"Drug" searches on my Amtrak round trip - racial profiling?

[Ryan]

When you purchase a ticket you give them the right to search.

Sorry, is there some cite to this?

I actually don't believe that the police have a right to search a roomette unless they have probable cause. It's akin, I'd say, to wanting to search a hotel room. A person has a reasonable expectation of privacy when in a hotel room and the police are required to have a warrant to search it. Similarly, a person who has rented a room on a train also has a reasonable expectation to privacy and the police are not entitled to search it unless they have probable cause and, therefore, a warrant.

And I agree with VentureForth that just because the carriage contract actually says that you consent to searches (does it really say that?!), it doesn't make them permissible.

If these types of searches are actually happening, they're likely ripe for review by a federal court.

If an officer asked to search my roomette, I'd respectfully ask (1) whether I'm being detained and if so, for what reason; (2) if not, whether they have a warrant to search the roomette; (3) if they insist on searching the roomette, to ask for the officer's name and badge number; (4) ask that they call their supervisor on the basis that you believe that an illegal search is occurring and would like to speak with them about it; and (5) if they do search, insist that you do not consent to the search. Afterwards, file a legal grievance, if warranted.

Threats of "kicking you off the train" are just that. Just because someone has a badge or uniform on, doesn't given them the right to beat citizens into submission. That's the whole point of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. Unfortunately, most people are afraid to stand up for their civil liberties, which is a pity.

Sure - go read the contract of carriage you agree to when you buy a ticket:

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1241337896121

The relevant excerpt:

In order to ensure the quality of travel and safety and security of its passengers, Amtrak may refuse to carry passengers:

Who refuse to consent to Amtrak security inspections of persons and/or baggage onboard Amtrak trains and/or at designated areas, such as train platforms and passenger boarding or waiting areas.

You don't have to consent to the search, but if you don't, the conductor can put you off of the train.

 

[KmH]

When you purchase a ticket you give them the right to search.

Sorry, is there some cite to this?

Yes.

http://www.amtrak.com/safety-securityAmong these security measures, some of which are conducted on an unpredictable or random basis, passengers may notice any of the following in stations or onboard trains:

• Uniformed police officers and Special Operations Units
• Random passenger and carry-on baggage screening and inspection*

*With due respect to passengers' privacy, the random screening and inspection of passengers and their personal items will be completed as quickly as possible - usually in less than a minute. Passengers failing to consent to security procedures will be denied access to trains and refused carriage, and a refund will be offered.

 

[VentureForth]

When you purchase a ticket you give them the right to search.

Sorry, is there some cite to this?

...Snip...

Threats of "kicking you off the train" are just that. Just because someone has a badge or uniform on, doesn't given them the right to beat citizens into submission. That's the whole point of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. Unfortunately, most people are afraid to stand up for their civil liberties, which is a pity.

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1241337896121
The above link talks about how you must comply with Amtrak personnel. The way it is written makes it sound like the cops can be refused the opportunity to search, but if a conductor tells you to comply and you don't, be can remove you for disobeying a crew member...probably to the custody of that cop.

Now, if they have a dog onboard and he signals a hit, there is no contest.

 

[Sauve850]

I took the CZ last year in March from Chicago to Emeryville and had Bedroom A I believe. Somewhere before Reno a knock on my door and a badge was flashed and he asked if he could come in. I said no. Nice badge but anyone could have a badge. Suggested he go find the conductor and come back. His radio went off and he said never mind, apologized and off he went. Never came back. Now I understand things happen on this route and Im a single traveler with a backpack. I didn't have a problem with the whole thing just wanted some supervision.

 

[KmH]

It's hard to hook 'em if they don't take the bait.

 

[Ispolkom]

Somewhere before Reno a knock on my door and a badge was flashed and he asked if he could come in. I said no.

My attitude has always been that Officer Friendly never asks to search if he already has enunciable probable cause. I'd never say yes to any search, just out of cussedness. Of course, that's easy for me to say, since I'm a balding middle-aged rich white guy, so Officer Friendly isn't ever going to bother me.

 

[Guest]

When you purchase a ticket you give them the right to search.

Sorry, is there some cite to this?

...Snip...

Threats of "kicking you off the train" are just that. Just because someone has a badge or uniform on, doesn't given them the right to beat citizens into submission. That's the whole point of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. Unfortunately, most people are afraid to stand up for their civil liberties, which is a pity.

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1241337896121
The above link talks about how you must comply with Amtrak personnel. The way it is written makes it sound like the cops can be refused the opportunity to search, but if a conductor tells you to comply and you don't, be can remove you for disobeying a crew member...probably to the custody of that cop.

Now, if they have a dog onboard and he signals a hit, there is no contest.

If you don't comply with a search it is the police that will decide whether you are removed or in custody. Not the Conductor! It will also be the police that asks you, not the Conductor!

 

[Devil's Advocate]

If you don't comply with a search it is the police that will decide whether you are removed or in custody. Not the Conductor! It will also be the police that asks you, not the Conductor!

Source? Also, enough with all the shouting. Some of us are sleepy. -_-

 

[Ryan]

If you don't comply with a search it is the police that will decide whether you are removed or in custody. Not the Conductor! It will also be the police that asks you, not the Conductor!

Yeah, I don't think so. Unless I'm being taken into custody, I'm not getting off the train because some local cop tells me to. Amtrak has the right to refuse me carriage. The Reno PD doesn't.

 

[SP&S]

If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear.

So when it was proposed that the Portland police be subject to random drug testing why did they put up a stink? After all, if they had nothing to hide they had nothing to fear.

 

[Facepalm]

If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear.

This has to be one of the stupidest comments that continues to pop up on the Internet. Please bury it many fathoms beneath the sea where it belongs along with the sheeple playbook you took it from.

 

[VentureForth]

If you don't comply with a search it is the police that will decide whether you are removed or in custody. Not the Conductor! It will also be the police that asks you, not the Conductor!

Yeah, I don't think so. Unless I'm being taken into custody, I'm not getting off the train because some local cop tells me to. Amtrak has the right to refuse me carriage. The Reno PD doesn't.

Exactly. Unless, of course you are arrested. But my scenarios implies that you have nothing to hide, don't consent to a search, there is no probable cause, and there is no reason for arrest. Simply refusing a fishing trip by cops is not probable cause to warrant an arrest.

Now, as I read it, if the badge belonged to the Amtrak police, that's a whole different ball game.

 

[Guest]

Sorry, is there some cite to this?

I actually don't believe that the police have a right to search a roomette unless they have probable cause. It's akin, I'd say, to wanting to search a hotel room. A person has a reasonable expectation of privacy when in a hotel room and the police are required to have a warrant to search it. Similarly, a person who has rented a room on a train also has a reasonable expectation to privacy and the police are not entitled to search it unless they have probable cause and, therefore, a warrant.

I think there are some rather significant difference between a hotel room and a roomette. At the top of the list, a hotel room has a outside lock on its door, a roomette doesn't. For example (as cited here so many times), you can't secure a roomette when you leave. So, there is no reasonable expectation of security. And if you want to compare it, it is more like a bus (common carrier/transportation) than a private car. Police can enter a public bus with needing the permission of its passengers.

 

[cirdan]

This is very concerning. To me, it potentially places everyone on board the train in danger, since if there is any type of altercation anyone could get hurt in potential cross fire (guy tries to run, police gets trigger happy, fellow passenger gets hurt.)

I would rather have my bag searched upon boarding, airline style, than be subject to searches like this. The guest poster above makes it sound like "standing for your rights" is as simple as saying no. I highly doubt it would be that easy!

I don't think that the fact that your bag gets searched before you board an aircraft means that it cannot be searched again once onboard.

 

[Steve4031]

If you refuse a search, removed from the train, and it's determined that you did nothing wrong, what happens next? If I understand correctly the cost of continuing your trip us your responsibility. Then you pay for the hotel, which will be expensive because of last minute booking. And you have to pay for airfare or rail ticket to continue your travel.

For most with "nothing to hide" it is expedient to submit to the search. There's no immediate financial recourse after being removed from the train if you've done nothing wrong.

 

[Ispolkom]

That's the calculation Officer Friendly expects, that you'll waive your constitutional rights in the hope of not being inconvenienced. That's an especially strong argument for people who are poor or young. I think that behooves those of us who are neither to be especially recalcitrant. Of course we're the ones who are privileged enough not be bothered to begin with.

I've always figured that the police at Reno are at least as interested in civil confiscation of cash as stopping drugs. They must be successful enough at the former to continue doing it.

 

[VentureForth]

If you refuse a search, removed from the train, and it's determined that you did nothing wrong, what happens next?

As Mr. Ispolkom said,

That's the calculation Officer Friendly expects, that you'll waive your constitutional rights in the hope of not being inconvenienced.

So the other part of your question then deals with "what happens next?" After you have challenged and won against Big Brother, you are now alone and a bit poorer. There are several opportunities. But first, let's back track. A local cop can't remove you from a train under arrest without probable cause. However, they can arrest you and remove you if so ordered by the conductor if you don't comply with the conductor's orders.

If you are no longer on the train, you better be arrested. If the fault lies with Amtrak, you can only argue in the court of public opinion. Look at the outcry caused by the VIPR activities in Savannah. Look at the fallout from Amtrak employees making twice their salary giving lists to the DEA (ok - not much fall out there). You may be inconvenienced, but perhaps your plight will restore order and law to vigilante justice.

But if you ARE removed by a cop, and there WAS no probable cause, and the WAS no consent to search, and the conductor didn't get involved, I would imagine you have a very strong civil case to recover losses.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

But if you ARE removed by a cop, and there WAS no probable cause, and the WAS no consent to search, and the conductor didn't get involved, I would imagine you have a very strong civil case to recover losses.

Good luck recovering losses from Amtrak or the local PD without also incurring even greater losses in the form of recurring legal fees. Best case scenario you might break even years later when all is said and done. Of the handful of civil liberties victories I've seen in recent memory the vast majority came from pro bono legal representation provided by groups like the ACLU and EFF. With more and more liberties under increasing attack and with more and more activists being incarcerated and a growing number of whistle blowers being hunted down for punishment it's hard to imagine that Amtrak kicking you off and leaving you stranded is likely to be seen as any sort of legal priority. Don't get me wrong, I certainly commend and encourage peacefully exercising our rights and even taking the abusers of our freedom to court when possible, but any expectation of being made whole is unlikely to be realized.

 

[4thA]

Okay, let’s see:

The 4th A prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. To bring a successful 4th A claim, the claim must show that there was (1) government action and (2) involving a search and seizure. People have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the thing searched.

Now, conductor or police, these two would likely be considered government actors by a court. Arguably, Amtrak is a government agency and, therefore, the conductor is considered a government actor, just like the police. Therefore, the conductor must still articulate some reason (called probable cause) for searching the compartment. Even if it were determined that Amtrak employees aren't government actors, if the conductor asks to search the compartment pursuant to a request by the police, courts would consider this an act by the police. Therefore, searching a compartment would still be considered an illegal search because the search is being conducted at the behest of either (1) a government actor or (2) pursuant to a request by a government actor.

 

[Ryan]

Therefore, the conductor must still articulate some reason (called probable cause) for searching the compartment.

Nope. Re-read the contract you agree to when you buy your ticket. I've posted the relevant part above. You've already consented. Don't want the search? Don't buy the ticket, or be ready to get put off the train by the conductor when you tell him/her "no".

 

[KC Ghost Rider]

I have follow this thread with interest. Some finer points of law were discussed and one would expect a lawyer/judge to jump in at any point to clarify and elucidate the issues raised by the AGR lawyers. IMHO, a passenger on a public conveyance has about the same expectation to privacy as someone in a public place. Further, your accommodation is not your private property. The National Railroad Passenger Corporation owns it, and as the property owners, can consent for their property to be searched...even over any objections a passenger may make. Face it, you have zero legal rights in this and zero legal remedies afterward. However, your person and personal effects are a different matter. Let us say, for argument sake, that your personal effects are open and in plain view. Everyone should be aware that those can be inspected, at least visually, and more carefully examined if the law enforcement type has reasonable grounds to proceed. Notice the term reason grounds, not probable cause. The same applies for your person, the threshold is reasonable grounds. The officer only has to satisfy a reasonable belief, beyond mere suspicion, that an unlawful activity could be committed. So officer friendly goes through your personal effects and finds nothing. You are free to go and enjoy your Amtrak journey. However, if your personal effects are closed and locked, officer friendly can do two things: 1) Ask you for permission to open them (have you open them) 2) Obtain a warrant, if there is probable cause, and compel there inspection. If those bags are closed and locked, it is your right to refuse, but then Amtrak asks you to leave the train because you did not open your baggage as the carriage contract states. At any rate, you cannot refuse the accommodation inspection. Personally, I think it is best to have a witness, such as the conductor, present during these inspections, especially one that you are given a Hobson's choice.

 

[Riverviewer]

"...zero legal rights and zero legal remedies..."

Welcome to 1984.

 

[4thA]

Therefore, the conductor must still articulate some reason (called probable cause) for searching the compartment.

Nope. Re-read the contract you agree to when you buy your ticket. I've posted the relevant part above. You've already consented. Don't want the search? Don't buy the ticket, or be ready to get put off the train by the conductor when you tell him/her "no".

No, I'll respectfully disagree. Yes, passengers have consented to their persons and belongings being searched before boarding the train and consent to things like having a dog sniff around the train/baggage. But to specifically search a compartment, government actors are required to have probable cause because a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a compartment (illustrated by the curtains and door with locking mechanism). As someone mentioned before, contract rights do not trump constitutional rights. At least not in court.

The assertion that Amtrak owns the trains and therefore can search, or allow police to search, wherever it pleases within the train, is an oversimplification. Just like a landlord cannot give police consent to search an apartment without the tenant's permission (unless there are exigent circumstances), similarly, Amtrak cannot give police consent to search a compartment without the passenger's permission.

Unfortunately, not many Americans know or fully comprehend their constitutional rights. Sigh...

 

[neutralist]

Arguably, Amtrak is a government agency

If Amtrak lost the "On-Time Performance Standard" case in the Supreme Court, it will set a precedence case that Amtrak is NOT a goverment agency.

If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear.

It's like they used to say in Germany before the war,

"If the Jews/union leaders/civil liberties lawyers/

Communists/gypsies/etc didn't do anything wrong,

why are they in jail?"

Hey, in this country, "talking back" to a cop can

get you tasered, beaten, or killed. Aside from that

nothing to fear.

Everything Hitler did after 1933 was legal in Germany.

 

[SarahZ]

Annnnnnnd there it is. I knew it would show up.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law