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

[Steve4031]

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]

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".

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...

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[4thA]

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".

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...

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.

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]

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".

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...

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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!

That other guy mentioned Germany first

 

[FriskyFL]

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]

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]

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

 

[Gord]

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]

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]

. Racial profiling does not get practiced,

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

 

[Bob Dylan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.