So you're saying that I shouldn't nervously clutch my work bag and run out of the station? Hmmmm. PS -what a colossal waste of time.

I am entirely against these searches to begin with, I think it's a violation of personal rights.

But that being said, no one should treat this as a game. If you have the time and energy to try and and run around and hide from metro security at another entrance, then you just suck.

Either show your shit or don't ride metro. It's not that complicated.

So, they'll have a problem if I dress as the V for Vendetta guy for Halloween?

We do have a plan to address suspicious behavior.

a) we will ground you without an allowance.

b) we will raise one eyebrow and think, "hmmmm."

c) we will scratch our head, pause, then shrug our shoulders.

d) we will put a bullet in the back of your head, terrorist.

So wonderwazz, you think that its a violation of your rights, but you shouldn't fight for your rights? WTF mate?

On a related note, I tried to take pictures of a fist fight at Gallery Place, and was told by a Transit Police officer that I couldn't exercise my first amendment right to free speech because the constitution doesn't apply when he's around. His words. (The correct answer would have been that its illegal to take pictures in the Metro, not that my constitutional rights don't apply) I called him corrupt, and three other officers who had been on the 'down' escalator ran to the bottom and chased me up the 'up' escalator (as I stood on the right hand side, slowly going up) and shoved me after I waited for them at the top, then threatened to arrest me for interfering with their investigation (which they never got to, because they followed me out of the station just as they had arrived).

I have no doubt how the metro police would act if I exercised my legal right to not allow them to search my bag. They would shove me like a pregnant woman talking too loud on the phone, then probably search my bag anyways after placing me under arrest for 'suspicious behavior'.

sticks, I'm just saying that fighting for your rights by trying to go to another entrance or another station is childish and pointless. You aren't demonstrating anything except that you have extra time on your hands.

If people are really against this, then don't use metro...

My favorite was this response, wherein the questioner brings up a valid point, and Taborn just responds with a canned line he already used earlier in the chat without addressing the real issue at all:

Green Line Rider: If you're not going to search every single person coming into a Metro station, how is the policy effective? Anyone with illicit substances will simply refuse to be searched and go to another station. If you don't search everyone, then it's not worth doing. If you do search everyone, then you'll probably lose half your ridership out of frustration with the delays (think security lines at the airport). Why not just take those officers and put them more visibly on the platforms and in the trains/busses?

I certainly will think twice about riding Metro if I'm going to be randomly selected. I consider that an infringement of my rights for no apparent gain in security.

Michael Taborn: Legal authority to inspect packages brought into mass transit systems and other venues has been upheld by the courts in numerous jurisdictions. Metro�s inspection program is very similar to the one conducted in the subway system in New York City. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has specifically ruled on the constitutionality of the New York program in MacWade v. Kelly.

I love, love, love how Taborn's answer completely avoids answering the question. Awesome leadership!

ahahah...it just means that most of you have to hide your drugs better...they can't search everywhere

Actually, going to another station demonstrates that the entire enterprise is pointless and accomplishes nothing. Those who are just going about their business and being law abiding citizens will consent to be searched, while those who are up to no good will simple do no good at another station. It is a complete waste of time and energy for everyone involved.

I have no problem with security, but I expect it to be good, well thought out security that accomplishes goals. Random searches will only look for things (food, for example), not look for threats. So explain to me how a pickpocket will be searched and stopped at the entrance of a Metro station?

This. Is. Pointless.

Wow, this guy is a moron...

Alexandria, Va.:Good morning, Mike. What did you have for breakfast today?

Michael Taborn: Legal authority to inspect packages brought into mass transit systems and other venues has been upheld by the courts in numerous jurisdictions. Metro's inspection program is very similar to the one conducted in the subway system in New York City. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has specifically ruled on the constitutionality of the New York program in MacWade v. Kelly.

I've got nothing to hide, but I do feel better knowing that they're out there....just in case something does go down. I mean...come on..we've been sitting ducks for years. Now that they know the Big Drake is out watching over us perhaps we can all travel safer.

Don't carry your weed on Metro.

So ladies, remember: if someone in a WMATA Security Uniform and a gorilla mask pulls you aside at the top of the Metro escalator to conduct a random strip search, don't be alarmed. Do whatever he tells you. Just relax in the back of his Chevy van while he puts some Barry White on. How about a glass of Champale? That's right, ease them panties on down while Agent Monkey does his thang. I gots the speculum is all warmed up for you. Care for some pudding? Now that's the kind of pudding that only $240 can buy. Aw, yeah.

let's have some fun with this one:

Lanham, MD: What do you think about the possibility of extending the green line out to BWI and how that'll affect your officers' ability to keep things "secure"?

Michael Taborn: Legal authority to inspect packages brought into mass transit systems and other venues has been upheld by the courts in numerous jurisdictions. Metro's inspection program is very similar to the one conducted in the subway system in New York City. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has specifically ruled on the constitutionality of the New York program in MacWade v. Kelly.

@ Kelly

Yep, that's what it says. It's the 13th St exit at Metro Center and it's been there for over 2 months.

I still get a kick out of it everyday.

Arlington, VA: If you're only selecting random customers for searches, what's to prevent two terrorists from entering Metro at the same time? If you're selecting people based on some arbitrary number (every seventh, every seventeenth), that eight or eighteenth terrorist will get through, right? How much are you being paid to come up with this nonsense?

Michael Taborn: Legal authority to inspect packages brought into mass transit systems and other venues has been upheld by the courts in numerous jurisdictions. Metro's inspection program is very similar to...

Arlington, VA: Listen carefully to me, Michael. I. Am. Lying.

Michael Taborn: That is illogical. If you are lying, you cannot tell the truth. If you are telling the truth, that means you cannot be lying. You lie. You tell the truth. Illogical! Illogical! Please explain! Only humans can explain their behavior!

Arlington, VA: I'm sorry, but I'm not programmed to respond in that area.

"Either show your shit or don't ride metro. It's not that complicated."

This is such BS. I can't believe so many people are willing the let their rights slip away because they aren't doing anything wrong. The last time we went down this road, being Japanese was considered "doing something wrong." I guess that was all cool with you?

WTF. If you don't give a crap about all the rights our ancestors have fought for four hundred years why bother living here. There are lots of countries where you have fewer rights and maybe you'll feel safer. Like France, where you can't wear a turban.

Oh wait, they have a hell of a lot more train bombings then we do. Maybe these measures JUST DON'T WORK ANYWAY and this has nothing to do with security. People who want to blow other people up will find a way to do it. A stupid random checkpoint just WILL NOT STOP someone who has entered this country illegally, obtained explosives or toxic gas, and is ready to die for their cause.

Those of you who oppose the searches on grounds of invasion of privacy: do you have the same complaint regarding airport security? I'm just curious. This seems to be like an obvious and overdue measure (but to be carried out in an ineffective manner, natch). But I feel like maybe I'm missing a reason to be outraged?

@orangeline: While I personally think airport security is also pretty stupid, since in the last test 21 of 21 airports failed to detect bomb components, there's a big difference.

Airplanes are privately owned.

Metro is not.

One other thing about airplanes versus trains: everyone gets screened on airplanes.

You can't screen every one of the 1.2 million people who ride metro every day, or even a fraction of them. The system would be useless.

And anyway you can't hijack a train and crash it into the world trade center.

Can you imagine a TSA security line to get on metro? Wow that would be cool...

I don't get why private vs. public matters. In both cases, the goal is public safety. An attack on the Metro could be as devastating as a plane hijacking, considering the tracks run beneath some rather important and highly populated areas.

I dunno, I guess I accept the premise of giving up some level of personal privacy to be secure in public places. I accept it on planes, in museums, in government buildings. I don't see why Metro is any different. Honestly I was surprised when bag searches didn't start after 9/11 - and even more surprised after the Madrid bombings.

Whether they're going at it the right way is an entirely different matter (hint: no). But as to whether any search at all is a violation of rights...I suppose I've been conditioned to accept the overlords.

Everyone needs to stop crying about their privacy rights. Yeah, it's a stupid policy and likely will not be very effective, but if you don't like it, don't ride the metro. Riding the metro isn't a right, it's a privilege (maybe privilege isn't the best word, but it is a choice). If you do not like the screening policy at airports, can you refuse a search and still board the plane? No. Why should metro be any different? If you feel that your personal rights are being invaded, there are plenty of other ways to get around DC where you won't be searched.

Somegirl: I agree that 100% security is impossible. I also agree that current execution (both proposed for Metro and existing for airlines) is often silly.

But searching people for, say, guns to keep those off the train doesn't seem to me like it would be the end of the world. It is possible to achieve moderate gains in safety with moderate increases in security. Just because we can't guard against everything doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop anything.

Now, we won't be foiling the terrorists who put together 1.5oz liquid bombs or whatever the hell the airport thinks they're screening for this week. Obviously all manner of security screenings could stand a little review and improvement. But If methods are ineffective now, I'd rather they work to make them effective rather than scrapping them altogether.

Metro is a government agency, correct, and partially funded by taxpayer dollars. That does not change the fact that a public transit authority has the legal and constitutional right to search passengers to ensure safety. In fact, they should have had a policy in effect a long time ago, especially in light of the attacks on the Madrid and London transit systems. The right to privacy is not an absolute right, there are other interests that must be balanced, such as public safety. Whether this policy will actually be effective is another story.

Whether this policy will actually be effective is another story.

The problem is that it should be the whole story. There aren't many people arguing that Metro doesn't have the legal right to impose this program. They're arguing that it's offensive and a waste of time. I'd like to hear even one example of a crime that was actually averted through the New York program, which has now been running for several years.

Fill your bag with sex toys, preferably out of their package.

Orangeline: We're talking about things that would fit in a backpack, not a goddamned truck bomb.

The guidelines for underground testing of even the highest-yield "suitcase nukes" (in reality the size of a trash can) would stipulate that 100 meters of sealed cavity is sufficient to safely ensure that it won't penetrate the surface. In a subway tunnel that allows pressure release, this is likely to be significantly less.

A suicide bomber could guarantee more damage from an explosive device by driving a block away before exploding it than from directly underneath it most of the system. And you could certainly carry about a thousand times more of it in a semi-truck than in a backpack.

Tommygun-bearing Metrogoons will definitely search people wearing bags over their heads.

this is kind of like putting a gate at the front of the lawn when you don't have a fence. Except this is more "civil-rights-infringey," as legal scholars say.

But, it's here, so let's try to make the best of it by embarassing/offending the officers. Might i suggest always carrying with you a small bag that:

is full of women's panties -- particularly effective if you're a big man.

has at least three "massage wands" in it.

is rigged so that when you open it, about 100 copies of the Bill of Rights fly all over the place.

I'm sure you all have other ideas as well, but if you do this, then i bet you'll WANT to get searched just for the great reactions.

I wonder what the Metro Transit Police will think of the shirt I just had made, with the arrow at the bottom pointing down, and the words "Search THIS Bag, Bitches!"