WHAT THE HELL...

Trains Magazine General Discussion
21

I hope my surebutal is not mistaken as a heated disagreement with those who have responded to my post. As is suggested in some of the responses–our positions are not really that far apart.

dgwicks,

You are 50% right. No one has the right to stop you unless they have a reasonable suspicion that you are involved in criminal activity. However, it is perfectly legal for a law enforcement officer to ask you any question he or she deems appropriate. You may personally feel that that is not right, but–like it or not–legally the officers have that right.

That doesn’t mean you have to answer, but they may ask. They may also–legally–keep survelance on you if you do not provide a reasonable answer. Quite frankly, this doesn’t bother me at all. You may disagree, but I think if someone feels as though the simple response of “I am a rail fan and this map interests me” is so invasive as to justify keeping officers from asking questions that might flag terrorist activity, they deserve to be followed.

Larry,

I certainly do not disagree with your contention that some of the threat is degenerating into paranoia and unnecessarily making our lives more difficult. I just think the activity complained of above does not constitute unreasonable paranoia. I certainly agree with you about the car incident though.

Ifish,

I don’t disagree with your hypotheticals. However, the distinction is, everything that the officer did was legal and constitutional. The activity complained of in your hypotheticals is not. Asking a question and detaining a person until they satisfactorily answer it are two different issues.

I think the paranoia referred to above is a two way street. There are a lot of people pointing at -police activity that is legal–and has been well before 911–and saying we are somehow headed toward a police state. This strikes me as paranoia.

I think the dividing line should be that the police may

22

FYI,

Detaining people on the basis of body language ALONE will not get the officer too far in court, for all of those who are concerned that they might be so detained.

Gabe

23

Everybody must band together now and stop the financing of the terrorists. We must boycott against chili and Mexican foods. We must also make in mandatory for all citizens to use Bean-O and other anti-flatulents medicines to prevent the spread of chemical warfare from the terrorists.[:D][:D] LOL

24

I never said that the police could detain someone for their body language, but it may lead to further investigation. Askign for ID, checking that ID for warrants, wants, etc, are all perfectly legal things an officer can do. If you refuse, there are ways of finding the info without you giving it to them, if you’ve sparked enough interest. If an officer pulls you over and asks to search your car, you have every right to say no. But say no, and that officer has every right to keep you there until a drug dog can be brought out to sniff. The same principal applies here. An officer needs only reasonable suspicion that a crime has occured or is about to occur. Doesn’t even need probable cause like a search. Body language and behavior can go a long way to establishing that.

25

GFJWashDC,

You might disagree with me.

I’m not dismissing your reaction as it is understandable. However, since 9/11, has not the media, the government and even civic groups been pounding into our heads: BE VIGILANT AT ALL TIMES! That’s what the passenger was doing. The citizen had nothing against you personally. Your comment basically stating about “that she better not cross your path” sounds more like hot vindictiveness.

O.K, so if you happen to find the person, what will you do? Yell at the person? Tr

26

Uh, yes they did. Most of them were in the country illegally in the first place.

27

88gta350:

I realized you were not saying that the officer could do things on that basis; I was merely pre-empting the inevitiable: “you mean an officer can just detain me on the basis of a hunch!”

Also, I really don’t mean to nit pic, but the information concerning the search of a car is incorrect. Either the officer has enough information to search your car or he does not. I am not sure if you are contending that if you tell an officer he may not search your car, he may simply hold you there until he gets a warrant. If you are, that is certainly not the case.

Warrants rarely matter when it comes to a car. Either the officer has reasonable suspicion of contraband in the car or he does not. If he does have the suspicion, he can search your car, regardless of a warrant or your consent. If he doesn’t he wont be able to get a warrant.

Gabe

28

You know, just a short while ago on this forum, erikthered indicated that he WOULD run checks for outstanding warrants, traffic issues, suspended license, etc. on anyone he thought … he thought, mind you … was behaving in a suspicious fashion while railfanning. And he is a railfan.

I didn’t intend for a second to defend ‘fishing expeditions’ by the police or anybody else in response to a question about “suspicious behavior”. As far as I’m concerned, in Glenn’s case the ‘Amtrak cop’ had a right to ask, politely, about why he was there and what he was carrying. And, having gotten the answer, to say THANK YOU and then leave.

Not to find out all sorts of useful little things because there’s an excuse.

I’ve seen reports from a variety of sources about clever ways the police use to get permission from drivers for vehicle searches, almost always ‘without a warrant’. I can’t really imagine a case, in fact, where an officer would say “You don’t mind if I search your vehicle” and I answered, “Yes, officer, I would mind” (with any kind of reason whatsoever – it’s a mess, my girlfriend’s bra is still under the seat, I’m in a hurry to get somewhere --) where I wouldn’t be detained until such time as a warrant could be issued. I suspect other ‘stoppees’ who have any experience or sense know that too. The only defense is ‘not to get stopped in the first place’ – and note that such a defense is not possible when a stop has been made for any other reason … even a whim on the part of the officer.

That’s been effective SOP in an awful lot of police jurisdictions, from a very long time before September 11th. And while a logical answer might well be "if everything is in order, you have nothing to worry about (except loss of your time, etc.) – EXACTLY the same point could be made by the militiaman who demands your papers, your pass, or whatever.

One of the nasty things that Bloomberg’s administration has instituted in New York City is computerized traff

29

On re-reading the original post, I come away with the same feeling I had the first time. The complaint isn’t about the cop doing her job. The complaint is about the busybody who reported a harmless activity to a cop. I doubt I’d take any action, but I can understand the frustration very well.

I hear on a regular basis (and have responded to more than a few) reports of a “possible fire” turned in by a motorist on their cell phone. By the time we get to the area of the “possible fire,” the caller is long gone. We’ve put a half million dollars worth of fire equipment on the road, and risked life and limb of those volunteers who responded, because the caller “thought” that the smoke he smelled as he blew through at speed “might” be a fire. In most cases it’s a burn barrel, wood stove, or a small pile of bru***hat the property owner was not only aware of, but was monitoring. A waste of my time.

Yes, you can say that there might have really been a fire that needed our attention, but keep in mind that in most cases, the caller never actually sees the fire, and at any rate, doesn’t bother to wait until we arrive to point out the problem.

30

Overmod,

I can’t say I am really bothered by the fishing expeditions mentioned by ericthered. If you are driving while suspended, you deserve to be pulled over; if you are not, the officer is not going to “catch a fish” anyway and there will be no intrusion. Perhaps when it gets to the point of pulling people over for not signalling, I might agree with you.

However, your contention regarding automobile stops is well taken. The real problem with it is, the law abiding citizens are the ones who get the brunt on this sort of intrusion. I know that I can say know and how limited the officers options of retaliation are if I tell him he may not search my car when he does not have a reasonable suspicion to do so because I am an attorney. A criminal also knows this, as they have been through the loop enough times to have their fellow criminals educate them.

Consequently, the only people who end up getting searched are citizens who are generally law abiding and have not had the full education of knowing that you can and should say no. Yet the criminals–and even worse lawyers–, who know how to avoid such searches, don’t have to go through the intrusion.

Doesn’t make sense to me.

Gabe

31

AH HA HA HA HA!

An Amtrak cop… what kind of useless job is that… Thats worse then the “CN” Police!!

32

Gabe,

Just out of curiosity, can you, or anyone for that matter,
give me some examples of
“questions that might flag terrorist activity?”

Also, I found an interesting statement while surfing the web.
You should be able to find it with your favorite search engine.
The assosciated article is quite interesting.
“The terrorists have won.
They have successfully convinced America to attack itself.”

33

A group of them was caught speeding in NJ just before 9/11.

34

My friend was chased out of LAUPT by a Metrolink cop yesterday. [:(!][:(!][:(!][V][V][V]

35

OK, then let’s phrase it as they didn’t commit any felonies until
they hijacked the aircraft.

Being an illegal immigrant isn’t a felony, it won’t get you thrown
in jail. Just deported.

There is a lot of evidence of identity theft also,
but you can call yourself by any name you want as long as
it isn’t for illegal purposes, so that wasn’t illegal either
until they took over the aircraft.

The major point I am trying to make is that the hijackers worked
within our system, legally, and used our own tools to attack us,
so the current practices of LEOs, which I feel are on the very
border of being illegal stop and frisk, are doing nothing, and will
do nothing, to stop terrorism.

36

Tree, with all respect, are you suggesting that everyone NOT call when they think the neighbor’s house is on fire… or that they stop and reconnoiter, and perhaps try to put it out themselves, to save time and trouble?

I agree with you that false alarms, malicious reports, etc. are not good. I agree up to a point that people should be more careful about what they report when they call something in. However, I have often felt the need to call in developing problems I see while driving. I don’t have the ‘correct’ local telephone numbers of the police departments or whatever for the municipalities I’m passing through – even if I knew what towns they were, much of the time. That pretty well reduces me to calling 911, then saying ‘this is not a critical emergency and can you transfer me’ or something like that when the 911 dispatch answers. I’m not going to stop, I’m not going to second-guess. But I WILL make the assumption that the response won’t be an all-or-nothing knee-jerk roll-the-engines emergency every time! And I’ve been at the receiving end of quality fire response enough not to cause intentional danger to the people who provide it.

Perhaps the issue is more ‘how can you handle citizen advisories so that everything doesn’t have to be given the same X priority’. I assume you recognize the reference.

37

dgwicks,

I understand your point. It is not as if the dialog is going to be:

LEO: Sir, why are you looking at the train map and wearing a uniform?

Terrorist: I work for Osama bin Laden, and I am a terrorist.

However, as suggested by others, officers often know when something isn’t quite right with a given answer. Also, when someone does not give a satisfactory answer to a question like the one above–even though the answer might not be I am a terrorist, it alerts the officer to a possible problem and justifies further LEGAL survelance. It is at this point that the questioning may pay dividends–i.e. when the survelance sees the person leaving luggage in a crowded area, etc.

The obvious counter to my position is that there are going to be several false alarms. However, as long as law enforcement doesn’t detain the person against their will or otherwise act in an unconstitutional manner, I think the false alarms will more than be justified if this leads to the prevention of just one terrorist act.

Please bear in mind though, this is all qualified with: law enforcement must not be allowed to do anything illegal or unconstitional while questioning/surveling suspicious behavior.

Gabe

38

Actually they did commit a crime prior to taking over the planes. Conspiring to take over the planes is and was a crime (just harder to prove), even if they had done nothing else.
I am sure they committed other crimes.

39

Maybe all of those evil-doer cartographers should be smoked out of their caves and brought to justice.

40

Fear is a funny thing. This reminds me of the boy who turned his father in, in Orwell’s 1984.