspected the lining of my suitcase" did he cut into the lining and damage the suitcase? If so, I'd file a complaint for damages.

Click to expand...

Every piece I've had for years comes with a zipper on the liner. Typically no zipper pull though.

PVD said:

Not the campaign to convince less people to smoke, as much as the legal moves. Sales of cigarettes to minors are still rampant, untaxed cigarettes move in large quantities, and people commonly smoke in places where it is prohibited. That is the failure I refer to. And a whole new generation is being hooked with e-cigarettes.

Click to expand...

Turns out social opprobrium works. Much better than making something illegal.

Make it legal, and then ostracise and criticize anyone who does it, basically...

crescent-zephyr said:

It's always worked for me. Once on the Chief, the passengers across from me had their room searched and even questioned the SCA why my room had not been searched and theirs was.

They still ask for permission to search your luggage, one time I said "well if you're asking the answer is no" and the response was "well look you have the right to deny a search, that's your right. But I can insist that this luggage be gone over by a k-9, and I can't guarantee that will happen before your train leaves." After that of course I said yes and he said "thanks for your cooperation"

All that to say, they appear to need your permission to search your luggage.

Click to expand...

I remember quite specifically telling the DEA agent that I would give Amtrak Police permission to search, because it was Amtrak and they had the right to inspect their passengers' luggage, but that I wouldn't give the DEA agent permission to search, since I had no idea what a DEA badge looked like and had no idea whether he was a real agent.

He found an Amtrak Police officer who did the search. Smarmy DEA guy seemed like he wanted to find something. Jackass who belonged in prison, as far as I'm concerned. But he did behave himself and left when all my luggage contained exactly what I said it did.

The Amtrak Police guy behaved professionally, more or less. They should never have been cooperating with the DEA, though.

They claimed it was random, but they were clearly illegally profiling me for having bought a ticket at the last minute to run into Salt Lake and back out again. As I told them, I was catching a rare detour route (Wyoming). The moment the Amtrak police guy heard this, he sort of reacted, as if to say "oh boy, we are wasting our time, he's a railfan", but the DEA dude didn't have any idea.

When anyone buys an Amtrak ticket you provide government with your ID and much of your personal info. With that they can easily do an FBI background check, find out where are traveling, where you have traveled, for how long ,how many times etc etc. The credit card you use gives a history of your buying habits..Amtrak also asks that passengers keep their eyes open.. Add in the sniffing dogs for contraband and its a tight security system. Point is that government has a profile and statistics on Amtrak passengers and its easy to catch anyone predisposed to criminal activity.

dlagrua said:

When anyone buys an Amtrak ticket you provide government with your ID and much of your personal info. With that they can easily do an FBI background check, find out where are traveling, where you have traveled, for how long ,how many times etc etc. The credit card you use gives a history of your buying habits..Amtrak also asks that passengers keep their eyes open.. Add in the sniffing dogs for contraband and its a tight security system. Point is that government has a profile and statistics on Amtrak passengers and its easy to catch anyone predisposed to criminal activity.

Click to expand...

Being "predisposed to criminal actiivity," or being considered so by police, is not in and of itself a crime. Nor does it suspend one's legal right to move freely about the country unhindered by unreasonable search and seizure.

Perhaps I've just put myself on a watch list.