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



## BigRedEO (Feb 3, 2015)

Just got back a little over a week ago from a round-trip, CLE to LAX and back.

I took the Texas Eagle out and the Southwest Chief back. Roomettes both ways. When boarding in Chicago, there was a mix-up in the room across from me. I rode out to the train with an elderly woman via the Redcap. She had a ticket for the room across from me. But when we got in the car, there was a black man, probably in his 30s, in the room. I recommended they ask the SCA to get the conductor, because I saw both their tickets and they both looked legit.

The gentleman ended up staying in the room and the lady was put in another Roomette.

The next morning in Longview, TX, I came up from the shower and was stopped at the top of the stairs by a guy in plainclothes who asked where I was going. Looked down the hall to see two other plainclothes guys frisking the guy across from me. I told him my Roomette number and was told I had to wait. After frisking the guy, they pretty much tossed his Roomette. When I was finally let back in, I looked out the window and saw a uniformed cop with a German Shepherd. The gentleman across from me said he was told they were "randomly" searching several rooms/people on the train. I looked out the window and said, "Well they're leaving now."

The man said, "You're kidding me? I'm the ONLY one they searched?"

He ran down to the lower door and I could actually hear him yelling, "Are you kidding me? You said you were randomly searching the train and I'm the ONLY one you search?? Is it because I'm a single black man in a First Class Car?" They ignored him and got in their cars.

The gentleman told me they knew his name, so Amtrak had to give the name to the guys doing the searching. He said they had the drug-sniffing dog go into his Roomette first before frisking him.

On the SWC on the way back, there was a young (probably in his 20s) Hispanic kid. Talked to him for a while, got his name, very well spoken, on his way to Kansas City, his first time on a train. I let him know a few things about the train and what to expect. We got into Albuquerque about an hour late. I ran into the station to use the ATM. Took some pics from the platform and my room, when another plainclothes guy stops outside my open door and says "Hey, how you doin'?" and knocks on the door of the Roomette across from me.

He identifies himself as a cop, knows the kid's first name, asks how he's doing and the kid answers back in his well-spoken English, but after a couple sentences, the cop stops him and asks, "Habla Espanol?" He then proceeded to speak only in Spanish to the kid, even when the kid would speak in English. Then another plainclothes (alleged) cop shows up and they end up frisking him and tossing his Roomette as well.

I found the whole thing very unsettling. It seemed pretty much that the cop purposely spoke Spanish hoping I wouldn't understand that this kid's rights were being violated.

So I have to ask, has this suddenly become standard procedure on Amtrak trains? And what rights do passengers have? Can they refuse having their room and their person searched? Having been on the platform before and seeing these guys enter the train, it was very obvious they only searched this kid's room. And once again they knew his name, so it seemed as if Amtrak had provided it to them. Would I be tossed off a train if I refused to have my person or room searched without a warrant? Or is there some implicit contract when purchasing a ticket?

Quite the interesting trip, including someone dying on the train overnight somewhere in Kansas and my getting rather sick from the fumes because there was no baggage car or employee sleeping car between the engine and our sleeper, but that's another story.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Feb 3, 2015)

> The gentleman told me they knew his name, so Amtrak had to give the name to the guys doing the searching. He said they had the drug-sniffing dog go into his Roomette first before frisking him.




Perhaps a new secretary wants a piece of the action:

dea-paid-amtrak-secy-for-passenger-lists


----------



## SubwayNut (Feb 3, 2015)

I was recently profiled to be questioned and then searched by a Reno Drug Detective. (Read the full report).

In my situation my Roomette trip from SLC-TRU had raised a red flag because I had changed my reservation the evening before because Utah had tons of snow and it hadn't snowed in Squaw in a week (it cost all of $10, just losing my NARP discount on the coach , everything low-bucket). I was supposed to be on the train the previous day. The drug detective explained that the Zephyr was a known route for the transport of drugs by people buying roomettes just before travel.

The detective made it clear that I was profiled because of late purchase, he knew my name and even more creepily that I was from New York, I guess Amtrak also shared my billing address. He basically believed my story and did a very quick search of my room (very quick glance through my backpack, my only piece of luggage, looked under the bed, felt up my overstuffed with gloves and hats ski jacket but luckily didn't search me). It was all very bizarre.


----------



## firstcultural (Feb 4, 2015)

I have heard stories about how young men traveling in a roommette by themselves get flagged for search. Would not be surprised if they profiled by race as well.


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2015)

firstcultural said:


> I have heard stories about how young men traveling in a roommette by themselves get flagged for search. Would not be surprised if they profiled by race as well.





BigRedEO said:


> Just got back a little over a week ago from a round-trip, CLE to LAX and back.
> 
> I took the Texas Eagle out and the Southwest Chief back. Roomettes both ways. When boarding in Chicago, there was a mix-up in the room across from me. I rode out to the train with an elderly woman via the Redcap. She had a ticket for the room across from me. But when we got in the car, there was a black man, probably in his 30s, in the room. I recommended they ask the SCA to get the conductor, because I saw both their tickets and they both looked legit.
> 
> ...



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

As far as how people get picked. Several ways. Most likely someone smells a drug or passenger they acts like they are using drugs and someone called and "tipped" off the police. That someone coud be an employee or a passenger. Passengers have called 911 about other passengers without telling any crew memebers or after telling crew members who did not to call the police about a passenger.

Also the police have the passenger manifests. They can match the manifest against passengers in criminal or terrorist list databases.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 4, 2015)

Guest said:


> Most likely someone smells a drug or passenger they acts like they are using drugs and someone called and "tipped" off the police.


Source?


----------



## Ryan (Feb 4, 2015)

Yeah, I'd love to see the statistics to back that assertion up.

Given that all policemen are hardworking trustworthy individuals, I'm sure that the random searches are completely random and racial profiling has nothing to do with it.


----------



## white rabbitt (Feb 4, 2015)

RyanS said:


> Yeah, I'd love to see the statistics to back that assertion up.
> 
> Given that all policemen are hardworking trustworthy individuals, I'm sure that the random searches are completely random and racial profiling has nothing to do with it.


lol lol that is the funnyest thing u have ever posted ryan


----------



## rickycourtney (Feb 4, 2015)

Thanks to Jeremiah it sounds like passengers who make last minute roomette purchases are flagged for search. Now the question is... are the police simply asking the conductor to see the passenger manifest or is someone Amtrak sending a message to law enforcement when suspect tickets are purchased?


----------



## crabby_appleton1950 (Feb 4, 2015)

rickycourtney said:


> Thanks to Jeremiah it sounds like passengers who make last minute roomette purchases are flagged for search.


From what I've read in the past, TSA uses something similar (when looking for possible terrorists). People who buy at the last minute, one way, and in cash.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Feb 4, 2015)

I like the Another Amtrak Secretary "cashing in" theory, combined with Ryan's spot on post!

And it must be time for another Reno 911 Movie!!


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2015)

Amtrak has the manifests. Law enforcement has access.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 4, 2015)

Guest said:


> Amtrak has the manifests. Law enforcement has access.


And your point? :mellow:


----------



## jis (Feb 4, 2015)

I wonder if this is part of the deal that Amtrak struck with DHS to keep the VIPER teams off of Amtrak.


----------



## BigRedEO (Feb 4, 2015)

> When you purchase a ticket you give them the right to search.
> 
> As far as how people get picked. Several ways. Most likely someone smells a drug or passenger they acts like they are using drugs and someone called and "tipped" off the police. That someone coud be an employee or a passenger. Passengers have called 911 about other passengers without telling any crew memebers or after telling crew members who did not to call the police about a passenger.
> 
> Also the police have the passenger manifests. They can match the manifest against passengers in criminal or terrorist list databases.


Thank you. That answers a lot for me.


----------



## SteveSFL (Feb 4, 2015)

RyanS said:


> Given that all policemen are hardworking trustworthy individuals, I'm sure that the random searches are completely random and racial profiling has nothing to do with it.


Kind of a broad brush you are using.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 4, 2015)

SteveSTX said:


> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> > Given that all policemen are hardworking trustworthy individuals, I'm sure that the random searches are completely random and racial profiling has nothing to do with it.
> ...


If you want to see a broad brush read up on civil forfeiture. Even though everyone seems to think CF is suddenly dead the only thing that actually changed was an operational directive at the federal level that can be reversed at any time while state based CF remains fully intact.


----------



## FriskyFL (Feb 4, 2015)

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


----------



## VentureForth (Feb 4, 2015)

FriskyFL said:


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


That is the most over used anti-liberty, pro-let-government-do-anything-they-want quote constantly being thrown out.

There was a thread on here several years back, about the time of the Vipr incident in Savannah, that was about protecting your civil rights, all while being compliant to Amtrak's carriage rules. I don't have time to dig it up, but it may be time for a refresher.

Just because a ticket says you consent to searches, the 4th amendment can't be annulled by fine print. Amtrak's status as a quasi government agency strengthens this.

IIRC, it goes something like this:

"Hi, what is your name?"

"Bo Jangles"

"Where are you headed, Mr. Jangles?"

"I'm sorry, am I being suspected of a crime?"

"No, we just want to search your stuff."

"Do you have a warrant?"

"No, but that conductor will put you off the train."

"That's fine. Do you have probably cause?"

"No, but that conductor will put you off the train."

You get put off the train, but your rights are protected. Woo hoo!

That being said, unless the cops have a drug pooch that marks your room, you can stand your ground. Having the courage and the wherewithal to do so - especially at the potential of having your trip cancelled - is another issue completely.


----------



## jis (Feb 4, 2015)

FriskyFL said:


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


That is actually not very true. Clearly you have zero experience with any such encounter to be making that statement. You do have much to fear even if you have nothing to hide, if you got caught in a mis-identification situation either deliberately caused by someone or by sheer accident.


----------



## Guesting (Feb 4, 2015)

Guest said:


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



Sorry, is there some cite to this?

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## TVRM610 (Feb 4, 2015)

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

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


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Feb 4, 2015)

FriskyFL said:


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


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

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

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

why are they in jail?"

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

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

nothing to fear.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Feb 4, 2015)

Modified post to eliminate names of guilty parties:

Draconian measures like the so called "Patriot Act",No Knock Laws and the phoney, failed

"War on Drugs" are typical over reaction by Governments when they are allowed to get away with it!

There's a reason the Founding Fathers added the 4th Amendment to the Constitution!

Warrants? We're the Government, we don't need any stinkin' warrants!


----------



## StriderGDM (Feb 4, 2015)

FriskyFL said:


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


http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20150204_TSA_jails_innocent_traveler_when_he_asks_to_file_a_complaint.htmlExactly. Oh wait...

Besides, it has little to do with fear and more with rights.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 4, 2015)

Guesting said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > When you purchase a ticket you give them the right to search.
> ...


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

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

The relevant excerpt:



> In order to ensure the quality of travel and safety and security of its passengers, Amtrak may refuse to carry passengers:
> 
> Who refuse to consent to Amtrak security inspections of persons and/or baggage onboard Amtrak trains and/or at designated areas, such as train platforms and passenger boarding or waiting areas.


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


----------



## KmH (Feb 4, 2015)

Guesting said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > When you purchase a ticket you give them the right to search.
> ...


Yes.



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


----------



## VentureForth (Feb 4, 2015)

Guesting said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > When you purchase a ticket you give them the right to search.
> ...


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

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


----------



## Sauve850 (Feb 4, 2015)

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


----------



## KmH (Feb 4, 2015)

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


----------



## Ispolkom (Feb 4, 2015)

Sauve850 said:


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


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


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2015)

VentureForth said:


> Guesting said:
> 
> 
> > Guest said:
> ...


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


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 4, 2015)

Guest said:


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


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


----------



## Ryan (Feb 4, 2015)

Guest said:


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


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


----------



## SP&S (Feb 5, 2015)

FriskyFL said:


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


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


----------



## Facepalm (Feb 5, 2015)

FriskyFL said:


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


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


----------



## VentureForth (Feb 5, 2015)

RyanS said:


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


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

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


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2015)

Guesting said:


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


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


----------



## cirdan (Feb 5, 2015)

TVRM610 said:


> This is very concerning. To me, it potentially places everyone on board the train in danger, since if there is any type of altercation anyone could get hurt in potential cross fire (guy tries to run, police gets trigger happy, fellow passenger gets hurt.)
> 
> I would rather have my bag searched upon boarding, airline style, than be subject to searches like this. The guest poster above makes it sound like "standing for your rights" is as simple as saying no. I highly doubt it would be that easy!


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


----------



## Steve4031 (Feb 5, 2015)

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

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


----------



## Ispolkom (Feb 5, 2015)

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

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


----------



## VentureForth (Feb 5, 2015)

Steve4031 said:


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


As Mr. Ispolkom said,



Ispolkom said:


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


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

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

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


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 5, 2015)

VentureForth said:


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


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


----------



## 4thA (Feb 5, 2015)

Okay, let’s see:

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

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


----------



## Ryan (Feb 5, 2015)

4thA said:


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


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


----------



## KC Ghost Rider (Feb 5, 2015)

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


----------



## Riverviewer (Feb 5, 2015)

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

Welcome to 1984.


----------



## 4thA (Feb 5, 2015)

RyanS said:


> 4thA said:
> 
> 
> > Therefore, the conductor must still articulate some reason (called probable cause) for searching the compartment.
> ...


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

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

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


----------



## neutralist (Feb 5, 2015)

4thA said:


> Arguably, Amtrak is a government agency


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



WoodyinNYC said:


> FriskyFL said:
> 
> 
> > If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear.
> ...


Everything Hitler did after 1933 was legal in Germany.


----------



## SarahZ (Feb 5, 2015)

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

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


----------



## Steve4031 (Feb 5, 2015)

The pragmatic thing to do then is to close all of your bags, etc. and place your suitcase on the luggage rack by the stairs. The police can look on your room and see you and the room. If they don't see the bag or anything else they can't ask to search it. Of course a police dog is going to walk by the luggage rack. If it hits on your suitcase then you are going to get searched.


----------



## KC Ghost Rider (Feb 5, 2015)

4thA said:


> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> > 4thA said:
> ...


_United States v. Whitehead,_ 849 F.2d 849 (4th Cir. 1988), the Fourth Circuit has held that train passengers have a reduced expectation of privacy in their sleeping compartments.

See UNITED STATES of America v. Walter E. TRAYER for a more pertinent information.


----------



## KC Ghost Rider (Feb 5, 2015)

SarahZ said:


> Annnnnnnd there it is. I knew it would show up.
> 
> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law


Sarah, you are so amazing! I can rely on your encyclopedic knowledge to brighten even these most daunting threads.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 5, 2015)

4thA said:


> But to specifically search a compartment, government actors are required to have probable cause because a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a compartment (illustrated by the curtains and door with locking mechanism).


Amtrak is not a government actor.

Once for for possible penetration:



> In order to ensure the quality of travel and safety and security of its passengers, Amtrak may refuse to carry passengers:
> 
> Who refuse to consent to Amtrak security inspections of persons and/or baggage onboard Amtrak trains and/or at designated areas, such as train platforms and passenger boarding or waiting areas.


You're perfectly within your rights to refuse such a search, but Amtrak is perfectly within their rights to put you off the train if you do so.

Don't be this guy:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 5, 2015)

RyanS said:


> 4thA said:
> 
> 
> > But to specifically search a compartment, government actors are required to have probable cause because a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a compartment (illustrated by the curtains and door with locking mechanism).
> ...


Even though Amtrak may or may not be a private business the Conductor is bestowed with powers that are generally associated with law enforcement. US Law is full of gray areas.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 5, 2015)

True, but the requirement of probably cause to for a search ain't one of them.


----------



## 4thA (Feb 5, 2015)

KC Ghost Rider said:


> 4thA said:
> 
> 
> > RyanS said:
> ...


Many thanks for the citation. This is actually quite helpful.

"The trial court denied Whitehead's suppression motion. Invoking the rationales underlying the "vehicle exception" to the warrant requirement, see generally California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 105 S.Ct. 2066, 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985), the court held that "[t]he expectation of privacy of one occupying a roomette ... is substantially less than that of a person occupying a temporary home such as a hotel room." Since the officers reasonably suspected Whitehead of criminal wrongdoing, the court determined that their canine investigation of his roomette did not offend the fourth amendment.

We agree with the trial court's mode of analysis and its finding of reasonable suspicion. We conclude that the brief exposure of the interior of a train compartment to narcotics detection dogs is constitutionally permissible when based on a reasonable, articulable suspicion that luggage within the compartment contains contraband."

What this shows is that a person doesn't have the same expectation of privacy of the likes of a hotel room. However, it does affirm that a person in a roomette still has SOME expectation of privacy . It also confirms that police must still provide SOME "reasonable, articulable suspicion" for asking to search a roomette. In other words, the appropriate standard isn't probable cause but likely reasonable suspicion. Under a reasonable suspicion standard, the police must provide some articulable reason for believing you are, or about to, commit a crime. And thus, without that, the police still can't search your room.


----------



## KC Ghost Rider (Feb 5, 2015)

4thA said:


> KC Ghost Rider said:
> 
> 
> > 4thA said:
> ...


You are most welcome, 4thA! So far, we have learned that Amtrak does profile, therefore the OP did likely witness such a case. Further, the courts have held that a public area search requires no probable cause or search warrant. Additionally, persons and personal effects can be be searched without warrant when there is reasonable grounds/suspicion to do so or those articles are in "plain view" or law enforcement has a belief that the evidence of a crime will be destroyed. Finally, we debate what level of privacy a rail passenger can expect in his/her sleeping accommodation.

It is my belief that the train conductor can authorize and compel an inspection of any car, compartment, space, and item that the railroad owns. His reasons could as simple as health, safety, comfort, etc. Your sleeping accommodation (walls, door, windows, seats, bedding, ventilation system, etc) is the railroads. Your person and personal effect are not, but you gave your consent to have your personal effects searched by accepting the conditions of carriage. If you refuse, the conductor may remove you and your personal property from the train.

The real debate is what happens when a third party law enforcement agency wants to conduct a contraband interdiction operation. The first premise is they do not just show up uninvited. They are working with the railroad to reduce criminal activities. My reading of the instant case is this; a passenger can only expect unreasonable intrusions into the sleeping accommodation. Total privacy is out of the question. It is even less than a reasonable expectation of privacy. One could conclude his/her privacy depends on good will of their host. I am all for defending constitutional rights, but knowing where one stands in relation to those rights is a must. A passenger could invoke his/her fourth amendment rights, as they believe the US constitution gives them, and still find themselves in legal trouble and without passage. I would submit those few would find very few legal remedies.


----------



## Saber Mom (Feb 5, 2015)

SarahZ said:


> Annnnnnnd there it is. I knew it would show up.
> 
> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law


ROFL!! Only 51 posts in too!


----------



## SubwayNut (Feb 5, 2015)

Ispolkom said:


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


That is true, the officers other direct question was if I had more than $5,000 in cash.


----------



## neutralist (Feb 6, 2015)

Saber Mom said:


> SarahZ said:
> 
> 
> > Annnnnnnd there it is. I knew it would show up.
> ...


That other guy mentioned Germany first


----------



## FriskyFL (Feb 6, 2015)

The War on Drugs presupposes collateral damage. Name me a war where innocents aren't harmed? Blame our feckless politicians, who climb over eachother to demonstrate how "tough on crime" they can be. Then blame the high functioning morons that elect them.


----------



## amamba (Feb 6, 2015)

FriskyFL said:


> The War on Drugs presupposes collateral damage. Name me a war where innocents aren't harmed? Blame our feckless politicians, who climb over eachother to demonstrate how "tough on crime" they can be. Then blame the high functioning morons that elect them.


But why are we even having a war on drugs? Bah. Off topic, but with so many states legalizing marijuana, it seems that the tide of public opinion is turning.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 6, 2015)

War on Some Drugs. Tobacco and Alcohol (and soon to be pot) are A-OK for Reasons.


----------



## Gord (Feb 6, 2015)

KC Ghost Rider said:


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


So how would this apply to a sleeping car passenger in their room? As I understand it, your room is a "temporary residence", much like renting a hotel room for a night. I have a higher expectation of privacy in a hotel room than I do in a public place. Should I not expect the same in my private sleeper accommodation where I have paid a premium for privacy?

Presumably, the "temporary residence" is also why you are allowed to consume personal alcohol within "your" room.


----------



## Martin Gee (Feb 7, 2015)

In this new era we live In nobody should be suprised to be searched at any time on any mode of public transportation especially as Al Quaeda has expressed a desire to go after trains. Remember Madrid and the London Tube bombings which I personally experienced. . Like the man says If you have nothing to hid you have nothing to fear. Racial profiling does not get practiced, Law enforcement knows young black men are more likely to transport drugs so there you go. Its called proactive policing.


----------



## tonys96 (Feb 7, 2015)

Martin Gee said:


> . Racial profiling does not get practiced,


That is one of the funniest things I have heard lately.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Feb 7, 2015)

Surely you're not serious!!?? And don't call me Shirley!

Well,come to think about it, since this country is so small, and there are so few miles of tracks with very few trains of whatever type,having law enforcement show their flag @ a few stations will surely make us all safe when riding the rails!

Or perhaps your plan includes coming up with enough money to put airport type security into every station, guards on every bridge, tunnel and grade crossing in the country?

Probably would be as successful as the "War on Drugs" and " making our Borders Secure!"


----------



## FriskyFL (Feb 7, 2015)

The Military-Law Enforcement-Industrial Complex requires a perpetual "war on something" to justify its existence. We was warned, we chose not to listen.


----------



## neroden (Feb 7, 2015)

Guest said:


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


False. Look up the law.

The correct response is "I do not consent to this search. And I don't believe you're really cops. Please call the conductor, there are fake cops here...."

The conductor can kick you off for any reason. The "cops", however, have no rights whatsoever on the train beyond what the conductor allows them.


----------



## neroden (Feb 7, 2015)

KC Ghost Rider said:


> I have follow this thread with interest. Some finer points of law were discussed and one would expect a lawyer/judge to jump in at any point to clarify and elucidate the issues raised by the AGR lawyers. IMHO, a passenger on a public conveyance has about the same expectation to privacy as someone in a public place. Further, your accommodation is not your private property. The National Railroad Passenger Corporation owns it, and as the property owners, can consent for their property to be searched...even over any objections a passenger may make. Face it, you have zero legal rights in this and zero legal remedies afterward.


Completely false. The "hotel room" rules apply (more or less) to sleeping compartments. They're kind of complicated, but they basically prohibit suspicionless searches.
I see this has been discussed above. All the pertitent cases where searches were allowed relate to a reasonable suspicion rather than arbitrary harrasment. There's serious evidence of arbitrary harassment going on.


----------



## neroden (Feb 7, 2015)

Guest said:


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


No. It's the conductor. The Conductor has the right to *arrest the police*, actually. Most of the conductors probably don't realize this, but it's been done.


----------



## neroden (Feb 7, 2015)

KC Ghost Rider said:


> The real debate is what happens when a third party law enforcement agency wants to conduct a contraband interdiction operation. The first premise is they do not just show up uninvited. They are working with the railroad to reduce criminal activities.


It's not at all clear that this is always the case. Both the TSA and the Border Patrol have shown up uninvited on Amtrak and intruded for their own reasons, with no action by Amtrak.
It is quite clear that the conductor can kick anyone off a train; and that the conductor can call the police if the conductor has a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, which would usually be sufficient for the police to investigate.

However, what about the situation where the police officers are freelancing without the involvement of Amtrak? This seems to happen quite frequently.


----------



## neroden (Feb 7, 2015)

KC Ghost Rider said:


> A passenger could invoke his/her fourth amendment rights, as they believe the US constitution gives them, and still find themselves in legal trouble and without passage. I would submit those few would find very few legal remedies.


I submit that it would depend on the resources of said passengers. Profiling is deliberately done to targets who are believed to be relatively poor, and therefore unable to defend themselves in our "money rules" system. Those with millions of dollars in the bank can probably get quite excellent legal remedies, to the point where a lawless police department will be desperately trying to pay them to settle. If Carlos Slim got harassed on the train by lawless police, do you think he wouldn't find a legal remedy? I think he'd find very effective remedies.

Racial profiling is actually used partly as a scheme for financial profiling.


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2015)

neroden said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > When you purchase a ticket you give them the right to search.
> ...


Conductors don't have the power to arrest! The police can be arrested but not by the Conductor.

"Amtrak personnel must cooperate completely with any and all law enforcement agencies and their agents, while such agents are acting in an official capacity. " That is the Amtrak rule Conductors must abide by.


----------



## neroden (Feb 7, 2015)

Conductors do, in fact, have the power of arrest while the train is moving. They have to hand over the criminals at the next stop. Similar to ship captains.



> "Amtrak personnel must cooperate completely with any and all law enforcement agencies and their agents, while such agents are acting in an official capacity. " That is the Amtrak rule Conductors must abide by.


The statement "acting in an official capacity" conceals more than it reveals. Any illegal actions by law enforcement constitute "not acting in an official capacity" and mean that the law enforcement officials *must not* be cooperated with.
We've got an epidemic of criminal "police officers" in this country -- it really can't be ignored any longer, just read the headlines. This is therefore becoming a very important issue. I may be particularly alert to it because the New York State Police Troop C evidence-tampering (framing) scandal happened in my area. Pretty nearly every member of the troop went to prison for decades, but it took over a decade for them to be caught.


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2015)

neroden said:


> KC Ghost Rider said:
> 
> 
> > The real debate is what happens when a third party law enforcement agency wants to conduct a contraband interdiction operation. The first premise is they do not just show up uninvited. They are working with the railroad to reduce criminal activities.
> ...


The TSA and Border Patrol or other law enforcement does not have to be invited. They only have to be doing their duties. If you mean they have shown up without notifying Amtrak, that is correct. But they don't have to involve Amtrak.

As far as kicking anyone off the train, the conductor can but they have to justify it. An incident report must be submitted.


----------



## neroden (Feb 7, 2015)

Sure, if they're following an actual lead and evidence, they can follow it onto the train. But the examples I'm thinking about consisted of the Border Patrol and TSA just wandering onto the train to harass people at random.

Which is illegal.

Which means they were not performing their official duties.

Which means the conductor has no obligation whatsoever to cooperate with them. And in *fact* is obligated to *kick them off the train for riding without a ticket*. And of course the conductor should submit an incident report... after all, police officers breaking the law really is a criminal incident which should be investigated by the DA.


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2015)

neroden said:


> Sure, if they're following an actual lead and evidence, they can follow it onto the train. But the examples I'm thinking about consisted of the Border Patrol and TSA just wandering onto the train to harass people at random.
> 
> Which is illegal.
> 
> ...


It is Amtrak policy for the Conductor to cooperate with them. Also the Conductors can't kick them off for riding without a ticket if they are uniformed officers. That is Amtrak policy. They don't need a ticket in uniform. If they are not in uniform then they should have a ticket but if the officer states they are acting in an official capcity no Conductor is going to kick them off because of the Amtrak policy I quoted.


----------



## Paulus (Feb 7, 2015)

neroden said:


> Conductors do, in fact, have the power of arrest while the train is moving. They have to hand over the criminals at the next stop. Similar to ship captains.


Googling, it's state dependent and doesn't appear to be any different from a normal citizen's arrest.


----------



## neroden (Feb 7, 2015)

The Amtrak Police have previously (under the *prior* police chief) been quite good about kicking off TSA and Border Patrol agents who are breaking the law.

I hope they will continue to do so. If they don't, Amtrak is setting itself up for large, nasty lawsuits, because there are a lot of completely criminal police departments out there, and eventually one of them is going to go after the wrong guy, and if Amtrak cooperated with a criminal PD, Amtrak will be fully liable. (Particularly given that Amtrak has a past record of doing the right thing.)


----------



## KC Ghost Rider (Feb 7, 2015)

neroden said:


> KC Ghost Rider said:
> 
> 
> > I have follow this thread with interest. Some finer points of law were discussed and one would expect a lawyer/judge to jump in at any point to clarify and elucidate the issues raised by the AGR lawyers. IMHO, a passenger on a public conveyance has about the same expectation to privacy as someone in a public place. Further, your accommodation is not your private property. The National Railroad Passenger Corporation owns it, and as the property owners, can consent for their property to be searched...even over any objections a passenger may make. Face it, you have zero legal rights in this and zero legal remedies afterward.
> ...





neroden said:


> Your comments are at odds with the case law. The relevant part "roomettes do not confer upon occupants the same degree of privacy as a dwelling or hotel or motel room[.]" See United States v. Little, 18 F.3d 1499, 1505(10th Cir. 1994) (en banc).
> 
> If one could prove a search was arbitrary and capricious, then that person may have a legal leg to stand one. Fishing expeditions are not allowed. The law enforcement agency must have reasonable grounds to search your personal property, as long as it is not in plan view, e.g. closed.





neroden said:


> KC Ghost Rider said:
> 
> 
> > The real debate is what happens when a third party law enforcement agency wants to conduct a contraband interdiction operation. The first premise is they do not just show up uninvited. They are working with the railroad to reduce criminal activities.
> ...


It is unlikely that the local police department officers, sheriff's department deputies, state police, or U.S. Marshall's would show up unannounced. The DEA, Border Patrol, and DHS agents might show up to do an inspection and those are most likely are random and come as a expected surprise to railroad employees. There is no freelancing. The command structure of the agencies plan these operations and practice operations security. Most are reasonable if you show your identification, ticket, and answer their questions. Personally, I have been detained by one of these agencies and it was a long interview with some pointed questions. I answered as honestly as I could and offered resources to answer their questions. Yes, it was not pleasant, but they were professional and I was permitted to proceed on my way. Just keep a level head and do not go off half cocked, spouting you know your 4th amendment rights, and all will be well.



neroden said:


> KC Ghost Rider said:
> 
> 
> > A passenger could invoke his/her fourth amendment rights, as they believe the US constitution gives them, and still find themselves in legal trouble and without passage. I would submit those few would find very few legal remedies.
> ...


Actually, right makes might. If you are shady and want to live a life that is contrary to good order, you make yourself a target. If an honest man is wronged, an attorney will take the case, often pro bono. Furthermore, the ACLU will often file an Amicus Curiae brief on their behalf. The truly innocent parties are often well represented no matter the financial situation because the lawyer will work on a contingency fee arrangement. Yes, I am well aware of rouge cops and underhanded policing, that is why I would request a witness or in the alternative video tape the proceedings. If neither of these options are available, I might take the step of asking for an attorney to be present for the search, saying it was for every ones protection. If one could not be provided, then any fruits found would later be considered from a poisoned tree and would be suppressed. However, the truly innocent would just comply with reasonable requests and 99.9% of the time would be allowed to proceed on their journey.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 7, 2015)

What a wildly unrealistic view of the world.


----------



## SteveSFL (Feb 7, 2015)

Although I find all of these varied replies interesting, it really isn't helpful unless someone with real legal expertise can weigh in and give us a credible answer. And surfing the Internet and getting riled up about 4th amendment cases does not equal real legal expertise. Does anyone have a legitimate resource they could consult?


----------



## Ispolkom (Feb 7, 2015)

SteveSTX said:


> Does anyone have a legitimate resource they could consult?


How would we know the resource was legitimate? This is the Internet, where no one knows you're a dog.

Sorry. I couldn't let *SarahZ* be the only one to apply an Internet trope to this thread.


----------



## KC Ghost Rider (Feb 7, 2015)

SteveSTX said:


> Although I find all of these varied replies interesting, it really isn't helpful unless someone with real legal expertise can weigh in and give us a credible answer. And surfing the Internet and getting riled up about 4th amendment cases does not equal real legal expertise. Does anyone have a legitimate resource they could consult?


Steve, I said that at the start of my replies. I asked if an attorney or judge would offer an opinion. Absent of that, I used my limited legal training and law enforcement expertise to try to bring a sense of reality to the discussion. I researched case law and found most these germane to the OP original question. I offered my opinion, not legal advice, to what these cases meant to the average sleeping car passenger. It was well established the paying an accommodation fare does not equate to ownership. Additionally, just because you occupy the said room type and place your personal effects in it, does not establish a reasonable expectation of privacy. Unreasonable intrusion into your accommodation can be your only expectation and that is dependent on the good will of the railroad more than any constitutional right.


----------



## firstcultural (Feb 8, 2015)

RyanS said:


> War on Some Drugs. Tobacco and Alcohol (and soon to be pot) are A-OK for Reasons.


I feel like once pot is legal this room searching will also go away. All the other stuff is equally illegal in every state, and doesn't have a market for people to transport it from the west coast to elsewhere.


----------



## Gabbytony (Feb 8, 2015)

Police are just following the statistics.


----------



## rrdude (Feb 8, 2015)

Gabbytony said:


> Police are just following the statistics.


However, one would think that "even IF the statistics showed that 'purple people' were arrested more than 'green people', for transporting drugs, it doesn't mean you can arbitrarily search more 'purple people' ....." does it?

It's like a black man getting stopped for driving............ And the charge is "Driving while being a black male" Infuriating.


----------



## PRR 60 (Feb 8, 2015)

The various law enforcement agencies that board Amtrak trains do so with the blanket permission of Amtrak. The individual train conductors do not have the authority through Amtrak to deny law enforcement operations on their trains (unless they want to be looking for a new job).

Amtrak conductors are not police and do not have police power. Conductors cannot make arrests. They are kind of like restaurant or bar managers. They are the final authority on the train. They can determine who is permitted on board and who has to be removed from the train. They can call police (Amtrak or local) to handle an individual, but the police will determine if an arrest is warranted based on the information provided by the conductor and others. Note that the law that makes it a crime to interfere with a flight crew (49 U.S. Code § 46504) does not apply to train crews. A passenger who disobeys a conductor is not, simply by that act, committing a crime.

My issue with the actions carried out by some (most?) of the searches carried out by local police on-board Amtrak is that the goal is not law enforcement but revenue generation. This practice was described in detail by a three-part series in the Washington Post. Cash is found, the subject is told they are in a heap of trouble, and then they are offered a deal to walk if they simply deny knowledge of the cash and waive any future claim to the cash. The bad guy (if he is a bad guy) walks away absent his cash, and the local police gets to buy a new tank. If that seizure took place on Amtrak, by agreement with the DEA, Amtrak gets a piece of the action (thus Amtrak's blanket permission for the searches to take place).

Even if 90, 95, or 98% of the victims are, in fact, guilty, this is still guilty unless proven innocent. Someone gets threatened and coerced into signing something to avoid arrest (whether or not the arrest is actually possible) and, even if the person is innocent, getting that cash back is time-consuming and potentially expensive. That is really not the way the system is supposed to work.

It was announced last month that Attorney General Holder had all but put an end to allowing local police to share in the proceeds from asset seizures. I would have thought that would have put an end to a lot of these kinds of fishing expeditions. I guess not.


----------



## hessjm (Feb 8, 2015)

Y'all better behave on our Michigan trains. From MIchigan Compiled Laws Annoated 462.253

RAILROAD CODE OF 1993 (EXCERPT)

Act 354 of 1993

462.253 Person using abusive, profane, or indecent language or exhibiting violent conduct; powers of conductor.

Sec. 253.

A person who uses abusive, profane, or indecent language or exhibits violent conduct may be taken into custody by the conductor of the train and removed to a safe and secure place on the train until its arrival at some usual stopping place, where he or she may be put off the train and put into the custody of some proper officer for prosecution if necessary. For this purpose railroad conductors, while in charge of trains, are hereby invested with the powers of sheriffs and peace officers.

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

© 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

Rendered 2/8/2015 10:35:36	Michigan Compiled Laws Complete Through PA 492 of 2014

© 2015 Legislative Council, State of Michigan	Courtesy of www.legislature.mi.gov


----------



## PRR 60 (Feb 8, 2015)

hessjm said:


> Y'all better behave on our Michigan trains. From MIchigan Compiled Laws Annoated 462.253
> 
> RAILROAD CODE OF 1993 (EXCERPT)
> 
> ...


Uh oh. There goes my plan to cuss out the conductors in Michigan!


----------



## Bob Dylan (Feb 8, 2015)

Interesting Joe! Sounds similar to the powers of a US Navy ship's Captain who can place a suspect under arrest and on bread and water rations until arriving in port!

Do Conductors get to pack heat in Michigan?

Not a good idea to be under the influence or curse anyone out on a Michigan train!


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 8, 2015)

I won't respect a ban on swearing in public unless and until they also ban crying in public. h34r:


----------



## hessjm (Feb 8, 2015)

I'm betting not one conductor knows about this law. I discovered it a long time ago when there was a thread about local liquor laws on Amtrak. Michigan had just changed their Sunday liquor law and I pursued it out of curiosity to see how it applied. There is another whole section of the liquor laws that give conductors enforcement in those areas!  Today even though knowing that the statute existed it was a little hard to find.

I suspect that since abusive language and violent conduct are mentioned that the intent of the law is to give the conductor some protection for the handling of disorderly persons.


----------



## PRR 60 (Feb 8, 2015)

hessjm said:


> I'm betting not one conductor knows about this law. I discovered it a long time ago when there was a thread about local liquor laws on Amtrak. Michigan had just changed their Sunday liquor law and I pursued it out of curiosity to see how it applied. There is another whole section of the liquor laws that give conductors enforcement in those areas!  Today even though knowing that the statute existed it was a little hard to find.
> 
> I suspect that since abusive language and violent conduct are mentioned that the intent of the law is to give the conductor some protection for the handling of disorderly persons.



However, I stand corrected on my statement that conductors do not have police power. Even if it is just Michigan (and it might be many more states), one exception to a blanket claim means the claim is not correct.


----------



## DooBdoo (Feb 8, 2015)

Probable cause=

It is a statistically recognized route used for illegal purposes borne out by prior records.

or

A random tip was received that a person would be violating the law.

or

The person investigated matches the description of a wanted person.

or in another case,

It is the policy of the agency conducting the search to randomly select individuals in the

Interests of National Security with evidence of prior use of the route or proposed use of the route for illegal purposes.

NOTE: The conductor has no authority to arrest anyone, other than a citizens arrest.The captain of the ship has some limits on his authority and some expansion is on his authority. Expansions only extant outside the territorial limits of a treaty state. The authority for the conductor is wholly within the United States, therefore subject to its laws.

NOTE 2:

The original poster never mentions have anyone else on the train being searched. Just one person who he observed. He did not follow the officers who every car, sleeper, coach or observe employees being searched. It is an isolated incident and one observation.

Quite simply put, and approached logically, there is not enough information given to form a conclusion.

Lastly, after a fun-filled career that included, "profiling," and protecting our nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic, I have been elected a judge for over 20 years.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 8, 2015)

DooBdoo said:


> NOTE: The conductor has no authority to arrest anyone, other than a citizens arrest.


Demonstrably false, chapter and verse cited like 3 posts up.


----------



## tp49 (Feb 8, 2015)

RyanS said:


> DooBdoo said:
> 
> 
> > NOTE: The conductor has no authority to arrest anyone, other than a citizens arrest.
> ...


The chapter and verse cited only applies to Michigan.


----------



## hessjm (Feb 8, 2015)

tp49 said:


> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> > DooBdoo said:
> ...


Granted that is true, so in less than 5 minutes of searching reveals in Minnesota:

629.363 RAILWAY CONDUCTOR; AUTHORITY TO ARREST.A conductor of a railway train may arrest a person committing an act upon the train prohibited by sections 609.681, 609.72, and 609.855, subdivision 1, with or without a warrant, and take that person to the proper law enforcement authorities, or to the station agent at the next railway station. The station agent shall take the arrested person to the law enforcement authorities. A conductor or station agent possesses the powers of a sheriff with a warrant in making arrests under this chapter.
History10297) RL s 5027; 1963 c 753 art 2 s 11; 1983 c 359 s 130; 1985 c 265 art 10 s 1; 1989 c 5 s 17
I'll bet there are more arrest authority granted to Conductors than first thought :huh:


----------



## tp49 (Feb 8, 2015)

hessjm said:


> I'll bet there are more arrest authority granted to Conductors than first thought :huh:


Probably, and a Lexis or Westlaw account would make it easier to find.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 8, 2015)

tp49 said:


> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> > DooBdoo said:
> ...


I only need one example to prove his blanket statement incorrect. Now I have 2.


----------



## Railroad Bill (Feb 8, 2015)

Ohio law according to Ohio Revised Code, sections listed, as it applies to conductor behavior on a passenger train.

*[SIZE=18pt]4973.23 Detention upon probable cause by conductor or ticket agent.[/SIZE]*

[SIZE=12pt](A)[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] A conductor of any train carrying passengers or of the cars of any interurban railroad carrying passengers, and a ticket agent employed in or about a railroad or interurban railroad station, while on duty on the train or cars, or in or about the station, who has probable cause to believe that a person has committed an offense may detain the person in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable length of time within the train, the cars, or the station, for the purpose of recovering any property involved in the offense, causing an arrest to be made by a peace officer, or obtaining a warrant of arrest. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt](B)[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] A conductor or ticket agent acting under division (A) of this section shall not search the person detained, search or seize any property belonging to the person detained without the person's consent, or use undue restraint upon the person detained. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]©[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] Any peace officer, as defined in section 2935.01 of the Revised Code, may arrest without a warrant any person who the officer has probable cause to believe has committed any violation of law and shall make the arrest within a reasonable time after the commission of the violation of law. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Effective Date: 03-23-2000 [/SIZE]

*[SIZE=18pt]4973.24 Conductor may eject passenger.[/SIZE]*

[SIZE=12pt]When a passenger is guilty of disorderly conduct, uses obscene language, or plays a game of cards or chance for money or other thing of value on a passenger train or the cars of an interurban railroad carrying passengers, the conductor of such train or cars shall stop his train or cars at the place where such offense is committed, or at the next stopping place for such train or cars and eject such passenger from the train or cars, using only such force as is necessary. The conductor may command the assistance of employees of the company, person, or firm owning or operating such railroad or interurban railroad and of the passengers on such train or cars, to assist in such removal. Before removing such passenger, the conductor shall tender to the passenger such proportion of the fare he paid as the distance he then is from the place to which he paid fare bears to the whole distance for which his fare is paid. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Effective Date: 10-01-1953 [/SIZE]


----------



## Ispolkom (Feb 8, 2015)

hessjm said:


> tp49 said:
> 
> 
> > RyanS said:
> ...


As a Minnesotan, I have to point out that the conductor's arrest powers extend only to disorderly behavior, not paying a fare, and, oddly, smoking. Smuggling dope, he's got nothing to do with.


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2015)

RyanS said:


> tp49 said:
> 
> 
> > RyanS said:
> ...


It does not matter if any state, or any local authorities give conductors authority to arrest since Amtrak does not give it's Conductors that authority. Even removing a passenger must be facilitated by Amtrak Police or local law enforcement.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Feb 8, 2015)

Card players Beware! when riding the Train through Ohio!!


----------



## tp49 (Feb 8, 2015)

RyanS said:


> tp49 said:
> 
> 
> > RyanS said:
> ...


If you read the last sentence of his post he states he is an elected judge in his jurisdiction it may not be the case and as such his statement is correct for his jurisdiction.

Second, so far we have seen two states that grant a limited arrest power. If the general assumption is that conductors do not have authority to arrest anyone then these two states would be exceptions until proven otherwise by a majority of states.


----------



## BCL (Feb 8, 2015)

California gives "public rail commuter transit services" conductors performing fare inspection the power of arrest for violations of California Penal Code 640. These are things such as eating/drinking, spitting, smoking, fare evasion, etc.

Whether or not it applies to Capitol Corridor or the San Joaquin I don't know. They might fall into the category of conductors operating a service operated by a joint powers agency. However, I suspect that the conductors aren't trained to perform arrests and would just contact Amtrak PD or local law enforcement to affect and arrest or to remove a passenger.

Regardless of the good judge's hyperbole, I think his point stands that a train conductor certainly doesn't have broad powers of arrest, and pretty much not for someone suspected of transporting illegal drugs (the topic at hand).


----------



## conductor (Feb 8, 2015)

i was going to refrain from chiming in, mainly because well I don't care all that much. However I figure I can help to clear the air a bit. Being a conductor on Amtrak, I can tell you right now that regardless of whatever state law/statue/penal code is on the books, Amtrak does not give or honer ANY conductor having police powers. Amtrak does not want the law suits associated with a conductor or other employee man-handling a passenger. We are not cops, our job is to run the train, and that's it. We are to comply with any requests from local or state police and any federal agencies. If DEA gets on, or Reno PD or any other agency, don't count on the conductor to stand up for you, they will lose their job...seen it happen. Contrary to popular belief any passenger removal is facilitated through CNOC or Operations and the conductors managers. We don't make the call to remove somebody, we don't even have the authority to remove somebody. We call it in and let our boss or CNOC make the decision to have somebody removed or not.

Amtrak Police, while being part of Amtrak, are considered to be Federal Officers and they share many of the same facilities with the DEA, FBI, and other federal law agencies. Amtrak corporate doesn't really control what Amtrak PD does or doesn't do, though sometimes a request will be honored they are their own entity. Amtrak corporate views Amtrak PD the same as any other law agency and EXPECTS ALL crew members to comply with their requests, same as the local police jurisdictions. If the police remove you, Amtrak considers it a matter between you and the police, not them.

When you buy your ticket you give consent to being searched for the purposes of the trains security....that's a very broad term. You may have to right to refuse a search on the 4th amendment, but the chances are the agency in question will ask the conductor to deny you transportation and the conductor will agree with them, regardless of their personal feelings as they have bills and a such and need their paycheck. If police ask for a manifest it is expected that the employee asked will produce one.

Long story short, Amtrak considers the conductors or any other employee to be of no importance. We don't make decisions, we are to do as instructed. If police want to go on a fishing expedition they will and Amtrak will not interfere. A conductor can not arrest anybody, no can a conductor tell police to go away with out a warrant. Amtrak considers the conductor to be in charge of the train only so there is somebody to blame if it goes bad, there is no authority granted no any support offered. The days of conductors actually being in charge and making decisions is long gone, sure there are a few fossils (old head conductors with prior right seniority on the freight RR) who still insist on doing it their way, but anybody that has been hired by Amtrak off the street so to speak is going to do as they are told or they will be terminated.

Sorry to be Debby downer folks, but you are on your own as far as Amtrak is concerned.


----------



## DooBdoo (Feb 8, 2015)

The "arrest" powers spelled out in local railroad laws are simply "holding" powers.

The "arrestee" is held, confined, turned over, according to the statutes UNTIL the person is turned over to the police.

It is the police who process the individual, bring him to court, and in one instance "file the complaint" - not the conductor. The conductor may be given the cloak of authority by local law, but that is merely to preserve order on a public conveyance and once the person is removed from the conveyance, that cloak of authority is removed. You don't see conductors appearing in local courts charging spitters as the train moves away, do you?

Look to the purpose, spirit, and history of the laws. They are to protect good order until the police and judicial system can take over.

There are many more incidents on cruise ships where the captain may incarcerate an abusive drunk - like a conductor can - BUT DUE PROCESS REQUIRES RELEASE TO THE PROPER AUTHORITIES.

There are no "train courts!" to hear train offenses prosecuted by conductors.


----------



## chakk (Feb 9, 2015)

jimhudson said:


> Card players Beware! when riding the Train through Ohio!!


After you leave that bar in Toledo, be sure you know when to hold 'em AND know when to fold 'em.


----------



## BCL (Feb 9, 2015)

DooBdoo said:


> The "arrest" powers spelled out in local railroad laws are simply "holding" powers.
> 
> The "arrestee" is held, confined, turned over, according to the statutes UNTIL the person is turned over to the police.
> 
> ...


Basically from what I can tell, California law basically gives commuter train conductors and fare collectors the authority to issue citations for fare evasion. They call it the power of arrest, but I'd have a hard time imagining any conductor I've seen try to arrest anyone. There are other issues like eating, drinking or smoking where a citation can be issued, but quite a few of those (save smoking) are actually allowed on commuter trains.

Now it might be interesting if a citation were contested in court and it was issued by a conductor. I've heard of many a citation dismissed because the issuing officer didn't show up in court. I doubt they pay conductors to do that. Perhaps designated fare inspectors.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 9, 2015)

Guest said:


> It does not matter if any state, or any local authorities give conductors authority to arrest since Amtrak does not give it's Conductors that authority. Even removing a passenger must be facilitated by Amtrak Police or local law enforcement.


Point to the part of the statement I responded to that indicated that his comments were limited to Amtrak.



tp49 said:


> If you read the last sentence of his post he states he is an elected judge in his jurisdiction it may not be the case and as such his statement is correct for his jurisdiction.


I read it, thank. Likewise, point to the part of the statement I responded to that indicated that his comments were limited to Amtrak. I'm sure it is true in his jurisdiction, however he made a blanket statement about all jurisdictions that I objected to.



DooBdoo said:


> There are no "train courts!" to hear train offenses prosecuted by conductors.


It's a good thing that nobody is claiming that there are.


----------



## FriskyFL (Feb 9, 2015)

RyanS said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > It does not matter if any state, or any local authorities give conductors authority to arrest since Amtrak does not give it's Conductors that authority. Even removing a passenger must be facilitated by Amtrak Police or local law enforcement.
> ...


I'd hate to think that I might get railroaded in a Train Court.


----------



## tp49 (Feb 9, 2015)

"Train Court" a new reality show from your friends at Spike TV.


----------



## Big Iron (Feb 9, 2015)

tp49 said:


> "Train Court" a new reality show from your friends at Spike TV.


Or "CONDUCTORS" Whatcha gonna do when they come for you, bad boys, bad boys.......


----------



## NorthShore (Feb 9, 2015)

Jury duty notice comes complete with a train ticket!


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2015)

NorthShore said:


> Jury duty notice comes complete with a train ticket!


Is a train ticket what you get from the conductor when speeding on the train?

Guest


----------



## white rabbitt (Feb 9, 2015)

jim hudson better not try to smuggle

any of that contraban BBQ

from taylor back to austin on the train h34r:

the amtrack BBQ police will find it jim :giggle: :giggle: :hi:


----------



## StriderGDM (Feb 9, 2015)

Guest said:


> NorthShore said:
> 
> 
> > Jury duty notice comes complete with a train ticket!
> ...


Funny you mention that.

Years back on our honeymoon my wife and I were on the Southwest Chief in New Mexico having lunch when we rounded a curve too quickly.

Next thing we knew, the conductor had basically told the engineer to stop the train and called in for a new crew. Never heard what happened to the engineer, but he (or she) had clearly exceeded the MAS (from the amount of glassware destroyed in the galley in the diner, I suspect it was by a lot more than I want to know  and my guess is that it was a CLE (Career Limiting Event).


----------



## MARC Rider (Feb 9, 2015)

firstcultural said:


> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> > War on Some Drugs. Tobacco and Alcohol (and soon to be pot) are A-OK for Reasons.
> ...



What, I didn't realize that possession of alcohol and tobacco are illegal in every state!

And Amtrak even allows people to smoke (outside the train) at "smoke stops," they allow people in the sleepers to drink their fill of booze in their rooms as long as they don't get rowdy, and they even let coach passengers transport booze, but if they want to drink it they have to buy it from Amtrak.

I've never heard of BATF doing fishing expeditions on the trains.


----------



## NW cannonball (Feb 10, 2015)

neroden said:


> KC Ghost Rider said:
> 
> 
> > A passenger could invoke his/her fourth amendment rights, as they believe the US constitution gives them, and still find themselves in legal trouble and without passage. I would submit those few would find very few legal remedies.
> ...


So true.

All the lawyers and civil rights people I've ever asked, and oh yeah, the Bill of Rights.

NEVER NEVER NEVER consent to a search without warrant. Never.

For one thing - if you consent, there's no limit to what you consent to - unless you made an enforceable deal with the searchers on the spot.

If you consent on the spot to a search -- the cops will (if it seems profitable) push that consent far beyond any limits you ever thought of.

Just calmly say "I do not consent"

Don't ever consent to unlawful search. Any search without warrant is unlawful.

The civil contract of carriage - totally different thing - where you consent to having your bags searched for possible threats to other passengers or the carrier.


----------



## cirdan (Feb 10, 2015)

DooBdoo said:


> There are many more incidents on cruise ships where the captain may incarcerate an abusive drunk - like a conductor can - BUT DUE PROCESS REQUIRES RELEASE TO THE PROPER AUTHORITIES.


This may also have to do with cruise ships operating in international waters, where the legal situation is different.

Furthermore, the captain is by tradition "the supreme master and commander under God" and in the past when sailing ships many have been weeks from any port, captains were called upon to pass judgement and administer punishment when there were no other authorities who this could be delegated to (their responsibilities also extended to religious functions such as leading Sunday worship and ministering funerals). Of course these days are gone but some remnants of that remain in legal understanding.

You can't compare this to the situation on a train.


----------



## FriskyFL (Feb 10, 2015)

So the Conductor can't sentence unruly passengers to Walk the Plank? What a pity.


----------



## cirdan (Feb 10, 2015)

FriskyFL said:


> So the Conductor can't sentence unruly passengers to Walk the Plank? What a pity.


not even while crossing Lake Pontchartrain?


----------



## Ispolkom (Feb 10, 2015)

NW cannonball said:


> Any search without warrant is unlawful.


That is simply not true. I think you're confusing "probable cause" with "warrant."


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 10, 2015)

Ispolkom said:


> NW cannonball said:
> 
> 
> > Any search without warrant is unlawful.
> ...


Let's also avoid confusing _probable cause_ with a genuinely reasonable suspicion and remember that warrants are sometimes granted with a rubber stamp or even ignored entirely. The problem is that the rules only seem to apply to one side. The "acquitted on a technicality" hype is a rare exception compared to the barely discussed "convicted on a technicality" reality. We already have more people incarcerated than any other country on earth and the number is only getting larger over time.

Indeed it is guaranteed to never get smaller because our government has signed contracts that have turned criminal punishment into a for-profit business that is guaranteed a minimum number of convicts no matter what happens in court. A business that continuously lobbies for stricter laws and harsher punishments. What we used to do as tricks and pranks when when we were young comes with severe punishments and lifelong branding today.

If this happened in any other context or culture we'd probably call it fascism, but since we've become so immune to introspection we simply call it business as usual.


----------



## BCL (Feb 10, 2015)

Ispolkom said:


> NW cannonball said:
> 
> 
> > Any search without warrant is unlawful.
> ...


Probable cause is the standard needed to obtain a warrant or perform an arrest. Reasonable suspicion is the standard needed for law enforcement to carry out an involuntary search without a warrant.


----------



## Ispolkom (Feb 10, 2015)

BCL said:


> Ispolkom said:
> 
> 
> > NW cannonball said:
> ...


Absolutely correct. Hoisted by my own petard, I am.


----------

