# Police Activity Aboard California Zephyr



## ColdRain&Snow (Dec 31, 2011)

In a recent entry in my travel journal written while riding the westbound _California Zephyr_, I captured the details of what was a strange experience when we got to Reno. After walking around the trench for a bit, I reboarded and tuned into my scanner as we were preparing to depart. One of the conductors mentioned to his AC that the police had boarded the train. Neither knew where they had gone, so the conductor asked the engineer to whistle off so the cops would know to detrain. Within a minute, the conductor instructed the engineer to highball Reno and conjectured that they may be riding to Truckee. As we pulled out, I recalled reading past trip reports about Reno police boardings similar to this.

About 10 minutes later, I heard knocking on the bedroom doors down the hall from mine. As they got closer to my room, I could discern that they were undercover cops rousting the occupants of each bedroom and asking various questions. My curtain and door were open, and without notice, one of the UCs began to "peek" into my room and then quickly withdraw. Though I found it amusing, it also annoyed me so I called him out and asked him to stop doing it. At that time, both he and his partner walked into my doorway and asked if they could speak with me. Alas, I invited them to "come on in." After showing me his badge, he apologized "for acting sketchy" which I found to be funny since it's usually the cops accusing the perps of as much. He asked me my name and then pulled out a small notepad full of what looked like people's names. After scanning his list, he again apologized and said that I wasn't the guy they were looking for. Though the overall interaction was not a major imposition, it could have been handled with a bit more professionalism. My napping neighbors would later tell me that they were put off by the experience.

But it was the parting comments by one of the UCs that bothered me. Before he left, he took a long, slow look around my room and then warned me to carefully watch over my valuables, elaborating that there has been a serious issue with theft on the Zephyr. Huh? I try to follow Amtrak pretty closely, and I have never heard about a theft problem on this train. So, that leaves me with a few questions and concerns:

1. Has anyone heard of a theft issue on the _California Zephyr_? Did I miss this somehow?

2. If he made it up, what legitimate purpose would he have to do so? Needlessly alarming Amtrak passengers is bad for Amtrak, regardless of what his rationale might be.

I would like to pass this information on to someone at Amtrak, perhaps the station manager for Reno, just so s/he is aware of what's being communicated during these boardings. And it would also be helpful if we could confirm or repudiate this alleged theft issue on the Zephyrs.


----------



## Blackwolf (Dec 31, 2011)

Hmm... If it were me, I'd be calling up Amtrak Police in the least and asking some questions, but maybe a letter to Amtrak Chief of Police John O'Connor would not be a bad idea? I take the risk of theft while traveling on Amtrak passively, and follow the "Out of Sight, Out of Mind" motto for personal items. I would have had some issues with the officers, but then again, I have a badge I can flash right back.


----------



## pebbleworm (Dec 31, 2011)

Reno cops seem to have taken Reno 911 to heart and harass rail passengers whenever possible. I won't even go out on the platform when transiting that god forsaken city... Those boys in blue need something to do.


----------



## tp49 (Dec 31, 2011)

There are issues on the Zephyr but they're not with theft. Been going on for years and every now and then what is uncovered makes the news.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 31, 2011)

tp49 said:


> There are issues on the Zephyr but they're not with theft. Been going on for years and every now and then what is uncovered makes the news.


Let me guess: Drugs?


----------



## conductor_okj (Dec 31, 2011)

Drugs.....and durring the holiday travels theft does occure, usually to valuable electronics left un-attended in coach. PD is just looking out for you....unfortunately with low fares the greyhound crowd seems to ride amtrak more and more.


----------



## Steve4031 (Dec 31, 2011)

As witnessed in Dallas and in a few other places , drugs trafficking is an issue on most routes, not just the cz. Just like we apppreciate not going through security, drug dealers appreciate/use easier forms of travel too. In their minds, it's good business sense. Unfortunately for passengers on Amtrak, they are now subjected to more police activity as they look for the drugs.

In the case discussed above, imho, the police could have been less intrusive by asking the conductor for the manifest. Asking passenger their names, and then writing the name down makes no sense and is intrusive.

If the criminal just boarded, the conductor could help narrow the search by identifying rooms that were open before arrival in Reno. I'm not a police officer, so I don't really know what this was all about.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Dec 31, 2011)

ColdRain&Snow said:


> 1. Has anyone heard of a theft issue on the _California Zephyr_? Did I miss this somehow?
> 
> 2. If he made it up, what legitimate purpose would he have to do so? Needlessly alarming Amtrak passengers is bad for Amtrak, regardless of what his rationale might be.
> 
> ...also be helpful if we could confirm or repudiate this alleged theft issue on the Zephyrs.


I don't follow the CZ specifically, but I've not heard of any theft issues on the CZ either. Whether they had any business doing what they were doing is not my place to say, but it sounds like he was practicing that classic 'rear guard' action known as CYA. :huh:

IMHO actions like his are how rumors get started. Next thing you know we will have another 'unsolved mystery' like the 'theft' issues reported at SAS a while back... :wacko:


----------



## jphjaxfl (Dec 31, 2011)

Wow! that reminds me of when I took the Direct Orient from Istanbul to Paris in 1971. When crossing the Bulgarian frontier during the middle of the night, the police came on board and woke up everyone in the Wagon Lit to check passports and questioned people. At other frontier crossings, during the night, the Wagon Lit conductor would collect tickets and passports to show to the police and no one was usually woke up. Of course that was when Bulgaria was a communist country and somewhat of a police state.


----------



## VentureForth (Dec 31, 2011)

Funny statement considering that lately many in the press have referred to Amtrak as a Soviet-era operation. I don't think so. We have much better equipment and food than the Soviets had...

From from a perspective of liberty... I degress...


----------



## Shanghai (Dec 31, 2011)

We were awakend by the Immigration Police when crossing the border

from the Czech Republic into to Germany in the DB sleeper car. They

pounded on the door, looked at our passports and left.


----------



## jis (Dec 31, 2011)

VentureForth said:


> Funny statement considering that lately many in the press have referred to Amtrak as a Soviet-era operation. I don't think so. We have much better equipment and food than the Soviets had...
> 
> From from a perspective of liberty... I degress...


In my experience, the phrase "Soviet-era" is thrown about rather loosely in the US, and most who use it have no clue what Soviet era in Soviet Union was like and how good they have it in the US even in spite of all the bureaucracy and incompetence. We always have a chuckle or two about it with my Soviet era Russian friends.

I had crossed the iron curtain border at Hagyashelom between Austria and Hungary, and that was during daytime and it was certainly more unpleasant than crossing the border between US and Canada anyday. Heck crossing from Finland into post Soviet Russia at Vyborg, was quite an impressive experience too, complete with dogs and officious looking moustacheoed guy with a cap large than his head sniffing around the whole cabin and under the seat etc. It was time consuming but quite comical. In the reverse direction i.e. Russia to Finland the Russians spent more time dicking around in Vyborg. The Finns at Vanaikkala just took a cursory look at the papers and that was it, as long as you were not Russian and young it seemed. They were more interested in interdicting young Russians going to Finland to earn some money in interesting ways.


----------



## zepherdude (Dec 31, 2011)

Shanghai said:


> We were awakend by the Immigration Police when crossing the border
> 
> from the Czech Republic into to Germany in the DB sleeper car. They
> 
> pounded on the door, looked at our passports and left.


This makes me think of all the spy movies I have ever seen with ***** type men demanding "Papers". Then the horrible phrase, "Come with me". I have been checked on the LSL at Buffalo and the Sunset Limited somewhere along the route, sometimes in LAX. Never on the Zephyr, however.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha (Dec 31, 2011)

I was "checked" ever so briefly by Border Patrol on the _*LSL*_ in Buffalo. As I was passing from the Sleeper to the Diner, an Agent coming the other way very politely asked me my nationality, thanked me and went about her duty. One other agent even took time to explain for me what they are doing and how they can spot potential problems "on the fly."


----------



## Bob Dylan (Dec 31, 2011)

In over 50 years of Travel, both in the USA and Internationally, the most hassles and biggest delays Ive experienced were when arriving into the USA, especially since the Security Circus that has been created since 9-11 has been implemented! The friendliest? Mexico and Canada! :wub: The scariest, as has been said, crossing Iron Curtain Borders back in the Cold War Days! The rudest and most officious, the USA wins again! :angry2: (Im not on any "Lists", have a valid Passport and am an Anglo Male that used to be clean cut and well dressed!(not that our guys would profile anyone! :lol: )


----------



## ColdRain&Snow (Dec 31, 2011)

On one hand, I can fully appreciate that police have a challenging job dealing with a sometimes shadowy opponent. In my own life experience, the scourge of drugs snuffed out the life of my older brother, so I certainly appreciate that efforts are being taken to keep them off the trains I ride.

But my recent experience with the Reno police left me scratching my head. It's hard to know how much of what I saw was real versus ruse. The undercover officer pulled out a notepad which he appeared to check my name against before declaring that I was the wrong guy. This would imply that he already knew the name of his person of interest. As Steve4031 points out, why not simply obtain an advance copy of the manifest from Reno Amtrak and preemptively compare the names against it without invoking the heavy handedness of rousting bedroom occupants?

Regarding the UC's admonition that I should _carefully_ watch over my valuables due to a "serious" onboard theft issue, I am left questioning his sincerity. Forcing bedroom occupants to respond to knocks on their door does not sound like an effort to address theft prevention. And if the intrusions were all about drug interdiction, then they should have said as much. As far as I know, theft in the sleepers has not been an issue, so floating a trial balloon out there that it is only hurts Amtrak needlessly.

I am certainly in favor of keeping Amtrak trains safe and riffraff free. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater by giving law enforcement free reign to speak and act with impunity while onboard Amtrak's trains. In my estimation, the Reno Police Department crossed this line a few weeks ago.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Dec 31, 2011)

Were these guys dressed like the idiots in Reno 911?? Perhaps it was an episode of the TV Show or a sequel to the Movie!! :lol: :lol: :lol: Actually, if it was a drug thing, unless it was a "tip" bust, there should have been dogs present to sniff out the drugs! More Security Theater, meanwhile Real Crime goes on all around us!!!


----------



## PerRock (Dec 31, 2011)

As to the Reno incident, we know they were undercover but do we know that they were specifically on the Narc Squad? They may have been Robbery UCs; looking for a known theif; who intel suggested might be traveling on the CZ that day. I know generally when we civilians think of UCs we think of Narc UCs, but there are other UC departments.

Personally I've only been bothered on board once by CBP, it was on the EB & I was still fairly young (Middle School) so my mom handled them. I've been sniffed by Dogs at BOS, WAS & CHI; but that really doesn't count, the most they say is "keep moving".

The best Border Crossing incident I've dealt with personally (my parents have dealt with some for the family while I was with them) was crossing back into the UK from France. When the UK Border Agency questioned me. I was asked where I was going, so I listed: Oxford, Stonehenge, Portsmouth, and departing out of Heathrow. She then asked me "What do you plan on doing at ...[pause]... Stonehenge?"

peter


----------



## The Chief (Dec 31, 2011)

Steve4031 said:


> As witnessed in Dallas and in a few other places , drugs trafficking is an issue on most routes,


Actually, *Steve*, there remains no evidentiary support of *Dallas Amtrak* having any drug trafficking issue. The (internal) investigation continues on DPD killing a passenger, who did _not_ have any drugs, but reportedly had a handgun (drawn). That shooting -- by _plainclothes police officers only_ -- also wounded another PAX _and _a fellow officer. I'm interested in your intel that drug trafficking is an issue on most routes.



jimhudson said:


> Were these guys dressed like the idiots in Reno 911??


*Jim* here's a link to my photo and similar *CZ*-Reno PD thread this board.



ColdRain&Snow said:


> But my recent experience with the Reno police left me scratching my head. It's hard to know how much of what I saw was real versus ruse. In my estimation, the Reno Police Department crossed this line a few weeks ago.


*Jeff*, this indeed sounds a bit heavy-handed by local (Reno) PD. If not heavy-handed, then poor "service." But the days of "To _Serve_ and Protect" are long gone here. Names on a PAX manifest should be available to LEOs who have a _valid_ legal reason.

Dry Cleaners and Local Cops are the only two professions I know who NEVER admit to making a mistake,,,


----------



## AlanB (Dec 31, 2011)

ColdRain&Snow said:


> Regarding the UC's admonition that I should _carefully_ watch over my valuables due to a "serious" onboard theft issue, I am left questioning his sincerity. Forcing bedroom occupants to respond to knocks on their door does not sound like an effort to address theft prevention. And if the intrusions were all about drug interdiction, then they should have said as much. As far as I know, theft in the sleepers has not been an issue, so floating a trial balloon out there that it is only hurts Amtrak needlessly.


I would highly doubt that a cop from Reno would have any clue about theft onboard Amtrak. In most cases, any theft would be discovered after one was off the train, so the odds of a report being filed in Reno would be very small. It would be filed in the city where the person got off.


----------



## Steve4031 (Dec 31, 2011)

I stand corrected on the Dallas incident. However, over the past year or so I recall more reports of drug arrests aboard Amtrak.


----------



## leemell (Jan 1, 2012)

jimhudson said:


> In over 50 years of Travel, both in the USA and Internationally, the most hassles and biggest delays Ive experienced were when arriving into the USA, especially since the Security Circus that has been created since 9-11 has been implemented! The friendliest? Mexico and Canada! :wub: The scariest, as has been said, crossing Iron Curtain Borders back in the Cold War Days! The rudest and most officious, the USA wins again! :angry2: (Im not on any "Lists", have a valid Passport and am an Anglo Male that used to be clean cut and well dressed!(not that our guys would profile anyone! :lol: )


The rudest, most officious border crossing we ever participated in was from Braunschweig to Berlin in 1981. The train was stopped on West German side of the border, a new crew was put on the engine. The train was then moved about 500 feet to the East side and again stopped. Vopos (Volkspoltizei) on the platform (maybe 10-12) were all carrying submachine guns, other Vopos (maybe 6) were dog handlers who checked the entire outside of the cars and then inside the cars. A team of passport control officials boarded the train and moved through all the cars one compartment at a time demanding "papers" very loudly and very brusquely. ANYBODY who got the least bit out of conformance were in for a really bad time, including being pulled off the train a put in Politizei cars for a trip to the station. You never complain about customs again after that.


----------



## ColdRain&Snow (Jan 1, 2012)

Wow, I just reread the previous post that The_Chief cited above and now remember that whole episode reported by OTownDog. I commend him for his patience and restraint on that day. Had they treated me that way, I would in all likelihood have spent an unscheduled day in Reno taking my outrage directly to the police chief.

After watching the

 posted in the thread, it's clear that Reno PD Amtrak boardings are all about drug interdiction. One of the UCs in the video (Andy) was the one playing hide-and-seek at my bedroom door.
Why make up security rumors that reflect poorly upon Amtrak rather than state the truth that they're simply checking the train for drugs? Another case of law enforcement running amok.


----------



## leemell (Jan 1, 2012)

ColdRain&Snow said:


> Wow, I just reread the previous post that The_Chief cited above and now remember that whole episode reported by OTownDog. I commend him for his patience and restraint on that day. Had they treated me that way, I would in all likelihood have have spent an unscheduled day in Reno taking my outrage directly to the police chief.
> 
> After watching the



I don't know anything about the ruse if any, but I can tell you that the local PD is not interested about how it may affect Amtrak's public image. BTW, the courts have been very clear that the police can lie to suspects and the public with out criminal penalty while attempting to ferret out the truth.


----------



## A.J. (Jan 1, 2012)

the last time I took the zephyr we had an extra long stop in Reno. the reason was that several men in the lower level roomettes were carrying on them an extraordinary large quantity of marijuana. they got caught because they were stupid, basically. interestingly enough, the SCA later implied that undercover police/federal agents are on the CZ pretty regularly. i had a nice, front-row view out the window of the subsequent goings-on on the platform. some of the uniformed police were a bit more umm, zealous than the undercover fellows, whom I had seen on the train earlier. it was actually an interesting situation and for the most part the officers involved behaved calmly and extremely professionally. that said, i too would be a bit more leery if they were suddenly poking their noses into my compartment.


----------



## NAVYBLUE (Jan 1, 2012)

Although a majority of the LEOs I have met are professional, everyone needs to understand you are under NO obligation to interact with a police officer. We in Clark County(Las Vegas area) have a very zealous group who don't understand Nevada law on open carry of weapons who like to TRY to intimidate law abiding citizens. If I am on a train and and an officer approaches my sleeping compartment and asks me questions the reply AFTER I get his name and badge # is:

1. This conversation is NOT consensual.

2. Am I being charged with a violation of state or federal laws ?

3. As the answer from him/her can only be no, then my next rely is

4. Sir/madam, then this conversation has ended, I have not requested or approved a consensual conversation.

5. Am I free to continue my privacy.

You again are NOT required to give them your name, you are NOT required to prove who you are and you are NOT required to enter in to a conversation with them.

My brother and Uncle are former LEOs and I had some military LEO experience. I appreciate the the difficult conditions present LEOs work under now a days but I will not let them use me while they go on a fishing trip to find out what they are trying to find out.

The above is NULL and VOID If you are stopped for violating a law.

NAVYBLUE


----------



## Donctor (Jan 1, 2012)

jphjaxfl said:


> Wow! that reminds me of when I took the Direct Orient from Istanbul to Paris in 1971. When crossing the Bulgarian frontier during the middle of the night, the police came on board and woke up everyone in the Wagon Lit to check passports and questioned people. At other frontier crossings, during the night, the Wagon Lit conductor would collect tickets and passports to show to the police and no one was usually woke up. Of course that was when Bulgaria was a communist country and somewhat of a police state.


That still happens on overnight trains going into/out of Switzerland. It's fun.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 2, 2012)

NAVYBLUE said:


> Although a majority of the LEOs I have met are professional, everyone needs to understand you are under NO obligation to interact with a police officer. We in Clark County(Las Vegas area) have a very zealous group who don't understand Nevada law on open carry of weapons who like to TRY to intimidate law abiding citizens. If I am on a train and and an officer approaches my sleeping compartment and asks me questions the reply AFTER I get his name and badge # is:
> 
> 1. This conversation is NOT consensual.
> 
> ...


And all that officer needs to do is go get any Amtrak employee and have them demand your ID. And since a condition of your travel is that you must provide valid ID when asked by an Amtrak employee, you will either have to fork over that ID or find yourself watching the tail lights fade into the distance.

So frankly all you'd be doing by refusing the officer is making things harder for yourself, the Amtrak employees, and delaying the train and everyone on it.

And while I'd certainly defer to a lawyer's opinion, I rather suspect that by the fact that the officers were allowed on the train in an official capacity, it could well be argued that they do get the power to demand your ID because of the conditions of travel imposed upon you by Amtrak.


----------



## Everydaymatters (Jan 2, 2012)

NAVYBLUE said:


> Although a majority of the LEOs I have met are professional, everyone needs to understand you are under NO obligation to interact with a police officer. We in Clark County(Las Vegas area) have a very zealous group who don't understand Nevada law on open carry of weapons who like to TRY to intimidate law abiding citizens. If I am on a train and and an officer approaches my sleeping compartment and asks me questions the reply AFTER I get his name and badge # is:
> 
> 1. This conversation is NOT consensual.
> 
> ...


I lived in the Chicago area most of my life and I can tell you that you would never, ever want to speak like that to Chicago law enforcement. You'd be on on the losing side.


----------



## NAVYBLUE (Jan 2, 2012)

AlanB said:


> NAVYBLUE said:
> 
> 
> > Although a majority of the LEOs I have met are professional, everyone needs to understand you are under NO obligation to interact with a police officer. We in Clark County(Las Vegas area) have a very zealous group who don't understand Nevada law on open carry of weapons who like to TRY to intimidate law abiding citizens. If I am on a train and and an officer approaches my sleeping compartment and asks me questions the reply AFTER I get his name and badge # is:
> ...


My constitutional rights DO NOT stop when I get on an AMTRAK and if others are inconvenienced, so be it. NOW, if the conductor wants to see my ID, he will get it with my tickets with the statement "YOU are receiving my ID and my tickets to verify who I am. YOU may then tell the police officer I am NOT the person they are looking for. If, YOU give my ID to the law enforcement officer, then I am going to SUE you and AMTRAK for violating my rights by illegal search and seizure.

You sheeple can bend over and let them stick it to you, but I am not. Again I understand the tough job they are doing BUT my freedoms where fought and died for and I don't relinquish them to anyone. We do this all the time in Clark County especially at the DUI stops. None of my "group" has ever been arrested and we are always told we are free to go on with the window never being lowered more than a few inches to tell them the stop is not consensual and we are not answering any questions. Our large "group" are gun owners and since I know everyone of them fairly well I can tell you we have liberals, conservatives, independents, libertarians, couple of none of your business and white collar, blue collar, etc. Our common bond is gun ownership and pratice together

It is interesting that most are former military or former LEOs who were part of an organization with strict rules. Many are us are members of HOA neighborhood watch and patrol our neighborhood and interact with LEOS and do ride alongs with local LEOs so it's not like we are outcasts.

That being said, "When people fear the government you have tyranny, when the government fears the people you have freedom.

NAVYBLUE


----------



## AlanB (Jan 2, 2012)

NAVYBLUE said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > NAVYBLUE said:
> ...


Actually Amtrak can impose any conditions it wishes upon you for travel, within reason. No one is forcing you to buy the ticket, therefore Amtrak can impose any rules it sees fit. You then have the choice to either buy the ticket and obey or find another way to travel.

And this can easily be seen by the rule that if one fails to submit to a search by law enforcement, then one will receive a refund of one's ticket(s) and will not be permitted to travel on Amtrak.


----------



## Steve4031 (Jan 2, 2012)

Honestly, if im not doing anything wrong, I could care less. I don't do drugs, I don't drink. I just ride and look out the window. If the police go through the train with a drug dog, or ask me questions, I'll answer and let them move on. To do other wise IMHO distracts them and causes them to waste additional time on me rather than drug dealers.

Getting in a pissing match with an incompetent police officer is foolish and potentially dangerous for most people IMHO.


----------



## NAVYBLUE (Jan 2, 2012)

Everydaymatters said:


> NAVYBLUE said:
> 
> 
> > Although a majority of the LEOs I have met are professional, everyone needs to understand you are under NO obligation to interact with a police officer. We in Clark County(Las Vegas area) have a very zealous group who don't understand Nevada law on open carry of weapons who like to TRY to intimidate law abiding citizens. If I am on a train and and an officer approaches my sleeping compartment and asks me questions the reply AFTER I get his name and badge # is:
> ...


See reply to AlanB.

And don't give me the crapola about the bad ass Chicago cops. I always speak in a even tone and use sir and madam. They have to obey the same constitution as everyone one. I know they think they are the Stasi. If they arrest me, I will own the Chicago Cubs as everyone in the "group" carries a video pen that gets "accidentally" turned on during police encounters. And since AMTRAK is technically a government owned corporation we could get the present DOJ (sorry, forget that) involved as it may constitute a federal crime since I am 1/16 Shawnee. I can claim racial discrimination too !!

The NAVYBLUE Cubs. Has a certain ring to it.

I know the people in Illinois like to bend over and take it and they have had more congressman, senators, governors sent to prison than any other state but that doesn't mean I will give up my rights.

NAVYBLUE


----------



## Steve4031 (Jan 2, 2012)

You can have the cubs. They suck.


----------



## lthanlon (Jan 2, 2012)

Everydaymatters said:


> I lived in the Chicago area most of my life and I can tell you that you would never, ever want to speak like that to Chicago law enforcement. You'd be on on the losing side.


Agree completely.


----------



## NAVYBLUE (Jan 2, 2012)

Steve4031 said:


> You can have the cubs. They suck.


I hope to someday see a game there as I have been to Fenway Park and my Pittsburgh Pirates when they played at Forbes Field. I miss the old stadiums.

NAVYBLUE


----------



## amamba (Jan 2, 2012)

Actually, in many states one is required to identify themselves to police by name when asked.

This was decided by the Supreme Court in Hiibel vs. 6th Court of Nevada in 2004.

The supreme court held that giving a name does not violate the 4th or the 5th amendments.

You can find a reasonable summary of which states have so-called "stop and identify" statues here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

It sounds like NavyBlue will use his statements and line of questioning to assert that he is not being treated as a "terry stop" and thus would have no obligation to give his name during a "stop and identify".

"Stop and identify" and "stop and frisk" are becoming quite common in many places, and it very hard to fight these types of stops in court because all the officer needs is "reasonable suspicion", which legally, is pretty easy for them to obtain.

Personally, while I definitely be annoyed and frustrated if police officers had entered my sleeper as the OP experienced, I would just answer their questions so that they could be on their way as quickly as possible.

I am not a fan of what I consider to be heavy handed police tactics on the train.


----------



## Steve4031 (Jan 2, 2012)

IMHO, the problem here is that drug dealers have discovered Amtrak as a security free form if transportation. Any competent law enforcement agency is going to figure this out and this means more police activity in and around trains and the stations. So if one is traveling by train. Then police presence at times will be an issue. Still better than airports. G


----------



## NAVYBLUE (Jan 2, 2012)

amamba said:


> Actually, in many states one is required to identify themselves to police by name when asked.
> 
> This was decided by the Supreme Court in Hiibel vs. 6th Court of Nevada in 2004.
> 
> ...






You are RIGHT for the WRONG reasons. Here from caselaw.findlaw.com/nv-supremecourt.

*HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT*

* Larry D. HIIBEL, Petitioner, v. The SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of The State of Nevada, in and for the COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT, and the Honorable Richard A. Wagner, District Judge, Respondents, The State of Nevada, Real Party in Interest.*

* *

* No. 38876.*

* *

* -- December 20, 2002 *

Before the Court En Banc.

Steven G. McGuire, State Public Defender, and James P. Logan, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Carson City, for Petitioner.Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General, Carson City;  David G. Allison, District Attorney, and Conrad Hafen, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Humboldt County, for Real Party in Interest.

OPINION

The pertinent issue before us is whether NRS 171.123(3), which requires a person stopped under reasonable suspicion by a police officer to identify himself or herself, violates the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.   We conclude NRS 171.123(3) does not violate the Fourth Amendment because it strikes a balance between constitutional protections of privacy and the need to protect police officers and the public.   Therefore, Hiibel's petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

In pertinent part, NRS 171.123 provides:

1.   Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

․

3.   The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad.   Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.

4.   A person may not be detained longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the purposes of this section, and in no event longer than 60 minutes.

In response to a call from police dispatch, Humboldt County Sheriff's Deputy Lee Dove drove to the scene where a concerned citizen had observed someone striking a female passenger inside a truck.   There, Dove spoke to the concerned citizen and was directed to a parked truck.   When Dove approached the truck, he noticed skid marks in the gravel, suggesting the truck had been parked in a sudden and aggressive manner.   Dove saw Larry D. Hiibel standing outside the truck and thought he was intoxicated based on his eyes, mannerisms, speech, and odor.   Hiibel's minor daughter was in the passenger side of the truck.   When Dove asked Hiibel to identify himself, Hiibel refused.   Instead, Hiibel placed his hands behind his back and challenged the officer to take him to jail.

I and my "group" are intimately familiar with NRS 171.123(3) being Nevada residents. It has been tried on members of the group and the police officers lose the issue. This issue above was due to there being a "reasonable suspicion" by eyewitness account of truck, man and woman.

Here is what MY attorney says about RAS.

"Because reasonable suspicion gives officers legal authority to detain you, the _absence_ of reasonable suspicion does not require officers to tell you that you're free to leave. They will often use your uncertainty as an opportunity to ask probing questions even if the conversation is legally "voluntary". In such situations, it's up to you to determine if you're being detained or are free to go. Before answering an officer's questions, you may courteously ask "Officer, am I free to go?" If you're free to go, then go. If the officer's answer is unclear or he asks additional questions, you may persist by repeating "Officer, am I free to go?"

Keep in mind that refusing to answer an officers questions does _not_ create reasonable suspicion. But acting nervous and answering questions inconsistently can create reasonable suspicion. Also, you have the 4th Amendment right to refuse search requests, and your refusal does _not_ create reasonable suspicion.

If you are _not_ free to go, you are being detained. The officer might have some reason to suspect you of a crime, and you may be arrested. In such a situation, your magic words are "I'm going to remain silent. I would like to see a lawyer." These magic words are like a legal condom. Because anything you say can and will be used against you in court, they're your best protection if you're under arrest".

And no reasonable suspicion is NOT easy to obtain.

RAS is obtainable when under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

Please explain to me to me how I sitting in my sleeper room meet any of the conditions above. The answer is none and as such I do not have to identify myself to the "fishing LEO"

If a police officer approaches me he gets the canned response.

It prepares me and others in my group if we are unfortunately required to use our LEGALLy owned open carried/concealed weapon to defend our or a family members life.

All answers can and *WILL* be used against you. 95% of my encounters with LEOs have been professional and courteous. 5% have been me asking if I am free to go and then departing.

And this is not about weapons, it's about the law.

And please, never quote WIKI anything. You might as well just quote MSNBC. Sorry had to get the political jab in.

And yes, when stopped in a vehicle the LEO gets my respect, my drivers license, insurance papers, retired military ID card and (4) state concealed weapon permits. As both the former LEO relatives have told me the the 10-20 second walk up to a stopped car is the most stressful thing they do short of a gunfight. I also keep BOTH hands on the steering wheel until I get PERMISSION from the LEO to reach towards my glove box for my papers. At night I turn the inside dome light on. I want to make the stop as stress free for the LEO as possible. Now does that sound like someone who wants to make a police officers life miserable. I am not implying you implied that. I just want to let you and others I provide ID when it is REQUIRED.

NAVYBLUE


----------



## NAVYBLUE (Jan 2, 2012)

AlanB said:


> NAVYBLUE said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...




I will abide by "AMTRAK" rules because I read EVERY one of them on the website BEFORE I purchased my tickets.

Please show me EXACTLY on AMTRAK.com's website where I have to answer questions from a local LEO as I travel through their town once I have boarded. Not something you think but the actual section and verbiage.

I understand prior to my boarding that I am subject to a LEO checking my baggage at the station. Depending on their attitude and professionalism I will determine if I wish to continue NOT them.

Once I am on the train they will NOT search my carry on or any personal belonging without a search warrant. I'm sorry. It's the law whether the LEO or AMTRAK likes it or not.

People have to get over this idea that police officers can do anything that want as long as they look like its OK. Since most of you get filtered news and don't know what you don't know(that includes FOX) , you have NO idea of what is happening to people freedoms based on the guise of national security.

State, county and city police are NOT TSA. They can not do anything they want under the name of national security.

But there will be AU members who keep taking it in the shorts because they been made to feel afraid or don't know the law. It's there life. If they want to let a LEO ruin it, I can't help them

NAVYBLUE


----------



## Ryan (Jan 2, 2012)

NAVYBLUE said:


> I will abide by "AMTRAK" rules because I read EVERY one of them on the website BEFORE I purchased my tickets.
> 
> Please show me EXACTLY on AMTRAK.com's website where I have to answer questions from a local LEO as I travel through their town once I have boarded. Not something you think but the actual section and verbiage.
> 
> ...


I suggest that you read them again.



> Amtrak may refuse to carry passengers:
> Who have not paid the applicable fare;
> 
> Whose conduct is objectionable (such as, but not limited to, being under the influence of alcohol or narcotics);
> ...


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

Nice try.


----------



## amamba (Jan 2, 2012)

NAVYBLUE said:


> And no reasonable suspicion is NOT easy to obtain.
> 
> RAS is obtainable when under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.
> 
> ...


Meh, everyone knows to take wikipedia with a grain of salt. That is why I said "reasonable summary."

But I am going to disagree with you about "reasonable suspicion." The reason that these stop and frisk/stop and identify statutes are so questionable, IMO, is because there are many documented cases where "acting suspicious" is a euphemism for being a member of a racial minority and walking down the street. The New York Times editorial board has called on the Justice Department to investigate abuses of stop and frisk this year.

I am glad that you have those canned responses so that you can figure out how to be courteous with police and not answer their questions. But there are probably lots of other folks out there who, when faced with the situation mentioned by the original poster on the California Zephyr, might not want to answer questions when sitting in the sleeper and minding their own business. Because they don't have your canned responses memorized or know how to handle the situation, they perhaps start to get nervous and are now sweating and stuttering. Now all of a sudden the police say that they have "reasonable suspicion" that they are involved in some sort of criminal activity.

The point of my post was to let people know that in some cases a person can be required to give their name to a police officer. Luckily, we can agree on the supreme court case that I cited which upheld this requirement.


----------



## NY Penn (Jan 2, 2012)

The thing is, is getting arrested and then suing and then ... really worth the hassle? Isn't it easier to merely answer a few questions? Most people don't have time to sit with police or get hauled to the precinct or something else.

And I've found big-city cops less accepting of canned answers than rural cops. And what's the harm in telling the truth anyway? The truth cannot be used against you if you are doing nothing wrong.


----------



## gatelouse (Jan 2, 2012)

NAVYBLUE--thanks so much for posting best practices for deflecting annoying probes from LEOs. I suspect that the canned responses, spoken with confidence, would lead 99% of LEOs to profile the speaker as a civil libertarian who's unlikely to be in possession of contraband.

The requirement or non-requirement to state a name is interesting to me. Has this been codified by the Supreme Court or does this requirement vary state-by-state?


----------



## amamba (Jan 3, 2012)

gatelouse said:


> The requirement or non-requirement to state a name is interesting to me. Has this been codified by the Supreme Court or does this requirement vary state-by-state?


As both NavyBlue and I stated, you _may_ be required to provide your name to police. This was decided in the 2004 supreme court Hiibel vs. Nevada. It a) depends on the state and b) the police must have "reasonable suspicion" during a stop and identify.

Various states have different rules, which is why I provided a link to a "reasonable summary" of the regulations by state on wikipedia. Apparently that source isn't good enough for some folks so I won't repost it, but you are more than welcome to google it up yourself.


----------



## NAVYBLUE (Jan 3, 2012)

Ryan said:


> NAVYBLUE said:
> 
> 
> > I will abide by "AMTRAK" rules because I read EVERY one of them on the website BEFORE I purchased my tickets.
> ...



My Statement

"I understand prior to my boarding that* I am subject to a LEO* checking my baggage at the station. Depending on their attitude and professionalism I will determine if I wish to continue NOT them.

Once I am on the train* they will NOT search my carry on or any personal belonging without a search warrant.* I'm sorry. It's the law whether the LEO or AMTRAK likes it or not."

It's that English thingy that rears it's ugly head. If you are going to participate you need to go and read every word since this thread started and you will see the conversation is about NON Amtrak LEOs coming aboard to go "fishing" NOT Amtrak officers. Your statement is talking about AMTRAK security personnel who can search my bags before I get on the train and once I am on the train to their hearts content. Once on board they better have RAS or they are in trouble. They can't go fishing either

Here is AMTRAK's regs on searches and though it talks about photography, I'm sure it extends to other situations

http://www.amtrak.co...d=1241267362248

Section IV. Law Enforcement Amtrak Police and Security personnel may approach photographers and videographers upon a complaint from a member of the public or Amtrak personnel that the activity is suspicious in nature, or based upon their own observation that the activity is suspicious in nature or inconsistent with this policy.


Amtrak Police and Security Personnel will advise the individual that an inquiry is being conducted for security purposes. Amtrak Police and Security personnel will follow established departmental regulations in this area.
Nothing in this policy limits or expands the authority of Amtrak police officers to initiate and pursue investigations, perform a pat down or frisk based upon reasonable suspicion, and/or conduct searches based upon probable cause or any recognized exception to the probable cause requirement in accordance with all legal authority. But the taking of photographs and/or video may not, in and of itself, rise to the level of reasonable suspicion or probable cause.





As I am sure you know that Amtrak officers are graduates of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center they have similar powers that state, county, police officers do. I am not positive, but I believe their powers are limited to actions on Amtrak trains/property but PROBABLY are allowed to detain/arrest some one who they saw commit a felony near Amtrak property. That I am not sure about. Remember, REASONABLE SUSPICION. That's real important when searching persons or baggage.

Oh, I have contacted my attorney in Las Vegas. I say my attorney, but actually he is the "groups" attorney on retainer. He is one of the (3) best defense attorney's in Nevada and has NEVER lost a justifiable use of deadly force case. That's why he was selected. LVMPD has a checkered history of abuse and the Las Vegas Review Journal's Nov/Dec 2011 expose of their history further convinced us that retaining his services was an important move

I explained the context of our posters conversation and he said that most are pretty much incorrect. When they (NON Amtrak LEO's) come fishing, don't give them any bait. No RAS, no conversation. I know we all grew up to go to the police officers when we were in trouble or afraid.. We live in different times. Some think they are the Stasi, some think they are the TSA and some don't think at all.

Again, the 95% get my respect and my co-operation (within limits). The 5% get "the speech.

Nice try, though.

NAVYBLUE


----------



## NAVYBLUE (Jan 3, 2012)

amamba said:


> NAVYBLUE said:
> 
> 
> > And no reasonable suspicion is NOT easy to obtain.
> ...




This is going to come as a shock, but I agree with the below statements you made.

* *

*The point of my post was to let people know that in some cases a person can be required to give their name to a police officer. Luckily, we can agree on the supreme court case that I cited which upheld this requirement.*

As long as RAS is present, yes you are correct. But you come fishing, I am not giving you any bait.

*But I am going to disagree with you about "reasonable suspicion." The reason that these stop and frisk/stop and identify statutes are so questionable, IMO, is because there are many documented cases where "acting suspicious" is a euphemism for being a member of a racial minority and walking down the street. The New York Times editorial board has called on the Justice Department to investigate abuses of stop and frisk this year. *

I agree. We have a black (he says to never to call him an AA as he is an American, period) member of our "group" was stopped for WWB in a predominately white neighborhood.

WWB equals Walking While Black. Never mind he is retired, highly decorated Marine, likes classical music (we kid him about that), is a lector in his church and is a pussycat he committed the alleged crime of being black. He is in his late 50s/early 60's and walks for exercise and to check out other peoples houses for landscaping techniques/tips. After his neighborhood where pretty much everyone knows him, he crossed over the (4) lane city street to the next neighborhood and the cops were called for a "suspicious man" in the neighborhood. After the police officer arrived and got "the speech" they left. I can't imagine what is like to live like that.

NAVYBLUE


----------



## NAVYBLUE (Jan 3, 2012)

gatelouse said:


> NAVYBLUE--thanks so much for posting best practices for deflecting annoying probes from LEOs. I suspect that the canned responses, spoken with confidence, would lead 99% of LEOs to profile the speaker as a civil libertarian who's unlikely to be in possession of contraband.
> 
> The requirement or non-requirement to state a name is interesting to me. Has this been codified by the Supreme Court or does this requirement vary state-by-state?


In the ruling Amanda referred to the key thing is:

And no reasonable suspicion is NOT easy to obtain.

RAS is obtainable when under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

The classic example is a stop for speeding. Get stopped, provide paperwork, wait for officer to make a decision, then proceed. That is why most officers ask you, "Do you know why I stopped you?" Your answer is NO. They tell you the "alleged crime committed" and thus ask for paperwork and then ticket/no ticket. Ticket. Pay it or fight.

The other is the DUI check points. Go to opencarry. org. Click on map. Click on Nevada. Click on forums. In there you can find info about a "group" (I am not a member) who goes to DUI check points, protests, warns others prior to the stop and measures to make sure all the signs are within the distance the law requires. Some of the group go through the check points with the window open about (2) inches and give "the speech"

1. This conversation is not consensual.

2. What is your RAS ?

3. Am I free to go ?

4. Repeat again and again until the officer says "You are free to go"

The groups position is the LEOs are making stops and there is no RAS. Their research through county records show more DUI people are caught from LEOs seeing people driving erratically and too slow for condition/speed limit thus providing RAS and getting them out of vehicle to do the sobriety tests. The small number of confirmed DUIs that come out of DUI stops in Clark County Nevada in their opinion doesn't justify the man power/money utilized and could be better spent trying to prevent violent crimes. I am neutral on the subject which is RARE for me. I see both sides of the argument.

NAVYBLUE


----------



## Peter KG6LSE (Jan 3, 2012)

AlanB said:


> Actually Amtrak can impose any conditions it wishes upon you for travel, within reason. No one is forcing you to buy the ticket, therefore Amtrak can impose any rules it sees fit. You then have the choice to either buy the ticket and obey or find another way to travel.
> 
> And this can easily be seen by the rule that if one fails to submit to a search by law enforcement, then one will receive a refund of one's ticket(s) and will not be permitted to travel on Amtrak.




at least Amtrak Offers a refund if you dont consent ...

the clowns at the airport can arrest and fine you for 10 Grand for not bending over and saying YES at a checkpoint .....

EG you dont consent to a Xray and a patdown . and thus you cant pass go .. and YOU want to leave . if you ask for your stuf to leave to the non secure zone they can stop you and . make your life Hell /.

this of ALL laws needs to change ........ you have the rigth to not fly and NOT be touched ......... but it needs not be a fine or jail .. the Tix are the airlines problem . so those I can seenot being refunded ...


----------



## NAVYBLUE (Jan 3, 2012)

Peter KG6LSE said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Actually Amtrak can impose any conditions it wishes upon you for travel, within reason. No one is forcing you to buy the ticket, therefore Amtrak can impose any rules it sees fit. You then have the choice to either buy the ticket and obey or find another way to travel.
> ...




Amtrak officers are graduates of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. TSA "Officers" are NOT graduates of anything except maybe high school although you may have some senior types that were former LEOs that attended FLETC or a state police mini-academy, but I think they give them the TSA people the "officer" title to keep "us" in line like they are "real" LEO's.

NAVYBLUE


----------



## Anderson (Jan 3, 2012)

Quick question for the uninitiated: I assume that RAS is the same as reasonable suspicion, but what does it stand for?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 3, 2012)

Reasonable Articulable Suspicion


----------



## Peter KG6LSE (Jan 3, 2012)

NAVYBLUE said:


> Peter KG6LSE said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


I am VERY aware of this ..

what does this have to do with there being a trap for People who rather not play roulette on how they will be searched ..

a reasonable person would conclude that One form of search as intense as a crazy full body Xray is enough .

Let give you some insight ....... Mr D goes to LAX and does the backscatcatter ........ he passes the muster .. but due to the """""" random """" screenings hes is asked to be hand checked by whom We BOTH agree are not ( in my words) are not " qualified " ) ....... He. Mr D says NO .. . Mr D	CAN be fined !!!!!!........ he If the TSA choose too.. can FINE him for not complying ,. He has lost the right to leave on his own Free will .............

With the train here ...... If I say NO to a search .I loose my Tix and I am not going anywhere on a train ........ but I dont have a bloddy New car Priced Fine on my hands Or Worse ..

In fact there is a slight chance that I can get my Tix Price back ...........

Peter...


----------



## Ryan (Jan 3, 2012)

NAVYBLUE said:


> It's that English thingy that rears it's ugly head. If you are going to participate you need to go and read every word since this thread started and you will see the conversation is about NON Amtrak LEOs coming aboard to go "fishing" NOT Amtrak officers. Your statement is talking about AMTRAK security personnel who can search my bags before I get on the train and once I am on the train to their hearts content. Once on board they better have RAS or they are in trouble. They can't go fishing either


I've read every word. Nothing in the terms and conditions say that they are limited to Amtrak Security Personnel.

If Amtrak wants a LEO of any kind to look at your bags, they're going to look at your bags or you're going to find yourself watching the markers recede in the distance. If a non-Amtrak LEO wants to look at your bags and you refuse, Amtrak is well within their rights to put you off the train.

What is this "group" that you keep on talking about?


----------



## NAVYBLUE (Jan 3, 2012)

Ryan said:


> NAVYBLUE said:
> 
> 
> > It's that English thingy that rears it's ugly head. If you are going to participate you need to go and read every word since this thread started and you will see the conversation is about NON Amtrak LEOs coming aboard to go "fishing" NOT Amtrak officers. Your statement is talking about AMTRAK security personnel who can search my bags before I get on the train and once I am on the train to their hearts content. Once on board they better have RAS or they are in trouble. They can't go fishing either
> ...




This conversation is not consensual.

Am I free to go

Goodbye

NAVYBLUE


----------



## gatelouse (Jan 4, 2012)

amamba said:


> gatelouse said:
> 
> 
> > The requirement or non-requirement to state a name is interesting to me. Has this been codified by the Supreme Court or does this requirement vary state-by-state?
> ...


Thanks amamba--I completely missed the link you posted. It's a nice summary of the 3 different kinds of stops and puts the "non-consensual" canned speech in context. Much appreciated. So I've formulated my approach if I ever run into local LEOs onboard.

Given the different laws in each state, I'll offer up my name, even in a consensual situation. If they're fishing for a person, it doesn't bother me in the least that I'm excluding myself from the pool. Quick win-win for both. Plus my name is on the manifest and ticket anyway.

Any further questions and I'll invoke NAVYBLUE's approach. If it's not on the manifest it's none of your business.

Any inquiries outside normal business hours (e.g. woken from a good nap, middle of the night) are immediately non-consensual and will result in complaint letters to Amtrak and the Amtrak Police, as the latter are presumably in the loop on these operations.


----------



## The Chief (Jan 26, 2012)

*Cold Rain and Snow *advised on his eastbound *Zephyr* trip this week



ColdRain&Snow said:


> "Johnny Law boarded there [Omaha] and made contact with a guy in the 632 sleeper. He was escorted off in handcuffs and had apparently been holding 4 pieces of baggage, some of which had pot stashed in them."


While I couldn't find the news report on that incident, we learned:

Omaha police responded to a fight on a train (*CZ*) late Sunday night.

Officers said the victim told them that (suspect) William McGlaughlen, 39, from Warsaw, Ill., stole a computer from the victim's luggage. Another witness then told officers they saw McGlaughlen take a handgun from his waistband of his pants and put it on the ground near the front of the train. That's where police found the gun.

Here are the three links: KETV Omaha World Herald WOWT

At least this didn't happen in Dallas Union Station or suspect may have been shot, to death. Suspect did have three prior felonies.

Be alert on the Zephyr for guns, drugs, and thefts.


----------



## ColdRain&Snow (Jan 26, 2012)

The Chief said:


> *Cold Rain and Snow *advised on his eastbound *Zephyr* trip this week
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Our SCA, Donald, told us that drug busts are occurring on the _California Zephyr _on just about every other trip these days. That surprised me a bit and left me feeling conflicted. On one hand, I am glad that these folks are being removed from the train. On the other hand, I'm sure the police feel emboldened by these arrests to continue their sometimes heavy-handed onboard tactics that I despise.

The guy who was busted in our rear sleeper boarded in Reno of all places, the very platform where the men of Reno 911 work their magic. This guy should permanently resign from Drugs, Inc. for lack of intelligence; he was lucky not to have been nabbed right on the platform at Reno before he ever even set foot on the train.


----------



## chrsjrcj (Jan 26, 2012)

Wow...I must have missed this thread earlier, but I have to completely agree with NAVYBLUE on this one. The OP's story is disconcerting to me. If someone asked to inspect my compartment I'd tell him to take a hike. You have a constitutional RIGHT to refuse to answer their questions. As far as the "I'm not doing anything wrong" crowd, I'm sure the Jews in **** Germany thought they were doing nothing wrong either.

I love traveling by train, but Amtrak is quickly approaching the line in the sand I draw. While I have never had any problems regarding security riding the Silvers in Florida, I find it disheartening to reads these stories about LEO on the CZ, the shooting event on the TE, and border patrol asking for papers on the LSL.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 27, 2012)

NAVYBLUE said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > NAVYBLUE said:
> ...


Navyblue,

I've got to ask: What do you do if the officer _does_ come up with some sort of RAS (even if it's who you had dinner with in the diner or that you were chatting with someone in the hall) and says you aren't free to go?


----------



## stonesfan (Jan 27, 2012)

Unfortunately when theres 200+ riding a train, you can bet your bottom dollar at least a handful are undesirables who have no idea of how to conduct themselves in public. I've seen a couple of relatively minor cases of this when travelling by train in the USA, both on the same trip. Some junkied up rednecks who used the prolonged station stops to maintain their habit and then proceded to try and scrounge money from a few passengers on the Lake Shore Limited. Small fry, yes, but it created an uneasy atmosphere at time.

And then some drunken guy who wouldnt stop ****** and blinding in a loud voice on the Zephyr. To their credit, the crew dealt with him there and then (even threatening to throw him off the train) so the majority could enjoy their journey in a pleasant manner.

I've had a few police doggies sniffing me at Boston and NYP, plus a bull necked copper asking me for my ID at Salt Lake Station. But big deal. I've nothing to hide. Sod my civil liberties, what about society as a whole?


----------



## Golden grrl (Jan 27, 2012)

Ryan said:


> What is this "group" that you keep on talking about?


Navyblue discussed his group in posting #30 on this thread.


----------

