The ACLU points out that searches for "general crime control" are not permitted (and even the constitutionality of this program is doubtful).

A program just like this one was affirmed constitutional by the 2nd circuit. As far as I know, no court has ruled them unconstitutional. I'm not sure why you think the constitutionality is doubtful. I agree it's probably a waste of time and money, though.

by jcm on Jan 3, 2011 12:19 pm • link • report

I would very, very strongly prefer that WMATA direct its efforts to preventing juvenile melees on its trains and platforms.

by mark on Jan 3, 2011 12:35 pm • link • report

If the WMATA management believes it helps increase security on the system, then I'm all for it.

by Matt on Jan 3, 2011 12:54 pm • link • report

The draft regulations of the District's medical marijuana law state that all medicine must be dispensed in a sealed container and qualified patients may only open the container in their home or treatment facility.

If a qualified patient has an open container on them, they are breaking the law. If a patient crosses into Virginia or Maryland with their medicine they are breaking the law.

The responsible means for Metro to enforce this is to simply verify if a person is a legal patient by checking Department of Health's patient database information that will be available to the law enforcement for this explicit purpose. If the person is not verified, they will be arrested for breaking the law. If the person is verified, they should be allowed to continue on their way home or to the medical treatment facility.

Essentially, the medical marijuana regulations are so strict that they only time a person can be found with medical marijuana with them is when they've left a dispensary and are en route home or to the their medical treatment facility.

by SS on Jan 3, 2011 1:28 pm • link • report

Obviously I only recommend this action if the costs permit it.... but I think stepping up security on the platforms and on the trains would have a much more adverse effect on threat and overall crime on the metro system.

There are so many ways someone can subvert a random bag search at a station, and it is increasingly more evident that these searches only help keep the honest person honest.

by Brad K on Jan 3, 2011 1:33 pm • link • report

What an incredible waste of time and resources. When was the last time an explosive device was discovered in a subway station? Why does WMATA see more of a threat from mythical terrorists, than the real issues posed by the obnoxious teens riding to and from school on the Green Line every single day?

by Matt on Jan 3, 2011 2:06 pm • link • report

@jcm - because it clearly violates the 4th Amendment, regardless of what a panic stricken 2nd Circuit decision reads.

The public transit system is just that...public space...to which the 4th Amendment clearly applies. A search can be consented to by passengers but cannot be forced upon them or cited as a reason to deny them access to the system. It will be found unconstitutional by any reasonable judge.

by Redline SOS on Jan 3, 2011 2:06 pm • link • report

@ Redline SOS But it hasn't been found unconstitutional by any judge. In fact, two courts have said it's constitutional. If some other court finds it unconstitutional, then we'll be able to consider it in doubt. I'm sure one of DC's army of lawyers will sue here soon enough.

by jcm on Jan 3, 2011 2:34 pm • link • report

@jcm - The 2nd Circuit does not have jurisdiction over DC, Maryland or Virginia so its decisions are not binding here. No court which has jurisdiction over any of the Metro service area has ruled on this issue so the constitutionality of the program is unsettled. In my opinion the fact that the continuation of this program is guaranteed to result in a lawsuit which WMATA will have to spend money it doesn't have defending (win or lose) is just another reason why this particular piece of security theater should be abandoned immediately.

by Jacob on Jan 3, 2011 2:38 pm • link • report

@ Jacob In my mind, "unsettled" is different from "doubtful". The usage note in my dictionary says:

Doubtful carries such strong connotations of uncertainty that the thing being described is as good as worthless, unsound, invalid, unlikely, or doomed to fail (: it was doubtful that the plane could land safely).

I understand the 2nd circuit decision is not binding here, but unless a court somewhere declares these types of searches unconstitutional, I think "doubtful" is a poor choice of adjective.

by jcm on Jan 3, 2011 3:45 pm • link • report

Just wanted to chime in on this issue. Because of concerns about the physical opening of bags, I believe that bags will ONLY be physically opened if the explosive detection machines have a positive MATCH and they are then x-rayed and there is something suspicous looking. The main reason this policy makes no sense is that it is a waste of time and resources, but very few bags are going to be physically opened.

by Dharm on Jan 3, 2011 3:47 pm • link • report

"committee room past security"

womp womp

by JJJJJ on Jan 3, 2011 4:57 pm • link • report

I'd like to see reliable proof that this is not a waste of resources. Haven't seen it sofar.

by Jasper on Jan 3, 2011 5:55 pm • link • report

I carry a gun in Virginia. Sometimes openly, sometimes concealed. I called the WMATA transit police 3 times and spoke to 3 people that told me guns were not allowed by citizens on metrobus OR metrorail. I then called the chief and spoke to one of the deputy chiefs who confirmed that legal carry of firearms is permitted according to the laws of the jusidiction the train/bus is in. He said he would send out a memno to remind officers of that. Ed

by Ed on Jan 3, 2011 9:45 pm • link • report

It was amazing that several of the WMATA Riders' Advisory Council members particularly (not to mention many folks who testified) clearly hadn't bothered to watch the Transit Police videos (located on the WMATA web site) ahead of the hearing to discover that the Transit Police were not going to go inside of bags as a part of the routine searches. The Transit Police Deputy Chief and Captain seemed to have a solid grasp of all the facts; and having their General Counsel their to address concerns was very helpful. A lot of the folks who testified should have done some minimal homework first, but many came in guns blazing, so to speak; several folks left early after hearing initial comments from the Transit Police that put many concerns to rest.

All of the officers doing security checks are trained in a regular one year police program. The notion that these were inexperienced unprofessional TSA officers was unfounded. It was also good that that they pointed out that, from studies of actual terrorist attempts, many would be terrorists do several dry runs before executing a plot and the random nature of the current bag checks is effective in throwing a wrench in such plans.

Strangely enough, The Riders' Advisory Council suggested they would recommend that the current searches immediately be brought to and end because of many (unfounded) fears brought up by the public and the board itself.

by Martin on Jan 3, 2011 10:12 pm • link • report

Thank you Martin. I also find the position of the RAC to be strange. And to the naysayers I ask- where is the solid reliable "evidence" that these searches are useless and a waste of time? If even one plot is ever-so slightly "deterred" then we will all have been safer, even if we are unaware of the specifics. Other than "...patrol more often and control the unruly teenagers" I haven't heard any alternative suggestions...

by KevinM on Jan 4, 2011 7:35 am • link • report

@ KevinM

The evidence is: (1) 30+ years (or, if you're among those who think terrorism only became a threat in 2001, 9+ years) of no Metro bombings even though there were no bag checks, either; and (2) the fact that the 'leave the station' alternative means this program is basically designed only to find the kind of false positive that was described the Dr. Gridlock blog posting "Metro begins random bag inspections" at 07:31 on 21 Dec. Nobody knowingly carrying explosives in their bag is going to agree to the search, and I don't know why, after all these years of keepin' the terr'ists off-balance, anybody anywhere thinks they won't also have plans B, C, D, and E, especially when that would merely involve going to another station.

by DrBubbles on Jan 4, 2011 9:23 am • link • report

Martin, they will open bags if they get a positive result from the test, and there will be plenty of false positives, so I'm not sure why your point is relevant. Whether they're opening 1% of bags coming into the system or 0.1% doesn't seem that important.

KevinM, shouldn't the burden be on those advocating a new policy to produce some evidence that it's cost-effective? I have yet to hear any argument for how this is supposed to even theoretically protect us from terrorists, unless we have terrorists unable to notice that there's a checkpoint ahead and they should use a different entrance or different station to bring in their explosives.

by Keith Ivey on Jan 4, 2011 4:02 pm • link • report

@ Keith Ivey-
I think you and a lot of others are giving "the terrorists" way too much credit.

by KevinM on Jan 5, 2011 7:46 am • link • report

Yeah; *everyone* knows they just pulled Sept. 11 and London and Spain out of their @$$es.

by DrBubbles on Jan 5, 2011 11:22 am • link • report

Why not start randomly searching bags at hotels, restaurants, grocery stores, and on the sidewalk?

Why not just have random roadblocks to check people's papers and the trunks of their cars?

That would make us all safer, wouldn't it?

by Zak on Feb 21, 2011 8:38 pm • link • report