CZ Omaha police

[NW cannonball]

Thanks, BC. I knew about there had to be a reason to enter a dwelling even with notice, but didn't go into that part. I mainly wanted to clarify that the landlord's admittedly limited right to enter are not limited or controlled by the 4th amendment guarantees against unreasonable search, since he's not acting as an agent of the government.

4th amendment guarantee against search is fairly cut and dried to me when it comes to a permanent dwelling (rented or owned). It seems to become fuzzier when it comes to transient situations like hotels and trains, and I don't pretend to know where the limits are. Bottom line is if they put you off the train because you wouldn't consent to search, you are off the train. You may have grounds for action later, but right then you are stuck in Omaha (or Reno).

Issue for me is - you - as a passenger - like passengers on airlines - grant Amtrak the right to search - for security of transportation only - a limited right to search - for the security of fellow passengers.

No right at all for every local law enforcement to stop the train and search without a warrant.

Amtrak will very reasonably resist any supposed right of any local law to stop the train for warrantless search. The trains might not get anywhere.

And yeah - this is a developing issue for lawyers.

 

[Nathanael]

There are some subtle issues here. These are rough descriptions.

(1) The Omaha police do not have a right to search your cabin or belongings without probable cause.

(2) You do not sign away those rights when you get on the train.

(3) They do not have the right to drag you off the train, either, unless they are making a legitimate arrest -- and they don't get to determine whether they're making a legitimate arrest, either. For who does determine it, see below...

(4) The conductor of the train, however, has the right to throw you off the train at any time, on his sole authority. In fact, you're required to obey the majority of the orders of the conductor while on the train -- the law is modeled on the rules for the captain of a ship.

(5) So if the conductor wants you to cooperate with the police, then legally you have to do so until you're off the train.

(6) If, on the other hand, the conductor thinks the police are being obnoxious troublemakers, he can kick THEM off the train. This HAS happened.

After bad behavior by the border patrol, the previous head of Amtrak Police sent an order that the trains would not be delayed by border patrol (if the border patrol got on and weren't off by the time the train was leaving, the border patrol had a one-way trip to the next station, and they would then be thrown off for not having tickets -- they could find their way back on their own!). He also kicked the TSA off of all Amtrak property for a while, when THEY were behaving badly.

Does that explain the basic idea? Basically, you surrender your rights to *the conductor*. If you refuse a search and the conductor doesn't like that, then you will get thrown off the train. If you refuse a search but the conductor thinks the police are just on a fishing expedition and is angry at them, then they will get thrown off the train. There are more subtleties but the principle is that the conductor is in charge.

If the conductor went along with the police, and threw you off the train, and it was then found that the police had been engaging in constitutionally prohibited searches, the *police* would be liable to you for the costs and trouble you incurred, as the prime cause of the trouble. I would guess that Amtrak probably wouldn't be liable, because the conductor could usually say that he was acting on the reasonable assumption that the police were obeying the law. Of course crooked right-wing courts have been granting police all kinds of immunity from responsibility for their crimes, so who knows whether the criminal police would ever pay up.

 

[Nathanael]

Amtrak has in place a range of behind-the-scenes and front-line security measures aimed at improving passenger rail security, some of which are conducted on an unpredictable or random basis. These include uniformed police officers and K-9 units in stations andon trains,

This refers to Amtrak Police and police specifically brought in or authorized by Amtrak. Random local police are not part the security measures which "Amtrak has in place".

However, most people don't realize how much legal power a conductor has on a train -- the law on this really is modeled on the law for ship captains, except with more leeway for throwing people off the train ('cause, you know, you can't really justify throwing people into the ocean). Do not upset the conductor!

Ships were the example they had to work from when they designed railway law way back in the 19th century, so it's the example they used. The law on this stuff is really very complicated and largely judge-made, and I'm probably getting bits of wrong. There's a weird combination of local jurisdictional law still applying (which it usually does), and not applying (the general rule was, local law doesn't apply if it would delay the trains, which is a matter of interstate commerce). Not all conductors even realize this.

 

[Linda T]

the law on this really is modeled on the law for ship captains, except with more leeway for throwing people off the train ('cause, you know, you can't really justify throwing people into the ocean).

We really need *like* buttons. :giggle:

 

[tricia]

In other government-agent search contexts, particularly ones where it's unclear exactly what the law is, it can make a legal difference after the fact (ie, if/when you're heading to court, either because you've been arrested or because you're suing for a civil rights violation) if you say clearly and preferably in front of a witness: I do NOT consent to this search.

If you take that position and feel compelled to back down if you're about to be thrown off the train, it couldn't hurt to at that point add: I'm only allowing you to do this under duress. I have not freely consented to this search.

And I agree with Linda T that we really need "like" buttons!

 

[gdj]

One thing that will help protect you, if you believe you may be in a position where you need to file a formal complaint or even sue is to record the conversation. I must caution that you need to be aware of what the state laws are regarding recording. My home state is a one party consent state. Hence, you can discreetly record a conversation without disclosing that you are recording. You can buy a small digital recorder at most electionics counters which will suffice. The recording will conclusively prove whether you gave consent, were intimidated into giving consent, etc.

 

[BC]

One thing that will help protect you, if you believe you may be in a position where you need to file a formal complaint or even sue is to record the conversation. I must caution that you need to be aware of what the state laws are regarding recording. My home state is a one party consent state. Hence, you can discreetly record a conversation without disclosing that you are recording. You can buy a small digital recorder at most electionics counters which will suffice. The recording will conclusively prove whether you gave consent, were intimidated into giving consent, etc.

The Amtrak Contract of Carriage clearly states that the operating law is that of the District of Columbia.

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am/Layout&cid=1241337896164

http://www.amtrak.co...d=1241337896164
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am/Layout&cid=1241337896164


Governing Law
All travel on, and transactions with, Amtrak is governed by the laws of the District of Columbia, United States of America, without regards to its principles of conflicts of law. You agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of any Federal court located in the District of Columbia, United States of America, and waive any jurisdictional, venue or inconvenient forum objections to such courts.

 

[PRR 60]

The Amtrak Contract of Carriage clearly states that the operating law is that of the District of Columbia.

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am/Layout&cid=1241337896164

http://www.amtrak.co...d=1241337896164
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am/Layout&cid=1241337896164


Governing Law
All travel on, and transactions with, Amtrak is governed by the laws of the District of Columbia, United States of America, without regards to its principles of conflicts of law. You agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of any Federal court located in the District of Columbia, United States of America, and waive any jurisdictional, venue or inconvenient forum objections to such courts.

That concerns interactions between the passenger and Amtrak. It basically says that any legal action you take against Amtrak is governed by DC law. It is not for interactions between passengers and local police regarding criminal matters. Commit a crime on an Amtrak train, and you are arrested and prosecuted in the local jurisdiction under local laws.

 

[Guest]

Thanks, BC. I knew about there had to be a reason to enter a dwelling even with notice, but didn't go into that part. I mainly wanted to clarify that the landlord's admittedly limited right to enter are not limited or controlled by the 4th amendment guarantees against unreasonable search, since he's not acting as an agent of the government.

4th amendment guarantee against search is fairly cut and dried to me when it comes to a permanent dwelling (rented or owned). It seems to become fuzzier when it comes to transient situations like hotels and trains, and I don't pretend to know where the limits are. Bottom line is if they put you off the train because you wouldn't consent to search, you are off the train. You may have grounds for action later, but right then you are stuck in Omaha (or Reno).

Issue for me is - you - as a passenger - like passengers on airlines - grant Amtrak the right to search - for security of transportation only - a limited right to search - for the security of fellow passengers.

No right at all for every local law enforcement to stop the train and search without a warrant.

Amtrak will very reasonably resist any supposed right of any local law to stop the train for warrantless search. The trains might not get anywhere.

And yeah - this is a developing issue for lawyers.

Not sure what the operating principle is for Amtrak, but certainly as an airline passenger I'm checked both for security reasons and to detect contraband. When my baggage is checked in at the airline counter, I consent to both an airline and a TSA search. There was an infamous case where someone transported a few hard bricks of marijuana, and instead of confiscating or calling for law enforcement, the TSA agent left a note to the effect of "Are you kidding me?" When someone arrives on an international flight, Customs definitely checks for contraband. I've had stuff prodded and thrown away. When I drive from Nevada to California, there's a California Dept of Agriculture checkpoint where they ask if you've brought and fruit or vegetables and can search your car randomly.

As an airline passenger I've been checked for all sorts of things. On an international flight back to the US, I've had my bags sniffed by Dept of Agriculture dogs. Even flying from Honolulu to San Francisco, my carry on bag was flagged for a Dept of Agriculture check.

http://hawaii.gov/hn...ture-inspection

 

[NAVYBLUE]

There are some subtle issues here. These are rough descriptions.

(1) The Omaha police do not have a right to search your cabin or belongings without probable cause.

(2) You do not sign away those rights when you get on the train.

(3) They do not have the right to drag you off the train, either, unless they are making a legitimate arrest -- and they don't get to determine whether they're making a legitimate arrest, either. For who does determine it, see below...

(4) The conductor of the train, however, has the right to throw you off the train at any time, on his sole authority. In fact, you're required to obey the majority of the orders of the conductor while on the train -- the law is modeled on the rules for the captain of a ship.

(5) So if the conductor wants you to cooperate with the police, then legally you have to do so until you're off the train.

(6) If, on the other hand, the conductor thinks the police are being obnoxious troublemakers, he can kick THEM off the train. This HAS happened.

After bad behavior by the border patrol, the previous head of Amtrak Police sent an order that the trains would not be delayed by border patrol (if the border patrol got on and weren't off by the time the train was leaving, the border patrol had a one-way trip to the next station, and they would then be thrown off for not having tickets -- they could find their way back on their own!). He also kicked the TSA off of all Amtrak property for a while, when THEY were behaving badly.

Does that explain the basic idea? Basically, you surrender your rights to *the conductor*. If you refuse a search and the conductor doesn't like that, then you will get thrown off the train. If you refuse a search but the conductor thinks the police are just on a fishing expedition and is angry at them, then they will get thrown off the train. There are more subtleties but the principle is that the conductor is in charge.

If the conductor went along with the police, and threw you off the train, and it was then found that the police had been engaging in constitutionally prohibited searches, the *police* would be liable to you for the costs and trouble you incurred, as the prime cause of the trouble. I would guess that Amtrak probably wouldn't be liable, because the conductor could usually say that he was acting on the reasonable assumption that the police were obeying the law. Of course crooked right-wing courts have been granting police all kinds of immunity from responsibility for their crimes, so who knows whether the criminal police would ever pay up.

Unfortunately you are incorrect and you DO NOT have to cooperate with the police. Here is case law.

"When police conduct a search, the amendment requires that the warrant establishes probable cause to believe that the search will uncover criminal activity or contraband. They must have legally sufficient reasons to believe a search is necessary. In Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925), the Supreme Court stated that probable cause to search is a flexible, common-sense standard. To that end, the Court ruled in Dumbra v. United States, 268 U.S. 435 (1925), that the term probable cause means "less than evidence that would justify condemnation," reiterating Carroll's assertion that it merely requires that the facts available to the officer would "warrant a man of reasonable caution" in the belief that specific items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime.[42] It does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false. A "practical, non-technical" probability that incriminating evidence is involved is all that is required.[43] In Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), the Supreme Court ruled that the reliability of an informant is to be determined based on the "totality of the circumstances."

The conductor has NO legal authority. His authority extends to the "safe" operation of an AMTRAK consist. He has NO legal authority to TELL you that you have to copperate with a police officer. He is not an attorney. Do not put your faith in him/her. A police officer CAN NOT search your personal items unless he has a "seach warrant: in your LEGAL NAME. He can search your belongings if you are stupid enough to agree to it. And yes you are STUPID if you do agree.

IF he has a drug sniffing dog who alerts on your belongings. THEN he has RAS and can search your belongings without your permission and/or a warrant. Otherwise the conversation is:

"No, you can not search my belongings officer without a warrant."

"This conversation has ended officer and I do not consent to any further questioning."

They are NOT allowed to go fishing and the conductor has no LEGAL authority to allow them to go fishing.

We in Las Vegas go through this a lot with the Las Vegas Metro PD and they continue to get educated by the citizens knowledgeable in case law about searches.

And no, you do not surrender your rights to the conductor as he does not have the power to make you surrender those rights.

Unfortunatley a majority of Americans actually think police officers know the law. They unfortunately have very poor verbal comprehension skills as evidenced by LVMPD having to retrain every police officer over the last (12) months about Nevada weapons open carry regulations and car searches.

Please don't put your faith in the majority of law enforcement. You could end up dead.

NAVYBLUE

 

[Nathanael]

"He has NO legal authority to TELL you that you have to copperate with a police officer."

Correct, but he can still throw you off the train if he tells you to cooperate with a police officer, and you don't. *Even if he has no real justification*.

So if you're concerned about being thrown off the train, it's important to realize that the conductor has a lot of discretionary power. He doesn't have the power to make you surrender your rights, but *he does have the power to remove you from the train*, even on flimsy and unreasonable pretexts. His power to do that *will* be upheld most of the time, and you probably *won't* win damages against Amtrak after you get thrown off.

Personally, I'm not generally concerned about being thrown off the train, and would stand up for my rights even if it meant being thrown off the train. But for those who have other priorities, they should know this.

 

[hessjm]

The conductor has NO legal authority. His authority extends to the "safe" operation of an AMTRAK consist. He has NO legal authority to TELL you that you have to copperate with a police officer. He is not an attorney. Do not put your faith in him/her.

Conductors operating in Michigan can place you under arrest, so I suggest you do as they say while riding the Michigan trains. Boisterous conduct covers a broad spectrum of activities.

From Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated:

462.255 Conduct as misdemeanor; penalty; powers of conductor or freight agent; duties of

police officer; jurisdiction of court.

Sec. 255. (1) A person who, while riding in the car of a freight, passenger, or other train on any railroad in

this state, uses or utters indecent, obscene, or profane language in the hearing of other passengers, riotously or

boisterously conducts himself or herself to the annoyance of other passengers, or who obtains or attempts to

obtain money or property from any passenger or person by means of any game or device, shall, on conviction,

be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not to exceed $100.00, or imprisonment for not to exceed

90 days, or both.

(2) Railroad conductors are hereby invested with the powers of sheriffs and constable in regard to offenses

under this section occurring upon trains or cars in their charge, and may arrest and detain a person who

violates this section until the car or train arrives at a usual stopping place, where the conductor may deliver

the person to a police officer with a written statement specifying generally the offense or offenses the person

has committed.

(3) If a police officer is not present to receive the person, the conductor may deliver him or her to the ticket

or freight agent at that stopping place, with the statement. The freight agent shall detain the offender in his or

her custody, and may exercise the powers of sheriffs and constables in regard to persons charged with crimes

in doing so, until a police officer may be obtained to take charge of the offender.

(4) The police officer shall institute a complaint against the person for the alleged offense before the

district or municipal court of the judicial district or municipality in which the offense was committed. The

court shall have jurisdiction to try the offender and to impose the penalties authorized by this section.

History: 1993, Act 354, Imd. Eff. Jan. 14, 1994.

 

[Ryan]

The conductor has NO legal authority. His authority extends to the "safe" operation of an AMTRAK consist. He has NO legal authority to TELL you that you have to copperate with a police officer. He is not an attorney. Do not put your faith in him/her.

That feeling of moral superiority will do approximately nothing when you're standing on the ground in the middle of the night watching the markers recede in the distance while you're hundreds of miles from home.

It'll do just about the same thing when you call Amtrak and they confirm that the conductor was within his rights to toss you off the train and refuse to provide a refund or voucher.

If you're lucky, the cops will give you a lift to a hotel or the bus station, but considering you were just a pain in their @$$, I wouldn't hold out a lot of hope for that either - hopefully your cell phone is charged and you can call a cab!

 

[NAVYBLUE]

The conductor has NO legal authority. His authority extends to the "safe" operation of an AMTRAK consist. He has NO legal authority to TELL you that you have to copperate with a police officer. He is not an attorney. Do not put your faith in him/her.

Conductors operating in Michigan can place you under arrest, so I suggest you do as they say while riding the Michigan trains. Boisterous conduct covers a broad spectrum of activities.

From Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated:

462.255 Conduct as misdemeanor; penalty; powers of conductor or freight agent; duties of

police officer; jurisdiction of court.

Sec. 255. (1) A person who, while riding in the car of a freight, passenger, or other train on any railroad in

this state, uses or utters indecent, obscene, or profane language in the hearing of other passengers, riotously or

boisterously conducts himself or herself to the annoyance of other passengers, or who obtains or attempts to

obtain money or property from any passenger or person by means of any game or device, shall, on conviction,

be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not to exceed $100.00, or imprisonment for not to exceed

90 days, or both.

(2) Railroad conductors are hereby invested with the powers of sheriffs and constable in regard to offenses

under this section occurring upon trains or cars in their charge, and may arrest and detain a person who

violates this section until the car or train arrives at a usual stopping place, where the conductor may deliver

the person to a police officer with a written statement specifying generally the offense or offenses the person

has committed.

(3) If a police officer is not present to receive the person, the conductor may deliver him or her to the ticket

or freight agent at that stopping place, with the statement. The freight agent shall detain the offender in his or

her custody, and may exercise the powers of sheriffs and constables in regard to persons charged with crimes

in doing so, until a police officer may be obtained to take charge of the offender.

(4) The police officer shall institute a complaint against the person for the alleged offense before the

district or municipal court of the judicial district or municipality in which the offense was committed. The

court shall have jurisdiction to try the offender and to impose the penalties authorized by this section.

History: 1993, Act 354, Imd. Eff. Jan. 14, 1994.

"The Claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."

Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486. 489

You do understand that according to the above USSC case refusing to answer a police officers questions does NOT violate any of the Michigan laws above UNLESS I am using profane language or am "boisterous" which I do NOT do when being questioned by a police officer.

Also as someone who has read the Constitution and some case law I understand my rights. Feel free to "bend over" and take it if that is your desire but "the boys" and my attorney has won cases in Nevada along these illegal search lines. He has told us to NOT answer any question or allow searches without a warrant in our legal name.

Every one has their own choices to make. If removed from the train, I will be removed with my checked bags, (2) weapons and the permits to carry in (30) states and can defend myself from the "boggey man" at the station. And if I am let off in a state where I am not authorized to carry I still will have access to them to protect myself in a life and death situation. Better tb tried by (12) than carried by (6).

And yes, I will sue AMTRAK, the police department, the county and I will sue the conductor in civil court. And please don't tell me you can't sue AMTRAK because they are the government.

That being said you people can do whatever you feel comfortable doing.

NAVYBLUE

 

[NAVYBLUE]

The conductor has NO legal authority. His authority extends to the "safe" operation of an AMTRAK consist. He has NO legal authority to TELL you that you have to copperate with a police officer. He is not an attorney. Do not put your faith in him/her.

That feeling of moral superiority will do approximately nothing when you're standing on the ground in the middle of the night watching the markers recede in the distance while you're hundreds of miles from home.

It'll do just about the same thing when you call Amtrak and they confirm that the conductor was within his rights to toss you off the train and refuse to provide a refund or voucher.

If you're lucky, the cops will give you a lift to a hotel or the bus station, but considering you were just a pain in their @$$, I wouldn't hold out a lot of hope for that either - hopefully your cell phone is charged and you can call a cab!

Read my reply to hessjm. It explains my position. Pain in the ass to some but exercising your rights to others. As I told hessjm, feel fre to "bend over" as much as you like.

NAVYBLUE

 

[Ryan]

It isn't so much "bending over" (whatever that's supposed to mean) as much as it is living by the rules you agree to when you purchase a train ticket.

If having to do what you're told by a conductor bothers you that much, stay off the train.

 

[pennyk]

It isn't so much "bending over" (whatever that's supposed to mean) as much as it is living by the rules you agree to when you purchase a train ticket.

If having to do what you're told by a conductor bothers you that much, stay off the train.

 

[Ryan]

And yes, I will sue AMTRAK, the police department, the county and I will sue the conductor in civil court. And please don't tell me you can't sue AMTRAK because they are the government.

I missed this on the first pass - what exactly are you going to sue them for?

Here's what you agree to when you buy a ticket:

A ticket shall be valid for carriage or refund one year after date of purchase, unless otherwise provided.

​

Reservations must be made when required, and tickets are not transferable. In order to ensure the quality of travel and safety and security of its passengers,

​

Amtrak may refuse to carry passengers:

​

• Who have not paid the applicable fare;
  
• Whose conduct is objectionable (such as, but not limited to, being under the influence of alcohol or narcotics);
  
• Whose personal hygiene makes them offensive;
  
• Who pose a health, safety or security hazard to other passengers or employees;
  
• Who refuse to comply with safety or security rules or with instructions of Amtrak personnel;
  
• Who would require Amtrak personnel to provide personal care services or otherwise do not meet the essential requirements for the receipt of Amtrak services; or
  
• 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.
  

Amtrak employees or other authorized carrier representatives may remove such a passenger from the train at any inhabited place, as necessary under the circumstances, for any of the above reasons.

​

 

[NW cannonball]

And yes, I will sue AMTRAK, the police department, the county and I will sue the conductor in civil court. And please don't tell me you can't sue AMTRAK because they are the government.

I missed this on the first pass - what exactly are you going to sue them for?

Here's what you agree to when you buy a ticket:

A ticket shall be valid for carriage or refund one year after date of purchase, unless otherwise provided.

​

Reservations must be made when required, and tickets are not transferable. In order to ensure the quality of travel and safety and security of its passengers,

​

Amtrak may refuse to carry passengers:

​

• Who have not paid the applicable fare;
  
• Whose conduct is objectionable (such as, but not limited to, being under the influence of alcohol or narcotics);
  
• Whose personal hygiene makes them offensive;
  
• Who pose a health, safety or security hazard to other passengers or employees;
  
• Who refuse to comply with safety or security rules or with instructions of Amtrak personnel;
  
• Who would require Amtrak personnel to provide personal care services or otherwise do not meet the essential requirements for the receipt of Amtrak services; or
  
• 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.
  

Amtrak employees or other authorized carrier representatives may remove such a passenger from the train at any inhabited place, as necessary under the circumstances, for any of the above reasons.

​

There's two totally different things being discussed here.

I am Not A Lawyer.

One is - the "contract of carriage" - under which any passenger consents to reasonable search by Amtrak (which is not government) as Ryan detailed above. This is a personal contract between the passenger and the carrier. The Conductor is like the pilot of the airplane or the captain of the ship -- has the right and duty to eject any passenger who threatens the safety or comfort of the plane,ship,train,conveyance, whatever. The terms of the contract are entered into freely between the carrier and the passenger. You buy the ticket, you consent to the terms. The carrier can dump you anywhere within reason if you violate the terms of the contract.

Two is - Constitutional rights -- outside of the contract - if the Government suspects you of criminal conduct. They have to get a warrant or witness the crime.

The contract of carriage is totally separate from the rights of any agent of any government to search.

So, local cops, Border Patrol (how they love to walk through the EB - hoping every second that they don't get re-assigned to the southern border) - DEA , whatever agents of Government - have totally restrained rules for search and seizure - constrained by the Constitution and more or less obeyed.

In the passengers relationship with Amtrak civil law - contract - they can throw you off the train.

Criminal law, government - can't search without a warrant.

Different things - but try and figure it out at 2 AM .

The OP was worried about local cops searching with no warrant- a legitimate concern

 

[Ryan]

The contract of carriage is totally separate from the rights of any agent of any government to search.

It ceases to be totally separate (from a practical consideration) when the conductor says "This officer is going to search your sleeping compartment, or you're going to be put off the train". If you want to continue your journey, you consent to the search. If you don't consent to the search, you find yourself at "any inhabited place" watching the markers recede into the distance.

 

[Everydaymatters]

It's sad that we're having this discussion. My only encounter with a LEO has been a speeding ticket :blink: but I remember from my school classes that you have the right to refuse to be searched and the odds were great you wouldn't have to worry about it anyhow. Those classes were many years ago and I'm wondering if the law has changed since then?

Prior to 9/11 we were all living in a world where we felt safe and protected. Now we're given the choice of complying or facing the consequences. For myself, I don't care if they search as I have nothing to hide, but still, it just isn't right.

NavyBlue - do you really think Amtrak, the police department, the county and the conductor care if you sue? Do you think they'll give it much thought if you win? It's not going to change anything so why would you want to go through all that? IMHO you are right that they shouldn't have that much power, but why go through so much when it's easier to simply allow the search?

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

It ceases to be totally separate (from a practical consideration) when the conductor says "This officer is going to search your sleeping compartment, or you're going to be put off the train". If you want to continue your journey, you consent to the search. If you don't consent to the search, you find yourself at "any inhabited place" watching the markers recede into the distance.

That is a very big "What if" question.

Nobody has ever report this happening.

Only thing that happen is:

A) The police have cause to stop you, and search.

B) The police officer is plain clothing doing a soft interview. When they are doing a soft interview "Just say No". Once they ID themselves then they need cause.

Having that person who you had dinner with, walk up to continue talking to you about there politics, is handle the same way. "Sorry I don't want to talk to you". Sure it's rude, but unless they pull out a Police ID / Badge or are wear a uniform "Just say no".

 

[oregon pioneer]

It ceases to be totally separate (from a practical consideration) when the conductor says "This officer is going to search your sleeping compartment, or you're going to be put off the train". If you want to continue your journey, you consent to the search. If you don't consent to the search, you find yourself at "any inhabited place" watching the markers recede into the distance.

That is a very big "What if" question.

Nobody has ever report this happening.

As I think I said earlier in this discussion, one of my good friends who loves to travel Amtrak had exactly that happen to him this year at Reno on the CZ. Solely on the basis of profiling his looks (60-ish, gray hair and full beard), or some other cue that they homed in on, they told him they would search his roomette NOW, or take him off the train with his luggage (to wait for the warrant while the train went on), if he insisted on a warrant. He allowed, because he wanted to get home. They found nothing (precisely what I would have expected with him), and he continued his trip homeward.

 

[Blackwolf]

*sigh* Not something that most people have the ability to utilize, but if said Law Enforcement look to rouse me or my wife on our trip in three weeks on the basis of search, they will be flashed with a badge of my own. And the conductor will be involved. If the conductor insists that our accommodation will be searched, then so be it, but with the remark of us not consenting.

They will not find anything. And for the record, the last time I was pulled over by a law enforcement officer (profiling, I had not done anything or had any probable reason for the traffic stop aside from traveling through a National Forest that has a large problem with illegal marijuana plantations) I was requested to submit to a search. I declined. A Federal DEA officer was called to the scene, and I was asked again to submit to search. I declined a second time. I was kind, pleasant and not at all rude with either officer, even smiling as they asked me questions. Without any further reason to detain me, I was released without any charge or ticket. It goes to show that, unless they really have something damning against you, a lot of the search requests are a rouse and are unfounded. The Amtrak situation may be unique, but not hopeless.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I've refused searches of vehicles as well. All they did was ask me again a second time and when I again refused they simply let me go. I'm not sure what reasoning would explain why an Amtrak roomette should be that much different from a rental car. In both cases I would expect them to produce a warrant or have probable cause to detain me or to search objects in my possession or under my control. Seems like something isn't quite right about detaining people to wait for a warrant that is unlikely to be granted without probable cause. Since refusal to consent is not itself probable cause I'm not sure what their reasoning would be. Seems like a textbook case for abuse of power to me. As for those who keep pointing out that this means you'd be left behind, yes we know that is a risk. For some folks risking a delay of their holiday is where their rights end, but for others that's exactly where our rights begin.