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

[neroden]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

What a wildly unrealistic view of the world.

 

[SteveSFL]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Police are just following the statistics.

 

[rrdude]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[Bob Dylan]

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]

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

 

[hessjm]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

The chapter and verse cited only applies to Michigan.

 

[hessjm]

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

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

The chapter and verse cited only applies to Michigan.

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: