# Can passengers be kicked off train for refusing police search?



## Ted Bell (Mar 17, 2013)

An interesting comment from a passenger on Amtrak's facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/Amtrak/posts/10151470316539014



> While in walking to my sleeper car, I was approached by a man who said he needed to ask me some questions. I did not realize that the local "Sparks Police Department Officers" had boarded the train, or even if this type of action would happen and thought it was just another passenger. He proceeded to ask me about my trip, which I then asked for identification...



The gentleman was very bothered and offended, but he allowed search of his bags and room. My question is this: If he had refused to allow the Sparks Police Dept to search his belongings, could he have been escorted off the train? Keep in mind the search was being performed by the Sparks Police Dept - NOT Amtrak Police.


----------



## KrazyKoala (Mar 17, 2013)

I think when you step on on train, they lose their jurisdiction, as you are now on federal property. Would need a federal agent to pull you off. At least that is what I've gathered by my readings.


----------



## oregon pioneer (Mar 17, 2013)

A friend of mine was searched at Reno. By his telling of the story, when he tried to assert his rights, they offered to take him off the train in order to wait for a warrant. Wishing to arrive at his destination on time, he then assented to the search. He is still steaming about the incident, as they had no cause other than profiling (he is an old peacenik, and looks the part), and do not bother with warrants.


----------



## the_traveler (Mar 17, 2013)

That "federal agent" is the conductor, who is "the law" on the train. (S)he can order you off a train, and as soon as your feet hit the ground, you are in the local jurisdiction! That is also why if necessary the train can stop at a grade crossing where you're handed over to the local police/sheriff!


----------



## Ispolkom (Mar 17, 2013)

A thread about another search on the California Zephyr is here.

I'm not sure what the thread title means. In the linked story I don't see where the officers threaten anything, unlike *oregon pioneer*'s friend's story. Instead, the writer consents to the search again and again.

What surprises me is that he seems to have left his computer unattended in the Sightseer Lounge. That seems like a very bad idea.

IANAL, but it seems unlikely to me that federal courts and law enforcement have exclusive jurisdiction on Amtrak trains. After all, there were those local policemen who shot up a Superliner coach in Dallas in December 2011, killing a supposed miscreant and wounding another passenger.


----------



## crescent2 (Mar 17, 2013)

I've always read that it's a myth that there is no local jurisdiction on trains, ships in port, etc. It would seem strange to me if they did not have any jurisdiction. They would have jurisdiction over someone in a federally owned vehicle, for instance. At the time, you're in that locality even though on a train.

Not to say that it's OK to search someone for no reason. Just speaking of jurisdiction.

It's my understanding the conductor can remove anyone at any time. Presumably, for a reason, but yes, the conductor can remove you from the train.


----------



## the_traveler (Mar 17, 2013)

On my recent train trip, I overheard 2 conductors speaking of a passenger.

Conductor #1 said to conductor #2 that " ... there is a passenger back in car ____ who has been drinking and bothering other passengers. He is scheduled to detrain at _______, but I think we should kick him off at _________ instead."

I don't know what happened with that passenger.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Mar 17, 2013)

the_traveler said:


> On my recent train trip, I overheard 2 conductors speaking of a passenger.
> Conductor #1 said to conductor #2 that " ... there is a passenger back in car ____ who has been drinking and bothering other passengers. He is scheduled to detrain at _______, but I think we should kick him off at _________ instead."
> 
> I don't know what happened with that passenger.


Well, Jim seems to finished his trip ok, so I guess they let him stay on. :giggle:


----------



## Ryan (Mar 17, 2013)

KrazyKoala said:


> I think when you step on on train, they lose their jurisdiction, as you are now on federal property. Would need a federal agent to pull you off. At least that is what I've gathered by my readings.


Not exactly:
From Amtrak's Terms:

http://www.amtrak.com/terms-of-transportation



> Reservations must be made when required, and tickets are not transferable. If you do not board your train as booked, your entire reservation is subject to cancellation. In order to ensure the quality of travel and safety and security of its passengers, Amtrak may refuse to carry passengers:
> Who have not paid the applicable fare;
> 
> Who present an Amtrak ticket purchased from an unauthorized third party. Amtrak tickets may only be sold or issued by Amtrak or an authorized travel agent/tour operator. Any ticket purchased from an unauthorized third party will be voided. The ticket holder will not be eligible for travel or for a refund.
> ...


The local police can't do it on their own, but if the conductor says "Consent or get off", you're either consenting or watching the train leave without out.


----------



## Peter KG6LSE (Mar 17, 2013)

I am just gonna point out that I doubt most conductors have any Real LEO backround,,,,, If we had the money really a REAL amtrack Officer sould be on each train to Be " the law" ....... Some one with Real education in CJ. ?

Has there been any documented case of a Over zelous Conductor being reprimanded for kicking off some one whom Was not breaking any rules ,. ... I smell a lack of checks and balances here .... Much like the TSA.

Ryan I can see a corhersion here ......

The local police can't do it on their own, but if the conductor says "Consent or get off", you're either consenting or watching the train leave without out.

Does this not Break the law of innocent til proven guilty . It appears now that a conductor can force a pax to a non legal search ,,,,

no warrant . no Joy .. the conductor is now becoming a judge in this case ,,,,,,,

if kicking some one off requires LOADS of paper work . the same load as a officer discharged there firearm then I can see some check and balance , but really the abuse potential is WAY to high ...

I have proof of one bad condistor whom put a ENTIRE car in danger , and I called amtrack PD and they did nothigg...... If I was any more well off I would have lanunched a class action lawsuit ..... .... I have a whole car of pax whom were Livid............... the issue was We were in the front car, so door A was locked ,. and door B was broken shut , and ONLY opened up from the outside.... .. and this was on the Wolverine . there are no inside side doers, Just the pull handles on the side glass................ only wallking way out was if some one came from the other car and triend to get in ,,, I told the LSA and cond and NO one cared,,, had we had a fire the poor lady in here wheel char would have been Outta luck in a fire egress .......

.Sad I did not have a VId cam that day ,, only my SLR ,.... make a Great news story .

I have done Fire training. I have had 3 Degree burns too.....\

as much as I dispise the the airlines ,,,THEY are under WAY more microscope then the people on the rails ...


----------



## George Harris (Mar 17, 2013)

A conductor's authority (and responsibility) is firmly established in law and has been for well over 100 years. It is not just Amtrak. It goes back to way before them. Not liking it does not change it.


----------



## Peter KG6LSE (Mar 17, 2013)

SO WE are to accept it ??? I am sorry .This is not the wild west , its 2013 ,Get some LEO training or get a new job...... You want the power to Ruin some one's day . You need to Earn it !..... Real cops have to have PROOF .....

Every Conductor Needs to know CPR ,How to use a AED ,,,, THE LAW as in a 2 Year degree, and then can take on training to become a conductor ..... Oh and how to operate a simple as heck Iphone and scan every one's tickets .

Hold them to the same standards as airline pilots,,,,,,, Fitness tests..... yearly reviews .

If I was a TSA or a conductor I would make shure I am the best there is .. hardly any one these days takes Real pride in there job.

It shows .! I am on a student wages job at my college optics lab..... I take Real pride in what I do .As If I made 80 grand a year .

You know why .. Because I refuse to be another brick in the wall of the world .

Fire Scares the RTYUI outta me ..... I own 5 fire extinguishers in my 1000^2 foot apt..... 1 ABC Mono Dry . 2 HALOTRON and 2 CO2 ..... Why Because burning alive is NOT my way I want to leave this world..... I also have a spare air can that holds 15 Breaths ..plenty enough to have me Fight and escape with NO lung damage..

George when I was Blown off by a Fedral police force .. A """"responsible"""" Conductor and a LSA .... I am sorry I have No faith in any the stuff they Teach them............. what If Your son or daughter died or got injured in a fire on that train and the door was not maintained ,,,,,, Ummmmmm Yea not good .; those Cars were Approved to have a main egress and a second ........ the main is NOT the windows ...

There were a TON of open seats in that train ,,,,, they should have at once moved every one out and in the rest of the train and then Rope it off....

Yes . One bad apple can spolie the whole basket......... Perhaps the other apples should have Ratted the bad one out ....


----------



## ScottC4746 (Mar 17, 2013)

Amtrak, along with the Amtrak Police Department, has a range of behind-the-scenes and front-line security measures in place to ensure passenger rail security.

Among these security measures, some of which are conducted on an unpredictable or random basis, passengers may notice any of the following in stations or onboard trains:


Uniformed police officers and Special Operations Units
Random passenger and carry-on baggage screening and inspection*
K-9 units
Checked baggage screening
Onboard security checks
Identification checks
*With due respect to passengers' privacy, the random screening and inspection of passengers and their personal items will be completed as quickly as possible - usually in less than a minute. Passengers failing to consent to security procedures will be denied access to trains and refused carriage, and a refund will be offered.

In a nutshell from the website and page 142 from the national timetable:


----------



## Peter KG6LSE (Mar 17, 2013)

Does that refund Include a Tit for tat local law stop and search on a train sans warrent . ? the amtrack PD laws are Very Clear.

the laws that incluede the CBP and the Local LEOs are not ....... If I am in a Roomett and some LAPD LEO wants to stop and rummage in my room ., and I say no .. do I get my money back?


----------



## leemell (Mar 17, 2013)

Peter KG6LSE said:


> Does that refund Include a Tit for tat local law stop and search on a train sans warrent . ? the amtrack PD laws are Very Clear.the laws that incluede the CBP and the Local LEOs are not ....... If I am in a Roomett and some LAPD LEO wants to stop and rummage in my room ., and I say no .. do I get my money back?


NO, that refund is for "Passengers failing to consent to security procedures will be denied access to trains and refused carriage". That is BEFORE you board the train. After you are on, I don't believe there will be a refund offered. You're just SOL.


----------



## guest (Mar 17, 2013)

Call me naive, but I don't understand the problem. IF you're not guilty of doing anything wrong, why not just consent to a search and let them be on their merry way? If you ARE guilty of something illegal, then you probably deserve to be caught anyway. Don't you appreciate the fact that someone is, indeed, looking out for illegal activities? I do...

I feel the same say about the TSA folks at the airports too. I've got nothing to hide when I travel, so just let me go through the screening process and get to my gate. I'm not going to holler about my rights being abused. None of us would be subject to this treatment if it weren't for the 9/11 terror attacks. Is the security screenings ridiculous? Yes. Do they make me feel any safer today than I did before they came into play? No. But, it is, unfortunately, needed in the world today.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 17, 2013)

Because generally speaking, I'm kind of the fan of the 4th amendment (as I am the rest of the Constitution), and unless you can come up with a darn good reason to bother me, I'm not really that interested in letting you go on a fishing expedition in my personal belongings.

But, that has to be tempered with the understanding that when you buy an Amtrak ticket, their rules apply.


----------



## Ispolkom (Mar 17, 2013)

I'm willing to go along with the customs of the country I'm in. When I lived in the Soviet Union, I didn't complain about document checks, or the time in Tambov that someone searched my hotel room in a crass and messy manner.

Here in the US, though, things used to be different. Therefore, I resent having to undergo TSA's security theater at the airport because I hate bad participatory theater, and I'm certainly not going to consent to a search by some random peace officer. If they've got enunciable probable cause, go ahead, otherwise I'm not interested in continuing the conversation.

Of course it's easy for me to say that, because I'm an overweight, white, balding middle-aged man, in whom no law enforcement official ever shows the least interest.


----------



## Nathanael (Mar 17, 2013)

Ted Bell said:


> An interesting comment from a passenger on Amtrak's facebook page:
> https://www.facebook.com/Amtrak/posts/10151470316539014
> 
> 
> ...


If I remember the law correctly, he could not have been escorted off the train by the Sparks Police Department; if they had asked the conductor to escort him off the train *and the conductor had agreed*, then the conductor could escort him off the train.

While local police have "concurrent jurisdiction" with Amtrak police, the Amtrak police have *primary* jurisdiction. So if the local police actually have probable cause then they can arrest someone on the train. They *never* have authority to delay the train. If they are merely on a fishing expedition, with no probable cause, they cannot legally arrest you -- and if they try, Amtrak can legally arrest THEM for crimes such as harassment and deprivation of civil rights.

The conductor, however, is very much like the captain of a ship. He can hold people (including rogue police officers) in custody temporarily, and he can throw you off the train at any safe location. And he can do so for a very broad list of reasons. (If he was totally unjustified in doing so, Amtrak might have to compensate you after the fact for the ticket price and the cost of alternate transportation, etc., but he's still entitled to throw you off.)

Don't rely on your conductor understanding the extent of his powers and authority, though.

---

Now, if I was subject to one of these illegal searches, and if after I declined politely they started threatening me with removal from the train -- well, I'd probably start by saying in a cheery voice "I'll need to get all your names, badge numbers, and department names down on paper for the civil rights lawsuit. My favorite civil rights lawyer will loooove to hear about this one!" (Which is true, he loves violation-of-constitutional-rights cases.) They might, of course, back off at that point.

I've been known to carry confidential business documents, and no way are they getting searched without a warrant, no way no how. In answer to the guest, that's ONE reason why someone who has done nothing illegal would NOT consent to a search.


----------



## Nathanael (Mar 17, 2013)

guest said:


> Call me naive, but I don't understand the problem. IF you're not guilty of doing anything wrong, why not just consent to a search and let them be on their merry way? If you ARE guilty of something illegal, then you probably deserve to be caught anyway. Don't you appreciate the fact that someone is, indeed, looking out for illegal activities? I do...
> I feel the same say about the TSA folks at the airports too. I've got nothing to hide when I travel,


Obviously you aren't a researcher with commercially sensitive information or an investor with valuable secret market analysis (for two examples).

There's lots of totally legal stuff which people have good reason to keep secret (even, or especially, from random cops). There's actually a reason why the 4th amendment lists "papers and effects" specifically; a recent court ruling has said that computer hard drives and data storage devices are the modern-day equivalent of "papers".


----------



## hessjm (Mar 17, 2013)

Peter KG6LSE said:


> SO WE are to accept it ??? I am sorry .This is not the wild west , its 2013 ,Get some LEO training or get a new job...... You want the power to Ruin some one's day . You need to Earn it !..... Real cops have to have PROOF ..... Every Conductor Needs to know CPR ,How to use a AED ,,,, THE LAW as in a 2 Year degree, and then can take on training to become a conductor ..... Oh and how to operate a simple as heck Iphone and scan every one's tickets .
> 
> Hold them to the same standards as airline pilots,,,,,,, Fitness tests..... yearly reviews .
> 
> ...


In Michigan, by statute the conductor on a passenger train has the same authority of a regular police officer for most definable cases. I have posted the MCLA (Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated) in other threads. The point is the conductor of a train has far more reaching authority than most people think.


----------



## battalion51 (Mar 17, 2013)

I think sometimes things get blown out of proportion. As the saying goes, "There's his story, her story, and the truth." Most of the time security isn't a word that most people think of when they think of Amtrak as they would when they think of the airlines. However, that's not to say that people aren't subject to random inspections, or that the train won't be swept by a K-9 team, they are certainly subject to that. I would submit that if you're unwilling to let someone take a peek in your briefcase that's going to arouse suspicion, whereas just letting them look through, odds are they won't be looking long enough to see anything of value anyway. Even if they did the average cop wouldn't know what in the name of Sam Hill it was anyway. Amtrak trains are just as much a possible terrorist target as planes, subways, buses or any other form of mass transit. In today's day and age we all need to be willing to go through some precautions to keep us all safe. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.


----------



## Nathanael (Mar 17, 2013)

battalion51 said:


> I think sometimes things get blown out of proportion. As the saying goes, "There's his story, her story, and the truth." Most of the time security isn't a word that most people think of when they think of Amtrak as they would when they think of the airlines. However, that's not to say that people aren't subject to random inspections, or that the train won't be swept by a K-9 team, they are certainly subject to that. I would submit that if you're unwilling to let someone take a peek in your briefcase that's going to arouse suspicion, whereas just letting them look through, odds are they won't be looking long enough to see anything of value anyway. Even if they did the average cop wouldn't know what in the name of Sam Hill it was anyway. Amtrak trains are just as much a possible terrorist target as planes, subways, buses or any other form of mass transit. In today's day and age we all need to be willing to go through some precautions to keep us all safe. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.


If you think you have nothing to hide, you're almost certainly wrong. I would appreciate seeing the nude photos and X-rays which you have already put online, however, since you have nothing to hide. Also your bank account numbers, birthdate, mother's maiden name, credit card numbers, PIN numbers, passwords, fingerprints, etc. ;-)


----------



## battalion51 (Mar 17, 2013)

And the award for sarcastic comment of the night goes to...wait for it...wait for it...wait for it...


----------



## Edgefan (Mar 17, 2013)

Nathanael said:


> battalion51 said:
> 
> 
> > I think sometimes things get blown out of proportion. As the saying goes, "There's his story, her story, and the truth." Most of the time security isn't a word that most people think of when they think of Amtrak as they would when they think of the airlines. However, that's not to say that people aren't subject to random inspections, or that the train won't be swept by a K-9 team, they are certainly subject to that. I would submit that if you're unwilling to let someone take a peek in your briefcase that's going to arouse suspicion, whereas just letting them look through, odds are they won't be looking long enough to see anything of value anyway. Even if they did the average cop wouldn't know what in the name of Sam Hill it was anyway. Amtrak trains are just as much a possible terrorist target as planes, subways, buses or any other form of mass transit. In today's day and age we all need to be willing to go through some precautions to keep us all safe. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
> ...


It was a thread exactly like this a few years ago why I disappeared from this very useful forum. I had my 4th amendment rights violated in Reno on the CZ. Not realizing my bags were searched until after the fact when we unpacked upon returning home. We boarded in SAC so all the luggage racks in our sleeping car were full. Sleeping car attendant told ALL who were boarding at SAC to place their luggage in the unoccupied accessible bedroom. (for some in this forum at that time, that was probable cause enough) Reno Police had a heyday with our two bags and even tore a dress in my wife's bag. "Some" forum members at that time insinuated there was a reason for my and my wife being searched. All I can say is there was no reason or probable cause what-so-ever. What peeved me most was my lack of presence during the search. I know I gave up my rights when I purchased a ticket. We as citizens allowed the desecration of our bill of rights many years ago. It has nothing to do with safety or Amtrak My wife and I complained to the Reno police dept. We actually did receive an apology, but no compensation for the material damages. I don't fly because I refuse to be treated like cattle. I still travel and love Amtrak. Waiting in the wings to see how we the people allow ourselves to be treated by our Government..


----------



## oregon pioneer (Mar 18, 2013)

I'd like to point out that this appears to have nothing at all to do with national security. It appears to be about looking for drugs or drug money. I don't have a problem with that, but I do have a problem with the randomness, the profiling (without evidence), and the violation of rights. You've said it's the conductor's right to put off passengers who are disorderly or troublesome. But what if they merely stand by while the local police tell a passenger (who has not been troublesome in any way) that if he does not consent ot be searched, they will take him to the police station to wait for a warrant? Even if the authorities have no grounds for the warrant, and the passenger knows it, who is gong to take the chance of being taken off the train? Alkmost anyone will consent to be searched at that point, I believe.

BTW. after my friend told me about his experience with the Reno police, I traveled on the CZ in late November. While I did not personally see it, local police boarded in Reno and rode to Truckee. Along they way, they picked out a young man in coach, got him to consent to be searched, and found nothing. I was told this by a woman that I had lunch with. She said one of the things they asked was if he was carrying a large amount of cash.


----------



## the_traveler (Mar 18, 2013)

Welcome back! :hi:


----------



## guest conductor (Mar 18, 2013)

I was keeping my comments to myself...but I cant help but say it. You all have no clue as to the way Amtrak sees it. Bottom line is the conductor has no authority except on paper. Amtrak terminated a crew because the told the Reno police No. The conductors job is to run the train...not play cops and robers, the only reason that amtrak puts the authority on conductors is so there is a scape goat if **** hits the fan.

You can say no to the search and that is your right. However the cops can and will legally sieze your belongings until a warrent can be obtained, and they will also lawfully detain (not arrest) you until they obtain a warrent and search your bags. Meanwhile your trains long gone.

This is simply an attempt to recover narcotics and drug money...nothing to do with security..


----------



## BCL (Mar 18, 2013)

It's been pretty well explained.

There's no way that local or state law enforcement don't have any authority to arrest without the expressed permission of a conductor. If a murder suspect ran into an Amtrak train, any law enforcement officer would have the right to enter that train and search for the suspect. If they know someone is on a train and there's an arrest warrant, a conductor wouldn't be able to stop it. It's the fishing expeditions where conductors have the most say, and where they can insist that a passenger cooperate or get booted. Or tell the cops, Border Patrol, DEA, etc to get out unless they have an arrest warrant or probable cause.

If they feel like cooperating, that's another issue.

And as for authority, that gets interesting. Technically Amtrak is a government chartered company and not a government agency. Even with actual federal lands it gets interesting. There are cases where the Feds have exclusive jurisdiction and some where jurisdiction is shared. Just read up on what happens with National Park Service, Forest Service, or BLM lands. When there's a bear incident in a Forest Service campground, it's typically a state wildlife agency that responds. Also, it gets interesting if a state law is violated in an area where the Feds have sole jurisdiction. They'll enforce such laws, but they're tried in a Federal court. For example, Yosemite has a court and a magistrate. The court typically tries state violations like traffic laws. .


----------



## crescent2 (Mar 18, 2013)

My thoughts: Our Constitution is, and has been for years, disregarded to the extent that our forefathers have probably spun themselves to China by now. There are some rights for which I would instantly stand up even if it meant I was left at the station. I totally understand why Edgefan is upset, and I understand the logic of those who would refuse a search. I agree in general with the quote I've seen that's something to the effect of freedom is more important than safety (and presumably catching drug runners).

I've never had a "run-in with the law." I'm retired, and have received several warnings but have gotten only one traffic ticket in my life (heavy foot on interstate highway), and that's my extent of lawlessness. If my experiences were different, I'd no doubt have a different opinion about searches on Amtrak.

That said, I am taking the contrarian viewpoint here. Searches for absolutely no reason--no way! But I mostly agree with GGuest and Battalion here. If a train is a known drug route, that changes it for me, and I would tend to cooperate with law enforcement unless they were being total jerks. And not just because I don't want to get kicked off the train--although I certainly wouldn't want that to happen, either.

I get upset with terrorists, not at TSA personnel, at airports--nevermind that some of the procedures seem ridiculous to me. I try to remember that their job is to try to prevent my plane being blown to bits. I think I would be really ticked off at drug traffickers if my bags had to be searched on Amtrak, but not at the law enforcement officers trying to catch them (if I'm treated fairly). If it helps catch the bad guys, I think I'd be willing to do it. I try to put myself in the shoes of those trying to catch the criminals, shoes I don't want to be in. It takes actions to accomplish that; it can't be done with a magic wand.

It is a sad thing that drugs are such a scourge on society, and that there are people willing to fly planes into buildings just to make a point. But those things exist, and sometimes travelers have to pay the price. I think Amtrak travelers are fortunate there have not been terrorist incidents and that passengers are not subjected to tighter security. If it ever happens, there'll probably be an outcry of complaints about "the lax security." But that's getting OT from the topic of unlawful searches. (sorry)

If I'm willing to cooperate with a search, then I guess my rights aren't really being violated, so maybe my comments don't even apply to this thread.

I know most posts are of a different opinion, but please don't be disrespectful just because I am taking a different view than yours. Thanks--


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 18, 2013)

One of the reasons to earn and save as much money as possible is so that you'll hopefully have enough to exercise your constitutional rights when the time comes that they're being actively challenged. We often talk about Amtrak sleepers being expensive, but exercising your constitutional rights can cost a whole hell of a lot more than that. Even if you win your case you'll still be stuck in the middle of nowhere for at least a day and could be fighting the abuse for years while putting the children of lawyers through college. I guess it's just one more reason we need to seriously reform our judicial system. You shouldn't have to spend hours in a police station followed by years in a courtroom just to "earn" the rights you thought you already had.


----------



## Peter KG6LSE (Mar 18, 2013)

Devil's Advocate said:


> One of the reasons to earn and save as much money as possible is so that you'll hopefully have enough to exercise your constitutional rights when the time comes that they're being actively challenged. We often talk about Amtrak sleepers being expensive, but exercising your constitutional rights can cost a whole hell of a lot more than that. Even if you win your case you'll still be stuck in the middle of nowhere for at least a day and could be fighting the abuse for years while putting the children of lawyers through college. I guess it's just one more reason we need to seriously reform our judicial system. You shouldn't have to spend hours in a police station followed by years in a courtroom just to "earn" the rights you thought you already had.


THIS is exactly why we are lacking checks and balances in out modern society ... Well put ...


----------



## Ispolkom (Mar 18, 2013)

guest conductor said:


> You can say no to the search and that is your right. However the cops can and will legally sieze your belongings until a warrent can be obtained, and they will also lawfully detain (not arrest) you until they obtain a warrent and search your bags. Meanwhile your trains long gone.


Police can certainly detain you until the obtain a warrant, but I'm not sure they can do it legally.


----------



## Barciur (Mar 18, 2013)

crescent2 said:


> My thoughts: Our Constitution is, and has been for years, disregarded to the extent that our forefathers have probably spun themselves to China by now. There are some rights for which I would instantly stand up even if it meant I was left at the station. I totally understand why Edgefan is upset, and I understand the logic of those who would refuse a search. I agree in general with the quote I've seen that's something to the effect of freedom is more important than safety (and presumably catching drug runners).
> I've never had a "run-in with the law." I'm retired, and have received several warnings but have gotten only one traffic ticket in my life (heavy foot on interstate highway), and that's my extent of lawlessness. If my experiences were different, I'd no doubt have a different opinion about searches on Amtrak.
> 
> That said, I am taking the contrarian viewpoint here. Searches for absolutely no reason--no way! But I mostly agree with GGuest and Battalion here. If a train is a known drug route, that changes it for me, and I would tend to cooperate with law enforcement unless they were being total jerks. And not just because I don't want to get kicked off the train--although I certainly wouldn't want that to happen, either.
> ...


Don't worry, they'll soon come up with another false flag to make us feel threatned again, because too many people have been anti-TSA and anti-security lately :blink:


----------



## daveyb99 (Mar 18, 2013)

IF a local PD had some direct information of a crime in progress, then I can see their boarding a train. But, if they are just doing 'random searches' .. No Way. I think that is a real stretch of their jurisdiction.

A federal agency (like Border Patrol or FBI or DEA, etc) sure, but some local PD ... No Way.

And while I am pro-law enforcement, NEVER surrender your rights 'because you have nothing to hide'. And if you know how consent searches work, have some fun with it. I know it was aggravating to that Border Patrol officer is Del Rio (on the Sunset) when I would only answer questions with a Yes or No.


----------



## roomette (Mar 18, 2013)

Would Amtrak have detected this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5dzMkFhBOY


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Mar 18, 2013)

battalion51 said:


> I would submit that if you're unwilling to let someone take a peek in your briefcase that's going to arouse suspicion, whereas just letting them look through, odds are they won't be looking long enough to see anything of value anyway.


I can think of many, many items that could be in a briefcase, that are not illegal, prohibited, weapons, dangerous, or lethal. Such could simply be very personal or embarrassing to be openly displayed in a very public manor.


----------



## chakk (Mar 18, 2013)

crescent2 said:


> I think Amtrak travelers are fortunate there have not been terrorist incidents and that passengers are not subjected to tighter security. If it ever happens, there'll probably be an outcry of complaints about "the lax security." But that's getting OT from the topic of unlawful sear


There have been terrorist incidents on Amtrak trains. The SL was derailed on 9 October 1995 near Palo Verde, AZ. One SCA died, 78 other riders injured, 12 of those seriously. As reported on Wikipedia:

"Four typewritten notes, attacking the ATF and the FBI for the 1993 Waco Siege, criticizing local law enforcement, and signed "Sons of the *****", were found near the scene of the crash, indicating that the train had been sabotaged."


----------



## AlanB (Mar 18, 2013)

BCL said:


> Or tell the cops, Border Patrol, DEA, etc to get out unless they have an arrest warrant or probable cause.


Actually the Border Patrol does have the right to stop & hold any Amtrak train, bus, or car that is within 100 miles of a US border. Everyone else is technically relying on the conductor to be nice and wait for them. But a conductor who was so inclined could tell them "Well this train will leave this station as scheduled without regard to whether you are still on board or not." I rather doubt that many conductors would do that, but they could.


----------



## George Harris (Mar 18, 2013)

> There have been terrorist incidents on Amtrak trains. The SL was derailed on 9 October 1995 near Palo Verde, AZ. One SCA died, 78 other riders injured, 12 of those seriously. As reported on Wikipedia:
> 
> "Four typewritten notes, attacking the ATF and the FBI for the 1993 Waco Siege, criticizing local law enforcement, and signed "Sons of the *****", were found near the scene of the crash, indicating that the train had been sabotaged."


Which event does nothing to justify any form of activity on the train, itself. The derailment was caused by sabotage of the track. The description of the perps given to narrow the field of search was to the effect, someone who knew something about railroad track and how signal systems functioned. That should have reduced the suspect pool to a million people or so.


----------



## PRR 60 (Mar 18, 2013)

AlanB said:


> BCL said:
> 
> 
> > Or tell the cops, Border Patrol, DEA, etc to get out unless they have an arrest warrant or probable cause.
> ...


Amtrak policy is that they cooperate with local police investigations and requests, and train crews are to follow that policy. While an Amtrak conductor "could" order a train to leave while an onboard investigation is underway, that conductor would be violating Amtrak policy and would likely be strongly advised by management to never do it again (assuming he or she was not fired).


----------



## battalion51 (Mar 18, 2013)

PRR, When in doubt, call CNOC and the Dispatcher, be governed accordingly. And rest easy since it's all on tape.



> All I can say is there was no reason or probable cause what-so-ever. What peeved me most was my lack of presence during the search. I know I gave up my rights when I purchased a ticket. We as citizens allowed the desecration of our bill of rights many years ago. It has nothing to do with safety or Amtrak


Edgefan, I definitely would say you had every right to be present during the search since the situation appears to be carry on baggage. If I were in that situation, and there was ID on the bag I would have tried to ensure the owner was present. In another situation where it's checked baggage, well that's a bit tougher. I do not feel a carry on bag should be inspected without occurring in as discrete and private of a manner as possible with the owner present. Unfortunately, not everyone sees it the way that I do.


----------



## Edgefan (Mar 18, 2013)

Thanks for the welcome back, Traveler! I just would have to add, any would be, wanna be smuggler would have to know by now they are on a fools errand. Begs the question of the real reason of this daily exercise, but I digress. I do ponder, will the same exercise now be set up outside each border of Colorado? Missed you guys.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 19, 2013)

PRR 60 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > BCL said:
> ...


Agreed, Bill, that is Amtrak's policy. I was simply stating that technically a conductor would be within his rights as a conductor to move that train. Yes, he/she might well be looking for a new job if they did. But that would be the only consequence.


----------



## JoeBas (Mar 19, 2013)

PRR 60 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > BCL said:
> ...


Unless they're CBP working the LSL, and Amtrak is sick and tired of police fishing trips making their trains late.

In which case, the CBP get a free ride to the next station.


----------



## TVRM610 (Mar 19, 2013)

As a side story...

I rode the CZ to Omaha a few months back and then had to take a bus to my final destination. (Jefferson Lines.. NOT greyhound thankfully). At the bus station.. my bag was sniffed out by a police dog. The police went searched my bag, found nothing, and when giving my bag back they asked me where my bag has been recently. I told them I rode the train from Chicago and it was in the luggage rack there.. the police man said "oh well if you rode the train then that explains it" haha! I thought that was pretty funny.

As to the topic... I am not a fan of police searching my room, or my luggage for no reason. I don't like the random checks at all. I also find it dis-heartening that when traveling on train, one of the questions is "do you have large amounts of cash?" Wouldn't it make perfect sense to have large amounts of cash when traveling across the country? Now for me, I carry just enough for Tips and Taxis cause heaven knows I practically LIVE off of my Amtrak Credit Card, but what if I was one of the many people who try not to use credit cards? Since when is having money cause for suspicion!


----------



## JoeBas (Mar 19, 2013)

I would venture that a lot of us have large amounts of cash.

Now, whether it's ON US at the time...


----------



## George Harris (Mar 19, 2013)

TVRM610 said:


> I also find it dis-heartening that when traveling on train, one of the questions is "do you have large amounts of cash?" Wouldn't it make perfect sense to have large amounts of cash when traveling across the country? Now for me, I carry just enough for Tips and Taxis cause heaven knows I practically LIVE off of my Amtrak Credit Card, but what if I was one of the many people who try not to use credit cards? Since when is having money cause for suspicion!


That one I do find way off into absolutely none of your business land. Presumably it is an attempt to seach out drug smugglers, but if a person is going to commit one crime the searchers really have to living in fantasyland if they expect to be told the truth when asked a question.

In the day previous to widespread use of credit cards it could be quite common for someone traveling to have quite a bit of cash, and the last thing they would want to do would be to say so in any sort of public situation.


----------



## battalion51 (Mar 19, 2013)

I'd venture to guess for the most part, the only people who will have a lot of cash on the train is the LSAs. Even that has probably decreased in recent years now that they have credit card machines. With ATMs and credit/debit card use so prevalent there's usually less cash floating. But there are some demographics that tend to operate "cash only."


----------



## TVRM610 (Mar 19, 2013)

battalion51 said:


> But there are some demographics that tend to operate "cash only."


Yes... like Dave Ramsey listeners! They certainly deserve to be questioned! haha.


----------



## Marz (Dec 1, 2013)

Well Is this a Security inspection or is it a search fro Drugs and Weapons. The 4th amendment applies everywhere except at a Port of Entry. You can refuse the search if the Officer does not have reasonable suspicion then you can not be detained. Now if it is a Administrative search as a stipulation for boarding and you refuse then they will not let you board which is totally legal.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Dec 1, 2013)

JoeBas said:


> I would venture that a lot of us have large amounts of cash.
> 
> Now, whether it's ON US at the time...


Thats what debit card is for, access to own money without carrying it.


----------

