Can passengers be kicked off train for refusing police search?

[oregon pioneer]

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]

Welcome back! :hi:

 

[guest conductor]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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--

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]

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]

Would Amtrak have detected this?

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

 

[Cho Cho Charlie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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).

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]

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.

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).

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]

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]

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

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

 

[George Harris]

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]

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]

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

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