# CZ Omaha police



## Linda T (Nov 8, 2012)

Anyone following FB has probably seen the post by Tim Chandler about the Omaha Police boarding the Zephyr. They woke up passengers in the sleepers and demanded answers to questions. I know this is not the first time that this has happened to the Zephyr in Omaha, and I'm curious what our rights as American citizens are. Here's the other case from March of last year http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2686148/posts

Suppose for a moment they don't have search warrants... If I've honestly done nothing wrong and I say "NO, you can't search my things without a warrant." that makes me look guilty as hell. If I give them permission to it just makes a mess out of everything, they put their grimy hands on unmentionables, etc. But would they have the right to force me to de-train if I said no? Obviously the Zephyr would move on, I would suppose. What legal rights does a rider have, or do I just have to succumb to them and allow them to ask me anything and paw through my stuff?

I won't be taking the Zephyr again, but I will be taking the Texas Eagle from CHI to LA and the Empire Builder from SEA to CHI. I'm wondering if we're more liable to be stopped close to the borders? Thanks!

Linda T.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha (Nov 8, 2012)

The _*California Zephyr*_ is a notorious drug hauler with mules boarding in California and transporting product east. Station Agents in California are usually pretty good about catching suspicious behavior, such as Mexicans buying 1 way cash tickets and carrying large amounts of luggage and often the trap to catch them is sprung at Reno.

On my last trip east, 4 undercover Reno Vice were waiting outside our Sleeper and displayed badges to the Attendant as soon as she opened the door; I was standing right with her. They quickly boarded and hauled off a Mexican couple with 2 GIANT suitcases and proceeded to interrogate them. The Attendant, another passenger and I were right there on the platform and the Vice made no effort to move us out of the way, even when the suitcases were popped and found to be crammed with bundles of narcotics. As the cuffs came out and snapped into place on the perps I felt like I was part of the cast on a TV cop show.


----------



## Shortline (Nov 8, 2012)

I won't tell you what to do, but I can tell you this, there would be no search, and there would be no questions answered. Failing to participate in their comedy drama does not make me look guilty, it makes me look like I just got out of bed in the middle of the night and am pissed about it. I get they're just doing their job, but their job sucks, I just don't agree with playing the "papers please" game. Unless they have reasonable suspicion or a warrant (and, they know who they're looking for already, or they wouldn't be on board) they're not getting me to open anything. A right not exercised, is a right lost. Frankly, time of day is irrelevant. I just don't play well with others I guess......


----------



## Ispolkom (Nov 8, 2012)

Here's a case from Havre, where charges were dropped against a woman who was dragged off the Empire Builder without probable cause. The charges were dropped even though she was, as it happens, smuggling dope. It doesn't seem that she got her marijuana back, which seems sort of unfair.

IANAL, but I'd never agree to a search of my possessions. The 4th amendment is one of my favorites, and I'm a stubborn and often unpleasant man. What would happen? I don't know, but I doubt the officers would look good bringing in a fat, middle-aged white guy who has enough money to sue them.

ETA: Here's a case where a defendant gave permission to search. It didn't turn out well for him, even though he might have been intimidated into giving permission.


----------



## daveyb99 (Nov 8, 2012)

What are your rights? Good Question.

First ... I would think since you booked that space, it is yours and NOT "public space". Courts have alread ruled the rear of a rented limo needs a warrant. Another famous case was David Crosby and his dressing room - NOT a public space. I am not familiar with any cases dealing with a "Roomette on AMTRAK", but I would image you can make the same arguments as those I cited.

As for saying NO to a consent to search. DO IT. I first must assume you have nothing to hide, so make the police describe their probable cause to a judge to obtain a warrant. Who cares what they think (hint: I have a strong law enforcement background and never had a problem with someone saying No. And i do understand your fear as well). If they decide to make a warrantless search, object but comply and document their information - then file a complaint and maybe a consider a civil right case.


----------



## oregon pioneer (Nov 8, 2012)

I understand from a friend who was searched at Reno that they promised if he refused the warrantless search, they would take him off the train to wait for the warrant. Not wanting to watch the train leave without him, he capitulated at that point. They found nothing, and let him continue, but he is still steaming over it. His only crime was to have a gray beard and t-shirt (probably with a liberal slogan on it, if I know him). He recommends you travel with a minimum of cash (what they are looking for, along with the drugs) and use credit cards for everything.


----------



## guest former CZ rider (Nov 9, 2012)

One would think that those cops along the CZ's route would coordinate...after the "routine" searches at Reno & Grand Junction, you wouldn't think that there's be anyone left aboard worth busting!


----------



## Linda T (Nov 9, 2012)

Okay, I just pulled out the timetable book and found the following, starting with the third paragraph under Security:



> Amtrak has in place a range of behind-the-scenes and front-line security measures aimed at improving passenger rail security, some of which are conducted on an unpredictable or random basis. These include *uniformed police officers and K-9 units in stations and **on trains**, *Mobile Security Teams, checked baggage screening, on-board screening, security cameras and investments in state-of-the-art security technology. Passengers may also be randomly selected to show identification aboard trains, even after they've shown identification earlier when obtaining their tickets.
> 
> Please be advised that randomly selected passengers and their baggage, handbags, backpacks, or other personal items may be screened or inspected. The inspection will be completed as quickly as possible -- usually less than a minute -- in a manner designed to respect passengers' privacy as much as possible. *Passengers failing to consent to security procedures will be denied access to trains and refused carriage*, and a refund will be offered.


So when we buy a ticket, are we signing away our Constitutional rights? We're basically saying that we understand the rules and regulations, and part of that is random searches by police both in the stations and aboard trains. I didn't see all that till my husband and I were just sitting here talking about this.


----------



## TVRM610 (Nov 9, 2012)

I just rode the CZ through Omaha a few nights ago.... I'm sure glad this didn't happen to me!

I'll be honest, I'm not sure what I would do... I would be very very nervous and probably shaking and stuttering.... Especially if awaken in the middle of the night. I know that I wouldnt open my curtain without getting dressed first, and then I'm not sure if I would open my door unless being ordered to do so by law.

I wonder what would happen if you simply did not respond? The door is locked from the inside and someone could be using earplugs on the train and not hear... Would they bust down the door?

Hopefully I am lucky enough to never have to decide what to do.... But I don't like hearing that police can do this. I would be fine with Dogs sniffing around the car... I trust dogs.... But people just randomly wanting to search my bags because of how I booked my tickets? That is not right and it needs to be made clear to Amtrak management that this is not good.


----------



## pennyk (Nov 9, 2012)

Linda T said:


> Okay, I just pulled out the timetable book and found the following, starting with the third paragraph under Security:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is my understanding that most, if not all, common carriers have pretty much the same rules.


----------



## winterskigirl (Nov 10, 2012)

So, if random searches are happening on trains they should apply the same on airplanes but they do not. Instead, you're searched before boarding a plane, xrayed and often gropped. Does this mean the same intrusive screening is heading to a train sation near you? I'm sick of this!! We have no rights anymore in this country. So much for the Constitution.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Nov 10, 2012)

winterskigirl said:


> So, if random searches are happening on trains they should apply the same on airplanes but they do not. Instead, you're searched before boarding a plane, xrayed and often gropped. Does this mean the same intrusive screening is heading to a train sation near you? I'm sick of this!! We have no rights anymore in this country. So much for the Constitution.


This type of stuff is getting out of control. My non-lawyer advise is just say "No". "No I don't wish to talk to you". "No you may not enter or search my roomette." Don't engage them, just say "no thanks".

The Dallas Police Detectives kill a passenger onboard a train, after they surround him and his wife, and he act out / up to them. Just say "No, I don't want to talk to you."

If they pull you off the train to show you who got the power, and you watch your train leave station with out you. Seek a civil rights attorney out. You may not have a case, but this will never stop into the police dept loses in court, and has to pay out to someone.

This soft interview by a non-uniformed police officer was given to the PD by the courts and only the courts will take it away. The police have modified the courts "soft interview" into a harsh tactic were you are been challenge by the officer. Sometimes half asleep, by shouting at you so you are surprised and will answer there questions.

Just say "No, I don't want to talk to you" when they pull out there ID or bring in a uniformed officer they you got another issue.

The right to refused to talk to a person who has not identify themself as a police office is something we do all the time.

The right to refuse a police officer to search your roomette is not a justification for a search warrant.

Just say "No" if the police take it up a notch don't fight back, just get a attorney.


----------



## RRrich (Nov 10, 2012)

I beleive in standing up for myself and my rights, and also in cooperating with Police Officers, but I find the thought of seeing the train pull out of Wesst Podunk Arkansas to be scary and upsetting.


----------



## PRR 60 (Nov 10, 2012)

To be clear, the Omaha police department is not conducting these searches. This is a special drug unit of the Nebraska State Patrol. Besides the Zephyr, they are also known for staking out local truck stops and the bus station. There are reports of some pretty sketchy tactics by this particular unit. Try this Google Search and read some of the stories.

I'm sure they want to catch the bad guys, but there is an interesting secondary motive. Drug couriers not only carry drugs, they often carry a lot of cash. If the person or persons are found or plead guilty, the arresting jurisdiction gets to keep the cash. These searches can be a profitable venture for the involved police department.


----------



## VentureForth (Nov 10, 2012)

It is not a constitutional right to ride a train. Therefore, the conditions of passage on private property can include implied consent to search.


----------



## jmbgeg (Nov 11, 2012)

The disruption would **** me off, as does airport screening, but I would not objection and disrupt my trip, as I carry nothing to worry about. (except I forgot an 18 oz. bottle of vitamin water that held me up last week at DIA screening :blush: )


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 11, 2012)

I've thought about this a long time. I'm not sure what I'd do. I'd probably resist complying with this checkpoint charlie nonsense, but what sort of "refund" would you get on an AGR award and how would you reach your destination or get back home in a reasonable time frame and at a reasonable cost? The increasing difficulty of exercising our rights through non-compliance and our lack of practical solutions that won't abruptly end our trip is probably not an accident. In the end I'm not sure that we actually have all the rights we've been reading about since elementary school. Apparently many of the rights we take for granted only exist in theory and not in reality, at least in a practical sense.

Nevertheless a citizen who never dares to step out of line may cease to even notice the chains that bind him. Making a point of expressing how this invasion of privacy is not acceptable to you and goes against what you believe America stands for is absolutely your right. If everyone made a point of resisting maybe this sort of thing would become less and less common. On the other hand, as already mentioned, there remains an strong but artificial incentive to keep violating our privacy so long as it results in substantial monetary or political gains for those who influence or conduct the invasions.	There is nothing inherently illegal with carrying currency, but if you're caught with no more cash than would be necessary to buy a sleeper compartment or a last minute flight home you could end up losing all of your money until such time as you can prove in court that it came from a legitimate source. And that might not be as quick and easy as you would think it is.

In the end I have to say that these sorts of invasions to our privacy will remain common until such time as we either prevent our various security forces from benefiting from confiscated possessions and/or we vastly restrict what can be confiscated in the first place. In other words I think we need to seriously reform our current confiscation laws and consider legalizing the creation and distribution of more controlled substances to reduce their appeal to drug cartels and police forces alike. In an ideal world we would not suffer at the hands of the police and the drug cartels simply by trying to restrict drug creation and use, but since we do not live in an ideal world I'm convinced that we could probably do much better by finally trying some new solutions to a cultural problem that has been routinely failing us since the early 1900's. Until we change this cycle of failure we'll continue to be at the mercy of degrading treatment by police and vicious life-threatening treatment by drug cartels, both of which have found a way to benefit monetarily from the illicit drug trade and have little interest in seeing it legalized and regulated.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 11, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> In other words I think we need to seriously consider reforming our current confiscation laws and legalizing the creation and distribution of more controlled substances. In an ideal world we would not suffer at the hands of the police and the drug cartels, but since we do no live in an ideal world I'm convinced that we could probably do much better by finally trying some "new" solutions to a cultural problem that has been failing us since the early 1900's.


Washington (state) and Colorado just took the first steps towards this in the last election. We'll see what comes of it.


----------



## jmbgeg (Nov 11, 2012)

the Washington state initiative is interesting, but solves nothing in federal law or an interstate EB train.


----------



## brent wuellner (Nov 11, 2012)

Whats the issue here? No issue at all. Your rights are clearly spelled out in our Constitution. Amtrak would have a lengthy court case on there hands it I was thrown off the train If I refused a search without reasonable cause or a warrent!


----------



## Linda T (Nov 11, 2012)

Ah, but do you have rights on the train, that's the question. You have a right to travel by train or not, but the question remains, do you sign away your right against searches when you purchase your ticket and board the train? You sign off that uniformed police and k-9 units may board the train and search at random, and if you fail to consent you will be refused carriage and given a refund (I'm assuming of the value of the remainder of the trip). I suppose if you pay in points you get nothing back?

At this point, since I'd be traveling alone, and in a sleeper (on points), I'd probably just consent, as I have nothing to hide as long as I can be present and watch as the search is underway. It's better than watching my train depart with my roomette, and probably having to go coach in a day or two (as all the sleepers would be sold out by that time).

Editted to add: Our rights are spelled out, but they can also be limited. We have the right to bear arms, but not in the post office. Heck, I had a bottle of Coke at the Richmond, VA court house and the security had me pitch it outside -- I wasn't allowed to take it in even though I didn't want to drink it inside (it was hot out and I had it in my purse to drink later). So there are some limitations depending upon where we are and what we're wanting to do.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 11, 2012)

brent wuellner said:


> Whats the issue here? No issue at all. Your rights are clearly spelled out in our Constitution. Amtrak would have a lengthy court case on there hands it I was thrown off the train If I refused a search without reasonable cause or a warrent!


Actually if the local police haul you off the train, your case would be with them; not Amtrak. Amtrak can't stop the police from taking you off the train because you decided not to comply with the officer.


----------



## TimePeace (Nov 11, 2012)

I am not sure what the basic rights are. Does a roomette have the same status as your home, which may not be searched without a warrant?


----------



## pennyk (Nov 11, 2012)

Maine Rider said:


> I am not sure what the basic rights are. Does a roomette have the same status as your home, which may not be searched without a warrant?


NO


----------



## TimePeace (Nov 11, 2012)

pennyk said:


> Maine Rider said:
> 
> 
> > I am not sure what the basic rights are. Does a roomette have the same status as your home, which may not be searched without a warrant?
> ...


Well in that case I guess I'd submit to questions and a very non-invasive search of belongings, if it meant that to refuse I would be removed from the train and delayed.

First thing I would do would be ask what would be the immediate consequences of refusing.


----------



## Linda T (Nov 11, 2012)

Another thing that we haven't addressed is, Amtrak states "uniformed police and k-9 units may board the train." In both the cases given here for the Omaha station, they were NOT uniformed. The most recent case Mr. Chandler says, "guys in plainsclothes with their badge on a chain around their neck." That doesn't sound like uniformed officers to me.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 11, 2012)

AlanB said:


> brent wuellner said:
> 
> 
> > Whats the issue here? No issue at all. Your rights are clearly spelled out in our Constitution. Amtrak would have a lengthy court case on there hands it I was thrown off the train If I refused a search without reasonable cause or a warrent!
> ...


Although that is certainly true, my understanding is that if you are traveling domestically on a common carrier and are held up by security that does not result in actual charges it is generally expected that your carrier will make every reasonable attempt to reschedule you at their convenience for no additional cost. That is to say, if you are trying to board a plane and are held up by security or if you are kicked off a plane but are not charged with any crime you can reasonably expect to be reaccommodated on a later flight, although it might be the following day if it's late enough. In the case of international travel the airline is obligated to return refused passengers on the next available flight at the airline's own cost, even in the case of one-way tickets. Is it true that Amtrak policy is to leave passengers who were not removed by the request of any staff and are not charged with any crime to their own devices with little or no attempt to reaccommodate them? It would be bad enough to have to find a place to stay until Amtrak had another coach or sleeper available, but I would have expected Amtrak to provided a "no harm, no foul" reaccommodation policy similar to that of the airlines.


----------



## leemell (Nov 11, 2012)

Linda T said:


> Another thing that we haven't addressed is, Amtrak states "uniformed police and k-9 units may board the train." In both the cases given here for the Omaha station, they were NOT uniformed. The most recent case Mr. Chandler says, "guys in plainsclothes with their badge on a chain around their neck." That doesn't sound like uniformed officers to me.


At least as far a Californa law goes, wearing a badge around you neck is most likely enough of a "uniform" to qualify. The is no formal definition of a uniform and the badge is certainly an integral part of a law enforcement uniform.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 11, 2012)

jmbgeg said:


> the Washington state initiative is interesting, but solves nothing in federal law or an interstate EB train.


That's why I referred to is at a "first step". Perhaps once people see the world failing to end because some people smoke up, further changes can be made.


----------



## VentureForth (Nov 11, 2012)

Don't forget that at an airport, you can't refuse a search without being questioned by a cop. Refusing to talk to a cop could mean arrest. Even if you choose to forfeit your ticket.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 11, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> Refusing to talk to a cop could mean arrest.


In what universe?

Other than identifying yourself, you're under no obligation to speak to the police.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 11, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> Don't forget that at an airport, you can't refuse a search without being questioned by a cop. Refusing to talk to a cop could mean arrest. Even if you choose to forfeit your ticket.


I think you're referring to after you've entered the TSA checkpoint. You can absolutely enter an airport's common areas without submitting to any searches. Even when you're in the TSA checkpoint you can still refuse certain types of searching. I have refused the x-ray machines dozens of times without any police questioning. You may have to put up with the stupid groping nonsense as a result and if you _also_ refuse that then the TSA will attempt to prevent you from leaving until they can hand you over to the police. However, the legal ground they have for holding you is not yet solidified and if you haven't broken any laws the presumption of innocence (and the presumption of free movement) should remain in effect even if the police are called. They can ask for your name and address, but that's all you have to give them, and remaining silent is in no way any sort of cause for arrest. Unfortunately neither of the two establishment parties seems willing or able to take on the ever more bloated and ridiculous TSA, so we're still stuck with two anti-privacy options when voting for our country's future.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Nov 11, 2012)

pennyk said:


> Maine Rider said:
> 
> 
> > I am not sure what the basic rights are. Does a roomette have the same status as your home, which may not be searched without a warrant?
> ...


Are you sure? I am not a lawyer or police officer, but I am pretty sure a Roomette on a train has the same legal status as your house.


----------



## NAVYBLUE (Nov 12, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> I've thought about this a long time. I'm not sure what I'd do. I'd probably resist complying with this checkpoint charlie nonsense, but what sort of "refund" would you get on an AGR award and how would you reach your destination or get back home in a reasonable time frame and at a reasonable cost? The increasing difficulty of exercising our rights through non-compliance and our lack of practical solutions that won't abruptly end our trip is probably not an accident. In the end I'm not sure that we actually have all the rights we've been reading about since elementary school. Apparently many of the rights we take for granted only exist in theory and not in reality, at least in a practical sense.
> 
> Nevertheless a citizen who never dares to step out of line may cease to even notice the chains that bind him. Making a point of expressing how this invasion of privacy is not acceptable to you and goes against what you believe America stands for is absolutely your right. If everyone made a point of resisting maybe this sort of thing would become less and less common. On the other hand, as already mentioned, there remains an strong but artificial incentive to keep violating our privacy so long as it results in substantial monetary or political gains for those who influence or conduct the invasions.	There is nothing inherently illegal with carrying currency, but if you're caught with no more cash than would be necessary to buy a sleeper compartment or a last minute flight home you could end up losing all of your money until such time as you can prove in court that it came from a legitimate source. And that might not be as quick and easy as you would think it is.
> 
> In the end I have to say that these sorts of invasions to our privacy will remain common until such time as we either prevent our various security forces from benefiting from confiscated possessions and/or we vastly restrict what can be confiscated in the first place. In other words I think we need to seriously reform our current confiscation laws and consider legalizing the creation and distribution of more controlled substances to reduce their appeal to drug cartels and police forces alike. In an ideal world we would not suffer at the hands of the police and the drug cartels simply by trying to restrict drug creation and use, but since we do not live in an ideal world I'm convinced that we could probably do much better by finally trying some new solutions to a cultural problem that has been routinely failing us since the early 1900's. Until we change this cycle of failure we'll continue to be at the mercy of degrading treatment by police and vicious life-threatening treatment by drug cartels, both of which have found a way to benefit monetarily from the illicit drug trade and have little interest in seeing it legalized and regulated.


TS,

You nailed it !!!! I do disagree with your position on drugs though.

"The Claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."

*Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486. 489*

NEVER, NEVER, NEVER answer a police officer's questions if they HAVE NOT articulated that you are being questioned because you are suspected of committing a crime, THEN you are to tell them that since they have RAS'd you, the conversation is over and you will not be saying anything without an attorney present.

The difference between you and 99% of police officers is you probably know more about the law than they do. We constantly school Nevada police officers here about gun laws as they have very poor comprehension skills.

My family (uncle, brother, cousins) are present or former LEOs and they have told me to SHUT UP and DO NOT answer any questions. They are not going to take you off the train to get a search warrant unless they are a double digit IQ LEO which is a possibility though. They know who they are looking for, they are just hoping that they can make an extra bust by you saying something stupid. Everything you say WILL be held against you. Innocent people become guilty people every day because they agree to speak to a LEO.

You response is "I DO NOT CONSENT TO THIS CONVERSATION, AM I FREE TO GO ?"

Stand up for your rights or be a sheeple.

NAVYBLUE


----------



## June the Coach Rider (Nov 12, 2012)

leemell said:


> Linda T said:
> 
> 
> > Another thing that we haven't addressed is, Amtrak states "uniformed police and k-9 units may board the train." In both the cases given here for the Omaha station, they were NOT uniformed. The most recent case Mr. Chandler says, "guys in plainsclothes with their badge on a chain around their neck." That doesn't sound like uniformed officers to me.
> ...


I would have to agree. Most, not all detectives are in suits and their badge around their neck. these are their uniforms and just because they are plain clothed officers does not mean they are not in uniform.


----------



## daveyb99 (Nov 12, 2012)

pennyk said:


> Maine Rider said:
> 
> 
> > I am not sure what the basic rights are. Does a roomette have the same status as your home, which may not be searched without a warrant?
> ...


Are you sure about that? It is a rented space, not a public area. The rear of a limo is not subject to search under that premise, so why would a private accommodation on AMTRAK not also be off limits. (You have any cases to refer to?)

Also ... I am not so sure about a local police jurisdiction to remove you from a train for declining a consent search. What exactly would be that based on. And once off, they release the train - along with the area to be search? Really?


----------



## pennyk (Nov 12, 2012)

daveyb99 said:


> pennyk said:
> 
> 
> > Maine Rider said:
> ...


No, I am not sure and I apologize if I am wrong. I based my decision on the quoted security language in one of the previous posts,

*Quote*

 

Amtrak has in place a range of behind-the-scenes and front-line security measures aimed at improving passenger rail security, some of which are conducted on an unpredictable or random basis. These include *uniformed police officers and K-9 units in stations and**on trains**, *Mobile Security Teams, checked baggage screening, on-board screening, security cameras and investments in state-of-the-art security technology. Passengers may also be randomly selected to show identification aboard trains, even after they've shown identification earlier when obtaining their tickets.

 

 

Please be advised that randomly selected passengers and their baggage, handbags, backpacks, or other personal items may be screened or inspected. The inspection will be completed as quickly as possible -- usually less than a minute -- in a manner designed to respect passengers' privacy as much as possible. *Passengers failing to consent to security procedures will be denied access to trains and refused carriage*, and a refund will be offered.

and it is my understanding that an individual's rights are different in his or her own home than on a common carrier. I am not certain of my answer and I do not have any case law to back up my answer, but my opinion remains the same.


----------



## henryj (Nov 12, 2012)

If these people come to my room and want to ask questions or search my baggage I am not going to argue with them and you would be advised to do the same. If you don't care if they kick you off the train in the middle of nowhere are you have access to a lawyer then have at it. Personally, I just want to finish my trip.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Nov 13, 2012)

Im not a Lawyer but wonder if "Renting" a Room on a Train is the same as "Renting" a Room in a Hotel or Motel? IINM, Police must have "Probable Cause" to search Private Property and obtain a Warrant spelling out exactly what they are searching for?

I'm not about to argue with someone with a Gun and Badge in the Middle of the Night and in the Middle of Nowhere, but we Must know our rights! Just be polite and ask them their Name, to be shown some ID and ask what they are looking for if they want to search your room! I know that Dogs sniff Luggage, Stations and Passengers all the time, X-ray Machines are used etc. and that Luggage may be searched in the Racks and Baggage Cars IF dogs Alert on something or LE has a Warrant! but your Private Room is just that, it's not Public! Used to be they could only search your Personal Property with your Consent or a Warrant, but lately this seems to be Violated almost daily with such things as "No Refusual and No Knock Laws which sound like something out of Germany or the Soviet Union in the Bad Old days!

Im not opposed to LE trying to do a very tough job, but "Fishing Expiditions" are a Violation of Our Rights and Government (LE is Government) Will Go as Far As They Can IF the People don't oppose Illegal and Unethical Acts!

No matter what they say, LE Agencies have used Profiling for years (ever heard of DWB, Driving While Black?)and its been my experience that People of Color, the Young, People in Second Class (ie Coach) tend to be treated differently than "First Class" People, no matter what the setting! KNOW YOUR RIGHTS, just say NO to Violations by any Government Agency!


----------



## winterskigirl (Nov 14, 2012)

Texas Sunset - eloquently said! The "war on drugs" has been an abysmyl failure. What has been a success is the compliance through bullying and indimidation tactics. This is exacly why I won't fly anymore. l'm deeply saddened to see this now on the rail.


----------



## Linda T (Nov 14, 2012)

jimhudson said:


> KNOW YOUR RIGHTS, just say NO to Violations by any Government Agency!


Thanks! That's exactly why I posted here -- I want to know my rights. I'm not one that would typcially be profiled, white, middle aged, housewife, traveling only with enough cash to pay tips onboard so no one's gonna get rich off me... But still, I want to know what rights I have. I can't imagine having the above happen to me, and if it did unfortunately I'd probably have to consent as long as I can watch. I just don't want to be removed from the train, alone in a strange place, in the middle of the night, unable to find a hotel at an ungodly hour... If I can find a traveling companion though, that might change things.


----------



## VentureForth (Nov 14, 2012)

I don't think even a rental property has the same constitutional protection as a self owned property. When I rented an apartment, my manager said they can enter my apartment at any time to investigate any claim, or monthly to perform extermination. I'm sure there is something when you sign a lease that says that. I don't think you can "opt out". Likewise, Amtrak - a pseudo-government agency acting like a private business - provides, at a cost, access to their equipment to passengers. As part of the condition of accessing Amtrak property (regardless of payment or reward type), you do so per their rules. You can't smoke. You can't hang out in the lounge naked. You can't drink in Coach. You can't open the door window in the vestibule. You can't fight. You can't get drunk and argue with the Conductor. You can't talk 14 hours straight through the night on a cell phone.

You can't carry drugs.

For the most part, a boarding party will produce probably cause to search one's private stuff. They'll bring a sniffer dog, or they'll have a credible tip. But that just helps them. According to your terms of carriage, they can search you, your room, your stuff. Period. You aren't in your home. You're not in your car (which is still ambiguous). You're not in the middle of 100 acres of your private land. You're on private property - not yours - who has granted you access under the condition you agree to their terms.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 14, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> I don't think even a rental property has the same constitutional protection as a self owned property. When I rented an apartment, my manager said they can enter my apartment at any time to investigate any claim, or monthly to perform extermination. I'm sure there is something when you sign a lease that says that. I don't think you can "opt out".


The Constitution only protects you from governmental interference and your Constitutional protections while living in a rental house are exactly the same as if you owned the dwelling.


----------



## leemell (Nov 14, 2012)

Ryan said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think even a rental property has the same constitutional protection as a self owned property. When I rented an apartment, my manager said they can enter my apartment at any time to investigate any claim, or monthly to perform extermination. I'm sure there is something when you sign a lease that says that. I don't think you can "opt out".
> ...


No, they are not. For example, in California, with 24 hour notice, the renter must grant access to the landlord and/or his agents, no cause required..


----------



## zephyr17 (Nov 14, 2012)

leemell said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > VentureForth said:
> ...


The landlord is not a government entity and the Constitution only controls what the government may and may not do. If there are no regulations over him, he can do as he likes with his property. Most states regulate rentals however, and have many regulations such as 24 hour notice for entry in non-emergency situations, but that is not a constitutional right or restriction. He can put restrictions in the rental agreement/lease on use of the property, such as presence of illegal drugs on the premesis are ground for eviction. He can throw you out, but he can't put you in jail.

The Constitution does control what the government and its agents may do. If your landlord gives you 24 hour notice to enter, he can. The police cannot. He can't bring the police with him on his visit with 24 hour notice. If he sees a bong and a big pile of pot while he is in there, he can tell the cops and they could use the statement as probable cause and try to get a search warrent. But they have to have the search warrent (unless the pile of pot is clearly visible from outside), the landlord doesn't. But even if he doesn't call the cops, he can evict you for it.

A similar situation is free speech. You have an absolute constitutional right to write that your boss is an idiot on a picket sign and march up and down the public sidewalk in front of work. The police can't stop you as long as you aren't impeding traffic. Your boss can't stop you as long as you are not on company property. Nothing at all protects you from him firing you for it, though. That is a private matter and not controlled by the Constituion (unless you work for the government).


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Nov 14, 2012)

Linda T said:


> I just don't want to be removed from the train, alone in a strange place, in the middle of the night, unable to find a hotel at an ungodly hour.


Just say "No". The police may imply they going take you off the train, but into they place you under arrest, just say "No". Once your been arrested they ask for a lawyer. They simple act of say "No" does not make you guilty of a crime.



Linda T said:


> If I can find a traveling companion though, that might change things.


Helloooo Linda.....


----------



## Ryan (Nov 14, 2012)

Thanks, Zephyr17 - that's the exact point I was attempting to make.


----------



## BC (Nov 14, 2012)

zephyr17 said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


As a California landlord myself, I would say that it is correct that a landlord can enter on 24 hours notice without permission, but the landlord does need to have a good reason for doing so. The case law suggests that landlords may have an annual inspection. However, a landlord repeatedly announcing and making visits for no particular reason can be considered harassment. Tenants have obtained restraining orders against landlords who have abused their right to enter without permission.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=01001-02000&file=1940-1954.1

http://www.leginfo.c...ile=1940-1954.1
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=01001-02000&file=1940-1954.1
1954. (a) A landlord may enter the dwelling unit only in the

following cases:

(1) In case of emergency.

(2) To make necessary or agreed repairs, decorations, alterations

or improvements, supply necessary or agreed services, or exhibit the

dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, mortgagees,

tenants, workers, or contractors or to make an inspection pursuant to

subdivision (f) of Section 1950.5.

(3) When the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the premises.

(4) Pursuant to court order.

(b) Except in cases of emergency or when the tenant has abandoned

or surrendered the premises, entry may not be made during other than

normal business hours unless the tenant consents to an entry during

other than normal business hours at the time of entry.

© The landlord may not abuse the right of access or use it to

harass the tenant.

As for entering a train and asking to search a passenger, there is the contract of carriage.

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

http://www.amtrak.co...d=1241337896121
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am/Layout&cid=1241337896121


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.
Amtrak employees or other authorized carrier representatives may remove such a passenger from the train at any inhabited place, as necessary under the circumstances, for any of the above reasons.
As long as an Amtrak employee authorizes federal, state, or local law enforcement to enter, they pretty much become their representative. Legally they might need a search warrant, or not based on whether they have probable cause (can search without a warrant) or reasonable grounds (enough to get a search warrant).

Even being in sleeper accomodations isn't much different than being in a hotel room. If a maid spots a brick of heroin in someone's luggage during the normal course of work, they have every right to call the cops. If your attendant notices something unusual, they can also call for law enforcement.


----------



## NW cannonball (Nov 14, 2012)

BC said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> > leemell said:
> ...


(Noticing that this discussion is getting more complicated - as the law is complicated)

If a maid "spots a brick of heroin" - how the hell would he/she know it's a brick of heroin? Or even suppose someone saw a bag of green leafy stuff? Green tea? Which I often carry on any mode of transport with no problem. White powder? -- could be flour or baking powder -- hell most things if you grind them down are white powder. Baking soda? Borax? That would just be a "tip" and usually not grounds for a warrant.

I seriously doubt that "An Amtrak employee" in general can get anyone thrown off the train for any reason - it's up to the conductor - who, I believe, can *ask *to consult with local law or Amtrak police (but know personally of at least one case where a conductor asked the dispatcher to "get the local cops at the next stop - it's a child abuse situation" and got no help at all - whether that was a host railroad failure or a local law dispatch failure or what - that I don't know) --

Anyhow - the Amtrak conductor is kind of like the landlord - can inspect - has responsibilities - but can't get warrant and doesn't have one.

If Amtrak police are doing a security search, as consented to by the passenger in the "contract of carriage" - the passenger *may* have consented to a security check - but all other rights are reserved.

Local (on the ground) cops are in a different situation. Passenger hasn't given up any rights to "LEO"'s in general by consenting to security baggage search. Cops need a warrant to search or arrest - otherwise you can just say no and go.

The problem for passengers, on Amtrak or airlines, is how the consent for security search in the contract of carriage (to make the trip safe for all) interacts with the absolute right to no "search without warrant issued on probable cause".

The courts will be hashing this out at great expense for several decades at least.

The OP - long gone - was concerned, If I remember, about warranted searches and arrests by non-Amtrak LEO. (Warranted means some accredited judge signed off on on the search and arrest - possibly in error)

So - it's already complicated - suggest to all posters research on law sites and get back in a while.

Practically - if your bags are clean - tell the buggers to bugger off - and if they are Amtrak buggers that you consented to - give them a quick sniff.

If they are not Amtrak - and if you can tell in the middle of the night - your roomette is your castle - no warrant - no entry - let me sleep in peace - you got no right.

But in either case -- which it may be hard to judge - ask for an explanation , ask for ID , ask for the Conductor, and if you need to, which I seriously doubt, ask for your lawyer.

And never talk to a cop without talking to a lawyer first.

E


----------



## zephyr17 (Nov 14, 2012)

Thanks, BC. I knew about there had to be a reason to enter a dwelling even with notice, but didn't go into that part. I mainly wanted to clarify that the landlord's admittedly limited right to enter are not limited or controlled by the 4th amendment guarantees against unreasonable search, since he's not acting as an agent of the government.

4th amendment guarantee against search is fairly cut and dried to me when it comes to a permanent dwelling (rented or owned). It seems to become fuzzier when it comes to transient situations like hotels and trains, and I don't pretend to know where the limits are. Bottom line is if they put you off the train because you wouldn't consent to search, you are off the train. You may have grounds for action later, but right then you are stuck in Omaha (or Reno).


----------



## NW cannonball (Nov 14, 2012)

zephyr17 said:


> Thanks, BC. I knew about there had to be a reason to enter a dwelling even with notice, but didn't go into that part. I mainly wanted to clarify that the landlord's admittedly limited right to enter are not limited or controlled by the 4th amendment guarantees against unreasonable search, since he's not acting as an agent of the government.
> 
> 4th amendment guarantee against search is fairly cut and dried to me when it comes to a permanent dwelling (rented or owned). It seems to become fuzzier when it comes to transient situations like hotels and trains, and I don't pretend to know where the limits are. Bottom line is if they put you off the train because you wouldn't consent to search, you are off the train. You may have grounds for action later, but right then you are stuck in Omaha (or Reno).


Issue for me is - you - as a passenger - like passengers on airlines - grant Amtrak the right to search - for security of transportation only - a limited right to search - for the security of fellow passengers.

No right at all for every local law enforcement to stop the train and search without a warrant.

Amtrak will very reasonably resist any supposed right of any local law to stop the train for warrantless search. The trains might not get anywhere.

And yeah - this is a developing issue for lawyers.


----------



## Nathanael (Nov 15, 2012)

There are some subtle issues here. These are rough descriptions.

(1) The Omaha police do not have a right to search your cabin or belongings without probable cause.

(2) You do not sign away those rights when you get on the train.

(3) They do not have the right to drag you off the train, either, unless they are making a legitimate arrest -- and they don't get to determine whether they're making a legitimate arrest, either. For who does determine it, see below...

(4) The conductor of the train, however, has the right to throw you off the train at any time, on his sole authority. In fact, you're required to obey the majority of the orders of the conductor while on the train -- the law is modeled on the rules for the captain of a ship.

(5) So if the conductor wants you to cooperate with the police, then legally you have to do so until you're off the train.

(6) If, on the other hand, the conductor thinks the police are being obnoxious troublemakers, he can kick THEM off the train. This HAS happened.

After bad behavior by the border patrol, the previous head of Amtrak Police sent an order that the trains would not be delayed by border patrol (if the border patrol got on and weren't off by the time the train was leaving, the border patrol had a one-way trip to the next station, and they would then be thrown off for not having tickets -- they could find their way back on their own!). He also kicked the TSA off of all Amtrak property for a while, when THEY were behaving badly.

Does that explain the basic idea? Basically, you surrender your rights to *the conductor*. If you refuse a search and the conductor doesn't like that, then you will get thrown off the train. If you refuse a search but the conductor thinks the police are just on a fishing expedition and is angry at them, then they will get thrown off the train. There are more subtleties but the principle is that the conductor is in charge.

If the conductor went along with the police, and threw you off the train, and it was then found that the police had been engaging in constitutionally prohibited searches, the *police* would be liable to you for the costs and trouble you incurred, as the prime cause of the trouble. I would guess that Amtrak probably wouldn't be liable, because the conductor could usually say that he was acting on the reasonable assumption that the police were obeying the law. Of course crooked right-wing courts have been granting police all kinds of immunity from responsibility for their crimes, so who knows whether the criminal police would ever pay up.


----------



## Nathanael (Nov 15, 2012)

> Amtrak has in place a range of behind-the-scenes and front-line security measures aimed at improving passenger rail security, some of which are conducted on an unpredictable or random basis. These include *uniformed police officers and K-9 units in stations and**on trains**,*


This refers to Amtrak Police and police specifically brought in or authorized by Amtrak. Random local police are not part the security measures which "Amtrak has in place".

However, most people don't realize how much legal power a conductor has on a train -- the law on this really is modeled on the law for ship captains, except with more leeway for throwing people off the train ('cause, you know, you can't really justify throwing people into the ocean). Do not upset the conductor!

Ships were the example they had to work from when they designed railway law way back in the 19th century, so it's the example they used. The law on this stuff is really very complicated and largely judge-made, and I'm probably getting bits of wrong. There's a weird combination of local jurisdictional law still applying (which it usually does), and not applying (the general rule was, local law doesn't apply if it would delay the trains, which is a matter of interstate commerce). Not all conductors even realize this.


----------



## Linda T (Nov 15, 2012)

Nathanael said:


> the law on this really is modeled on the law for ship captains, except with more leeway for throwing people off the train ('cause, you know, you can't really justify throwing people into the ocean).


We really need *like* buttons. :giggle:


----------



## tricia (Nov 15, 2012)

In other government-agent search contexts, particularly ones where it's unclear exactly what the law is, it can make a legal difference after the fact (ie, if/when you're heading to court, either because you've been arrested or because you're suing for a civil rights violation) if you say clearly and preferably in front of a witness: I do NOT consent to this search.

If you take that position and feel compelled to back down if you're about to be thrown off the train, it couldn't hurt to at that point add: I'm only allowing you to do this under duress. I have not freely consented to this search.

And I agree with Linda T that we really need "like" buttons!


----------



## gdj (Nov 15, 2012)

One thing that will help protect you, if you believe you may be in a position where you need to file a formal complaint or even sue is to record the conversation. I must caution that you need to *be aware of what the state laws *are regarding recording. My home state is a one party consent state. Hence, you can discreetly record a conversation without disclosing that you are recording. You can buy a small digital recorder at most electionics counters which will suffice. The recording will conclusively prove whether you gave consent, were intimidated into giving consent, etc.


----------



## BC (Nov 16, 2012)

gdj said:


> One thing that will help protect you, if you believe you may be in a position where you need to file a formal complaint or even sue is to record the conversation. I must caution that you need to *be aware of what the state laws *are regarding recording. My home state is a one party consent state. Hence, you can discreetly record a conversation without disclosing that you are recording. You can buy a small digital recorder at most electionics counters which will suffice. The recording will conclusively prove whether you gave consent, were intimidated into giving consent, etc.


The Amtrak Contract of Carriage clearly states that the operating law is that of the District of Columbia.

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am/Layout&cid=1241337896164

http://www.amtrak.co...d=1241337896164
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am/Layout&cid=1241337896164


*Governing Law*
All travel on, and transactions with, Amtrak is governed by the laws of the District of Columbia, United States of America, without regards to its principles of conflicts of law. You agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of any Federal court located in the District of Columbia, United States of America, and waive any jurisdictional, venue or inconvenient forum objections to such courts.


----------



## PRR 60 (Nov 16, 2012)

BC said:


> The Amtrak Contract of Carriage clearly states that the operating law is that of the District of Columbia.
> 
> http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am/Layout&cid=1241337896164
> 
> ...


That concerns interactions between the passenger and Amtrak. It basically says that any legal action you take against Amtrak is governed by DC law. It is not for interactions between passengers and local police regarding criminal matters. Commit a crime on an Amtrak train, and you are arrested and prosecuted in the local jurisdiction under local laws.


----------



## Guest (Nov 16, 2012)

NW cannonball said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks, BC. I knew about there had to be a reason to enter a dwelling even with notice, but didn't go into that part. I mainly wanted to clarify that the landlord's admittedly limited right to enter are not limited or controlled by the 4th amendment guarantees against unreasonable search, since he's not acting as an agent of the government.
> ...


Not sure what the operating principle is for Amtrak, but certainly as an airline passenger I'm checked both for security reasons and to detect contraband. When my baggage is checked in at the airline counter, I consent to both an airline and a TSA search. There was an infamous case where someone transported a few hard bricks of marijuana, and instead of confiscating or calling for law enforcement, the TSA agent left a note to the effect of "Are you kidding me?" When someone arrives on an international flight, Customs definitely checks for contraband. I've had stuff prodded and thrown away. When I drive from Nevada to California, there's a California Dept of Agriculture checkpoint where they ask if you've brought and fruit or vegetables and can search your car randomly.

As an airline passenger I've been checked for all sorts of things. On an international flight back to the US, I've had my bags sniffed by Dept of Agriculture dogs. Even flying from Honolulu to San Francisco, my carry on bag was flagged for a Dept of Agriculture check.

http://hawaii.gov/hn...ture-inspection


----------



## NAVYBLUE (Nov 17, 2012)

Nathanael said:


> There are some subtle issues here. These are rough descriptions.
> 
> (1) The Omaha police do not have a right to search your cabin or belongings without probable cause.
> 
> ...


Unfortunately you are incorrect and you DO NOT have to cooperate with the police. Here is case law.

"When police conduct a search, the amendment requires that the warrant establishes probable cause to believe that the search will uncover criminal activity or contraband. They must have legally sufficient reasons to believe a search is necessary. In _Carroll v. United States_, 267 U.S. 132 (1925), the Supreme Court stated that probable cause to search is a flexible, common-sense standard. To that end, the Court ruled in _Dumbra v. United States_, 268 U.S. 435 (1925), that the term probable cause means "less than evidence that would justify condemnation," reiterating _Carroll's_ assertion that it merely requires that the facts available to the officer would "warrant a man of reasonable caution" in the belief that specific items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime.[42] It does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false. A "practical, non-technical" probability that incriminating evidence is involved is all that is required.[43] In _Illinois v. Gates_, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), the Supreme Court ruled that the reliability of an informant is to be determined based on the "totality of the circumstances."

The conductor has NO legal authority. His authority extends to the "safe" operation of an AMTRAK consist. He has NO legal authority to TELL you that you have to copperate with a police officer. He is not an attorney. Do not put your faith in him/her. A police officer CAN NOT search your personal items unless he has a "seach warrant: in your LEGAL NAME. He can search your belongings if you are stupid enough to agree to it. And yes you are STUPID if you do agree.

IF he has a drug sniffing dog who alerts on your belongings. THEN he has RAS and can search your belongings without your permission and/or a warrant. Otherwise the conversation is:

"No, you can not search my belongings officer without a warrant."

"This conversation has ended officer and I do not consent to any further questioning."

They are NOT allowed to go fishing and the conductor has no LEGAL authority to allow them to go fishing.

We in Las Vegas go through this a lot with the Las Vegas Metro PD and they continue to get educated by the citizens knowledgeable in case law about searches.

And no, you do not surrender your rights to the conductor as he does not have the power to make you surrender those rights.

Unfortunatley a majority of Americans actually think police officers know the law. They unfortunately have very poor verbal comprehension skills as evidenced by LVMPD having to retrain every police officer over the last (12) months about Nevada weapons open carry regulations and car searches.

Please don't put your faith in the majority of law enforcement. You could end up dead.

NAVYBLUE


----------



## Nathanael (Nov 17, 2012)

"He has NO legal authority to TELL you that you have to copperate with a police officer."

Correct, but he can still throw you off the train if he tells you to cooperate with a police officer, and you don't. *Even if he has no real justification*.

So if you're concerned about being thrown off the train, it's important to realize that the conductor has a lot of discretionary power. He doesn't have the power to make you surrender your rights, but *he does have the power to remove you from the train*, even on flimsy and unreasonable pretexts. His power to do that *will* be upheld most of the time, and you probably *won't* win damages against Amtrak after you get thrown off.

Personally, I'm not generally concerned about being thrown off the train, and would stand up for my rights even if it meant being thrown off the train. But for those who have other priorities, they should know this.


----------



## hessjm (Nov 17, 2012)

NAVYBLUE said:


> The conductor has NO legal authority. His authority extends to the "safe" operation of an AMTRAK consist. He has NO legal authority to TELL you that you have to copperate with a police officer. He is not an attorney. Do not put your faith in him/her.


Conductors operating in Michigan can place you under arrest, so I suggest you do as they say while riding the Michigan trains. Boisterous conduct covers a broad spectrum of activities.

From Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated:

462.255 Conduct as misdemeanor; penalty; powers of conductor or freight agent; duties of

police officer; jurisdiction of court.

Sec. 255. (1) A person who, while riding in the car of a freight, passenger, or other train on any railroad in

this state, uses or utters indecent, obscene, or profane language in the hearing of other passengers, riotously or

boisterously conducts himself or herself to the annoyance of other passengers, or who obtains or attempts to

obtain money or property from any passenger or person by means of any game or device, shall, on conviction,

be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not to exceed $100.00, or imprisonment for not to exceed

90 days, or both.

(2) Railroad conductors are hereby invested with the powers of sheriffs and constable in regard to offenses

under this section occurring upon trains or cars in their charge, and may arrest and detain a person who

violates this section until the car or train arrives at a usual stopping place, where the conductor may deliver

the person to a police officer with a written statement specifying generally the offense or offenses the person

has committed.

(3) If a police officer is not present to receive the person, the conductor may deliver him or her to the ticket

or freight agent at that stopping place, with the statement. The freight agent shall detain the offender in his or

her custody, and may exercise the powers of sheriffs and constables in regard to persons charged with crimes

in doing so, until a police officer may be obtained to take charge of the offender.

(4) The police officer shall institute a complaint against the person for the alleged offense before the

district or municipal court of the judicial district or municipality in which the offense was committed. The

court shall have jurisdiction to try the offender and to impose the penalties authorized by this section.

History: 1993, Act 354, Imd. Eff. Jan. 14, 1994.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 17, 2012)

NAVYBLUE said:


> The conductor has NO legal authority. His authority extends to the "safe" operation of an AMTRAK consist. He has NO legal authority to TELL you that you have to copperate with a police officer. He is not an attorney. Do not put your faith in him/her.


That feeling of moral superiority will do approximately nothing when you're standing on the ground in the middle of the night watching the markers recede in the distance while you're hundreds of miles from home.

It'll do just about the same thing when you call Amtrak and they confirm that the conductor was within his rights to toss you off the train and refuse to provide a refund or voucher.

If you're lucky, the cops will give you a lift to a hotel or the bus station, but considering you were just a pain in their @$$, I wouldn't hold out a lot of hope for that either - hopefully your cell phone is charged and you can call a cab!


----------



## NAVYBLUE (Nov 17, 2012)

hessjm said:


> NAVYBLUE said:
> 
> 
> > The conductor has NO legal authority. His authority extends to the "safe" operation of an AMTRAK consist. He has NO legal authority to TELL you that you have to copperate with a police officer. He is not an attorney. Do not put your faith in him/her.
> ...



"The Claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."

*Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486. 489*

You do understand that according to the above USSC case refusing to answer a police officers questions does NOT violate any of the Michigan laws above UNLESS I am using profane language or am "boisterous" which I do NOT do when being questioned by a police officer.

Also as someone who has read the Constitution and some case law I understand my rights. Feel free to "bend over" and take it if that is your desire but "the boys" and my attorney has won cases in Nevada along these illegal search lines. He has told us to NOT answer any question or allow searches without a warrant in our legal name.

Every one has their own choices to make. If removed from the train, I will be removed with my checked bags, (2) weapons and the permits to carry in (30) states and can defend myself from the "boggey man" at the station. And if I am let off in a state where I am not authorized to carry I still will have access to them to protect myself in a life and death situation. Better tb tried by (12) than carried by (6).

And yes, I will sue AMTRAK, the police department, the county and I will sue the conductor in civil court. And please don't tell me you can't sue AMTRAK because they are the government.

That being said you people can do whatever you feel comfortable doing.

NAVYBLUE


----------



## NAVYBLUE (Nov 17, 2012)

Ryan said:


> NAVYBLUE said:
> 
> 
> > The conductor has NO legal authority. His authority extends to the "safe" operation of an AMTRAK consist. He has NO legal authority to TELL you that you have to copperate with a police officer. He is not an attorney. Do not put your faith in him/her.
> ...


Read my reply to hessjm. It explains my position. Pain in the ass to some but exercising your rights to others. As I told hessjm, feel fre to "bend over" as much as you like.

NAVYBLUE


----------



## Ryan (Nov 17, 2012)

It isn't so much "bending over" (whatever that's supposed to mean) as much as it is living by the rules you agree to when you purchase a train ticket.

If having to do what you're told by a conductor bothers you that much, stay off the train.


----------



## pennyk (Nov 17, 2012)

Ryan said:


> It isn't so much "bending over" (whatever that's supposed to mean) as much as it is living by the rules you agree to when you purchase a train ticket.
> 
> If having to do what you're told by a conductor bothers you that much, stay off the train.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 17, 2012)

NAVYBLUE said:


> And yes, I will sue AMTRAK, the police department, the county and I will sue the conductor in civil court. And please don't tell me you can't sue AMTRAK because they are the government.


I missed this on the first pass - what exactly are you going to sue them for?

Here's what you agree to when you buy a ticket:



> A ticket shall be valid for carriage or refund one year after date of purchase, unless otherwise provided.
> ​
> Reservations must be made when required, and tickets are not transferable. In order to ensure the quality of travel and safety and security of its passengers,
> ​
> ...


----------



## NW cannonball (Nov 18, 2012)

Ryan said:


> NAVYBLUE said:
> 
> 
> > And yes, I will sue AMTRAK, the police department, the county and I will sue the conductor in civil court. And please don't tell me you can't sue AMTRAK because they are the government.
> ...



There's two *totally *different things being discussed here.

I am Not A Lawyer.

*One is - *the "contract of carriage" - under which any passenger consents to reasonable search by Amtrak (which is *not* government) as Ryan detailed above. This is a personal contract between the passenger and the carrier. The Conductor is like the pilot of the airplane or the captain of the ship -- has the right and duty to eject any passenger who threatens the safety or comfort of the plane,ship,train,conveyance, whatever. The terms of the contract are entered into freely between the carrier and the passenger. You buy the ticket, you consent to the terms. The carrier can dump you anywhere within reason if you violate the terms of the contract.

*Two is -* Constitutional rights -- outside of the contract - if the *Government *suspects you of criminal conduct. They have to get a warrant or witness the crime.

The contract of carriage is *totally separate *from the rights of any agent of any government to search.

So, local cops, Border Patrol (how they love to walk through the EB - hoping every second that they don't get re-assigned to the southern border) - DEA , whatever agents of Government - have totally restrained rules for search and seizure - constrained by the Constitution and more or less obeyed.

In the passengers relationship with Amtrak civil law - contract - they can throw you off the train.

Criminal law, government - can't search without a warrant.

Different things - but try and figure it out at 2 AM .

The OP was worried about local cops searching with no warrant- a legitimate concern


----------



## Ryan (Nov 18, 2012)

NW cannonball said:


> The contract of carriage is *totally separate *from the rights of any agent of any government to search.


It ceases to be totally separate (from a practical consideration) when the conductor says "This officer is going to search your sleeping compartment, or you're going to be put off the train". If you want to continue your journey, you consent to the search. If you don't consent to the search, you find yourself at "any inhabited place" watching the markers recede into the distance.


----------



## Everydaymatters (Nov 18, 2012)

It's sad that we're having this discussion. My only encounter with a LEO has been a speeding ticket :blink: but I remember from my school classes that you have the right to refuse to be searched and the odds were great you wouldn't have to worry about it anyhow. Those classes were many years ago and I'm wondering if the law has changed since then?

Prior to 9/11 we were all living in a world where we felt safe and protected. Now we're given the choice of complying or facing the consequences. For myself, I don't care if they search as I have nothing to hide, but still, it just isn't right.

NavyBlue - do you really think Amtrak, the police department, the county and the conductor care if you sue? Do you think they'll give it much thought if you win? It's not going to change anything so why would you want to go through all that? IMHO you are right that they shouldn't have that much power, but why go through so much when it's easier to simply allow the search?


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Nov 18, 2012)

Ryan said:


> It ceases to be totally separate (from a practical consideration) when the conductor says "This officer is going to search your sleeping compartment, or you're going to be put off the train". If you want to continue your journey, you consent to the search. If you don't consent to the search, you find yourself at "any inhabited place" watching the markers recede into the distance.


That is a very big "What if" question.

Nobody has ever report this happening.

Only thing that happen is:

A) The police have cause to stop you, and search.

B) The police officer is plain clothing doing a soft interview. When they are doing a soft interview "Just say No". Once they ID themselves then they need cause.

Having that person who you had dinner with, walk up to continue talking to you about there politics, is handle the same way. "Sorry I don't want to talk to you". Sure it's rude, but unless they pull out a Police ID / Badge or are wear a uniform "Just say no".


----------



## oregon pioneer (Nov 18, 2012)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > It ceases to be totally separate (from a practical consideration) when the conductor says "This officer is going to search your sleeping compartment, or you're going to be put off the train". If you want to continue your journey, you consent to the search. If you don't consent to the search, you find yourself at "any inhabited place" watching the markers recede into the distance.
> ...


As I think I said earlier in this discussion, one of my good friends who loves to travel Amtrak had exactly that happen to him this year at Reno on the CZ. Solely on the basis of profiling his looks (60-ish, gray hair and full beard), or some other cue that they homed in on, they told him they would search his roomette NOW, or take him off the train with his luggage (to wait for the warrant while the train went on), if he insisted on a warrant. He allowed, because he wanted to get home. They found nothing (precisely what I would have expected with him), and he continued his trip homeward.


----------



## Blackwolf (Nov 18, 2012)

*sigh* Not something that most people have the ability to utilize, but if said Law Enforcement look to rouse me or my wife on our trip in three weeks on the basis of search, they will be flashed with a badge of my own. And the conductor will be involved. If the conductor insists that our accommodation will be searched, then so be it, but with the remark of us not consenting.

They will not find anything. And for the record, the last time I was pulled over by a law enforcement officer (profiling, I had not done anything or had any probable reason for the traffic stop aside from traveling through a National Forest that has a large problem with illegal marijuana plantations) I was requested to submit to a search. I declined. A Federal DEA officer was called to the scene, and I was asked again to submit to search. I declined a second time. I was kind, pleasant and not at all rude with either officer, even smiling as they asked me questions. Without any further reason to detain me, I was released without any charge or ticket. It goes to show that, unless they really have something damning against you, a lot of the search requests are a rouse and are unfounded. The Amtrak situation may be unique, but not hopeless.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Nov 18, 2012)

I've refused searches of vehicles as well. All they did was ask me again a second time and when I again refused they simply let me go. I'm not sure what reasoning would explain why an Amtrak roomette should be that much different from a rental car. In both cases I would expect them to produce a warrant or have probable cause to detain me or to search objects in my possession or under my control. Seems like something isn't quite right about detaining people to wait for a warrant that is unlikely to be granted without probable cause. Since refusal to consent is not itself probable cause I'm not sure what their reasoning would be. Seems like a textbook case for abuse of power to me. As for those who keep pointing out that this means you'd be left behind, yes we know that is a risk. For some folks risking a delay of their holiday is where their rights end, but for others that's exactly where our rights _begin_.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Nov 18, 2012)

oregon pioneer said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


I readed both of your post and it sound like the police officer was making the threat to remove the pax off the train. Ryan's "What if" question was about the conductor tell the pax that this police officer was going to search your room and if you did not allow, the conductor was going to toss you off the train. Two different issues. Conductor boss of train with the power to make your trip eventful. Police officer has to follow the laws of the United States of America.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 18, 2012)

I gave the cop enough credit to be smart enough to know that he couldn't compel compliance, but that he could work through the conductor to put him off the train. If it didn't happen in that situation, it's still a hypothetical, but I wouldn't think it that unlikely depending on the conductor (and remembering that the Conductor works the same territory, so he's likely to run across the same group of cops again and again.



Texas Sunset said:


> I'm not sure what reasoning would explain why an Amtrak roomette should be that much different from a rental car.


Logically, I agree. In practice, Amtrak has the T&C's written in a way that the Conductor can do what he pleases - not something that exists once you've rolled the rental car off the property.


----------



## BCL (Nov 19, 2012)

I would note that I've traveled in foreign countries where buses and trains boarded in secure areas, where my luggage was X-rayed, and I was required to walk through a metal detector.

OTOH- I'm not sure how much of this is just for show. One time I went to a consulate to get a tourist visa, the place had uniformed security and a metal detector. I was about to leave the line to put my Swiss Army knife back in my car, but security said it was OK. Heck - I remember when I used to carry a small one on a chain around my neck, and airport security said a small pocket knife was OK.


----------



## oregon pioneer (Dec 12, 2012)

BTW, I just came through on the CZ about 10 days ago. I saw no sign of police in my sleeper car, but I had discussed the situation with a breakfast companion in coach, and here's what she reported to me later:

Two policemen boarded in Reno. They came through the train as it left westbound. They homed in on a young man just a couple of rows away, and asked him politely ("Now, we know you're just a fine young man, wouldn't do anything illegal, but would you mind if we just looked in that bag..."). He gave permission (she said he looked scared, and she figured she had a right to watch and was just kneeling on her seat looking back two rows at them), and they searched the bag. Then they went into the vestibule of the next car up, and had a discussion between themselves. They returned two more times, each time asking to see more, till they had gone through everything he had. Then they asked him how much money he had with him ("not over $1,000?"). Then they left him alone, and got off at Truckee.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha (Dec 13, 2012)

oregon pioneer said:


> BTW, I just came through on the CZ about 10 days ago. I saw no sign of police in my sleeper car, but I had discussed the situation with a breakfast companion in coach, and here's what she reported to me later:
> 
> Two policemen boarded in Reno. They came through the train as it left westbound. They homed in on a young man just a couple of rows away, and asked him politely ("Now, we know you're just a fine young man, wouldn't do anything illegal, but would you mind if we just looked in that bag..."). He gave permission (she said he looked scared, and she figured she had a right to watch and was just kneeling on her seat looking back two rows at them), and they searched the bag. Then they went into the vestibule of the next car up, and had a discussion between themselves. They returned two more times, each time asking to see more, till they had gone through everything he had. Then they asked him how much money he had with him ("not over $1,000?"). Then they left him alone, and got off at Truckee.


Since this was Westbound it sounds like they may have been looking for a targeted mule returning home with a stash of cash from a delivery. Dope goes East, Dough goes West.


----------

