The Manhattan Project
Morning Roundup: Second Helpings Edition
Compromise Uncertain on Same-Sex Marriage Law
Fire at 17th and L NW Forces Evacuations
Sculpture Garden Ice-Skating Rink Remains Closed
Good morning, Washington. For those of you who were inconvenienced by yesterday afternoon's Red line mishap, we're sure you'll be glad to hear that the suspect who Montgomery County police chased into the tunnel got away. The whole incident started just after 2 p.m. when officers, acting on a suspicious-person call, spotted Michael J. Brown, a man known by area police and who is wanted in Baltimore for several charges of theft. After a chase that led into the Bethesda station, Brown jumped onto the track bed and headed into the tunnel in the direction of the Medical Center station, causing the shutdown. Police could not find Brown after a search of both stations and the tunnel. Time and energy well spent, no?
The $100 Million Question: The District government expects to collect more than $100 million in additional tax revenue this year, thanks mostly to skyrocketing property tax bills, and thus now begins the debate over what to do with the money. Mayor Fenty would like to use the money to renovate D.C. Schools and buy out DCPS employees who Chancellor Rhee would like to fire. District CFO Natwar Gandhi warned that just because we're seeing a surplus this year, doesn't mean we'll continue to see one in the future.
Could Metro Start Random Bag Searches?: WTOP spoke to Polly Hanson, Metro's assistant general manager for Safety, Security and Emergency Management, who favors adding random bag searches to Metro's security detail, much like the system already in place in New York. Of course, Metro's Board would have to approve adding bag searches, something they've never been willing to do before, but could that change under John Catoe's leadership?
Briefly Noted: Robber in Southwest used hammer to threaten victims ... University of Maryland considers cuts, tuition hikes ... Freed Iranian Scholar back in Washington ... Charges filed against Columbia Heights landlord ... Anti-discrimination group sues developers.
This Day in DCist: Last year we expressed sympathy for a Falls Church woman and the fate of her cat, and the year before that we told you where you could find inexpensive sushi.
Photo by Bullneck
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Uh, I'm no constitutional scholar, but isn't there something called the fourth amendment that prohibits unreasonable search and seizure of one's stuff? I would assume the vaunted Metro Police don't automatically get a bye, just because they don't like somebody's fendi baguette, right?
They serached the tunnels and station, but they still couldn't find him? I just don't understand where the suspect could have gone to. Maybe he hopped on a train, or exited at MC.
#1
I am not a lawyer, but I play one on the internet.....I think once you swipe your smartrip card you wave your right as you no longer have a "reasonable expectation of privacy".
As soon as the suspect started running, they should have stopped. In fact, all suspects who flee should be allowed to get away.
C'mon -- give the police a break, here. If they hadn't chased him into the tunnels, people would have been whining that they let him go, and heaven forbid he got hit by a train as he wasn't being chased.
Bag searches are asinine.
Agreed with #4 and #5. I'm super, super sorry that this sudden police chase couldn't have happened at a more convenient time for you.
ACLU sued the New York police over the bag search and lost. A federal judge said the searches were a "minimal intrusion" of privacy acceptable in light of the need to investigate and prevent terrorism. I assume it's on appeal still.
It's hard to imagine a year without a DC tax surplus, but it's possible. I agree with Evans and Mendelson that it would be wise to use some of it to pay down the debt (instead of paving alleys or even completing all of the school repairs).
I'd really like to know the name of the bright lightbulb that decided that it was ok to trap a train load of people in a tunnel, for two hours to chase a person that breaks into cars. Just tell me his name and who he works for. The problem is that no one is ever held accountable for these decisions.
Actually, it's not contingent on swiping your Smartrip card because, to be effective, bag searches have to occur before you get to that point.
Generally, it would be before you go down the escalator into the station. That lets cops get around Fourth Amendment issues because you can consent to the bag search and enter Metro, or you can not consent to the search and do something else (i.e., take a cab or go around to the other entrance).
It will certainly be challenged, and as Mike notes the other case was in NYC, so not any kind of a legal precedent here. It would also be subject to a lot more equal protection challenges here, particularly since we have a lot more distinction between our tourist-heavy stations (e.g., Smithsonian) and our commuter-heavy stations.
Sorry, "would be challenged," since it's not even a concrete policy proposal yet
since we have a lot more distinction between our tourist-heavy stations (e.g., Smithsonian) and our commuter-heavy stations.
But wouldn't a terrorist be bright enough to enter the Metro system at a "commuter-heavy" station and travel to a "tourist-heavy" station (or vice-versa) to set off his backpack full of plastic explosives and nails? It seems to me that a reasonable bag search policy would involve random screenings of random bags at random stations on random days.
As for the Fourth Amendment issue, the policy in NYC (and Boston as well) is that you are free to refuse to submit to the search. But then you don't get to ride the subway. Its really the same constitutional principle that allows (much more invasive) security screenings at airports: Given the sensitivity of the facilities, weapons searches for people entering them are "reasonable."
If they institute random searches, here is my suggestion:
Load up your bag (better yet, get a big black scary bag, one that screams "on no, s/he's got STUFF!) with several hundred or thousand little fortune cookie sized strips of paper.
And, of course, have a fortune printed on them: the text of the fourth amendment.
When your turn comes up for a random search, politely refuse. When they tell you can't ride (or, in a worse case, get rough with you or threaten more -- it does happen), submit to a search but clearly vocalize your objection civilly.
Let them fine their fortune.
And file a lawsuit.
Shit like this needs to be challenged at every front. This is not security.
With barely enough transit cops to cover the whole system, I doubt that they'd be able to institute searches even if they wanted to. There would have to be a several fold increase in transit officers in order to staff stations from opening to close. Given the costs, I'd doubt that VA, MD or DC would like to foot the bill for their cops to cover the gaps.
Guest 13:
That sounds like a great idea. How about you go over to DCA this afternoon and give it a try?
Despite the general cynicism, law enforcement is smart enough to know whether someone is performing a hippie protest and declining to enter the station, or nervously running away from fear of getting caught with something. But besides, this is less about random bag searches, but providing a mechanism to perform a search if an officer has reason to be suspicious. They just can't put it that way because then it opens the door for charges of profiling or discrimination. And by the way, that's a good thing.
More on the ineffectiveness of the New York subway search program.
Police already have a mechanism: they already have the authority to perform a reasonable search on probable cause.
The only thing instituting a policy of random searches does is wear away at probable cause.
Its bullshit.
Guest 19:
Its not about probable cause. There is no probable cause when the government searches you and your bags before you get on an airplane or enter the Capitol building. Instead, these searches are justified because these places are recognized as prime targets of terrorists or other criminals who value the symbolism of causing harm in such locations. Thus, a more liberal search policy is reasonable under the law.
You may believe its "bullshit" for the subway system to be classified as a similarly sensitive area, but I'd be more pissed at getting killed or maimed by a bomb on my way to work than by having to open my lunch bag for a cop once or twice.
Guest 20, please explain how this policy decreases your chance of being bombed. Unlike the airplane or the Capitol, the search is not of everyone going in, but of only a tiny fraction.
Also, where does this end? Movie theaters, office buildings, apartment buildings, trains, buses, and restaurants are also prime terrorist targets (as are the lines created by any meaningful search process). How many searches a day do you want to go through, and how "voluntary" are searches if the only way to escape them is to become a hermit.
And just as a practical matter, how is Metro going to pay for all this extra security when it will be driving more customers away by introducing new hassles and delays?
KC, the funding question is relatively simple, as the manpower necessary for random bag checks is probably only about 2 cops per station. Given that the screenings would not be at every station every day, this could easily be covered by Metro's existing security budget or perhaps through assistance from federal DHS grants.
You are absolutely right that such a random screening process is not guaranteed to stop a determined suicidal terrorist, and that a 100% security check is totally impractical for a public transit system. Instead, the (hopefully) unpredictable nature of where and when the screenings would take place would (again, hopefully) deter a coordinated bombing attack against Metro, or at least increase the chances that one of the participants could be caught.
Sure, you could argue that this would just drive the suicide bombers to movie theaters and office buildings, but these are less attractive targets because they don't carry the symbolic or economic effects of an attack against the subway, and they probably wouldn't be as deadly either.
In sum, its a matter of when, not if, a public transit system in America will be attacked. I'd rather that Metro take some proactive action, rather than waiting for it to happen, and then hastily implementing searches while people complain that more should have been done beforehand to prevent it.
In other words, what's important is to do something, regardless of cost or inconvenience, even if it's incredibly unlikely (not just "not guaranteed") that it will stop any terrorists. That seems to be the policy throughout our "security" system nowadays.
I'd rather have hastily implemented searches after the terrorists hit than hastily implemented whatever insanity people come up with next after the terrorists hit anyway when they're not stopped by this inane searching.
Let's remember, in order to be caught by the system, a terrorist first has to be phenomenally unlucky enough to be one of the fraction of a percent of would-be passengers selected for a search and then has to be stupid enough to submit to the search after being selected.
"nervously running away from fear of getting caught with something"
Man, it's late enough that likely no one will ever read this. But here's the rub - if someone runs away from a bag search, the cops have nothing they can do then and there. That's the definition of a consent search - refusing to submit to it canot be an automatic cause for detention, otherwise it's not a valid search under the fourth amendment.
So if Terrorist O'Hanrahan decides to take his bomb elsewhere, and get to the British Embasssy another way, they can't really articulate a rationale to follow him distinct from Teenager Kamil, who is sweaty and anxious because he thinks he's gonna get laid for the first time tonight.