• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Illegal search?

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
So I went on the staten island ferry last night for the first time. What I witnessed was ridiculous. Unarmed security walking around with dogs who were "sniffing" random people's bags and belongings. Now, the sign I saw at the BACK of the lobby said that your presence here and desire to ride the ferry is contingent upon your cooperation with authorities to be searched or inspected. It also said it was pursuant to the rules and regulations of the coast guard. Now, I didn't see any coast guardies there... And I haven't really done any research, but the ferry is free...is it "public property"?

I was just amazed that people were allowing the dog to sniff them. No reason for a stop. And they weren't even law enforcement.

I mean, what if someone was carrying something? I don't understand how that could possibly stand up in court...or even a knife?

Idk.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Welcome to The Department of [strike]Fatherland State Security[/strike] I mean Homeland Security.

Not enough to tell if this was a VIPR team or not, but my guess is it was not as they usually only show up with the local cops in tow. There are separate rules for the "inspection" (not "search") of things passengers bring onto ferries, and those "inspections" are usually carried out by rent-a-cops.* I've never been able to find anything written down that addresses the difference between an "inspection" and a "search". I have seen the regs that allow "inspections" of vehicles and (for lack of a better term) luggage, but did not see anything that permitted the "inspection" to go farther than looking at the top layer when the luggage is opened.

From the description you provide, it was a perfectly legal violation of 6th Amendment rights in furtherance of anti-terrorism security theater.

stay safe.

* While accumulated anecdote will never = data, I've never heard of anybody but rent-a-cops performing this security work.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Well my thoughts on this are

1) We in Western WA state consent to a search when we board the ferry. I believe the reason is due to the fact that ships are a unique environment versus traditional road transportation.
2) the search is not illegal as you agreed to such search by using the ferry
3) I don't think the dog is considered a violation because under the US constitution the U.S. Supreme Court has determined in Illinois v. Caballes That a dog sniff is not a "search" becuase A)the dog theoretically can only alert to illegal activity and B) the dog is not intrusive and detaining you is not required for the dog to search you.

And Skidmark, the 6th amendment is speedy trial and right to counsel, the 4th amendment is unreasonable search and seizure
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
Well my thoughts on this are

1) We in Western WA state consent to a search when we board the ferry. I believe the reason is due to the fact that ships are a unique environment versus traditional road transportation.
2) the search is not illegal as you agreed to such search by using the ferry
3) I don't think the dog is considered a violation because under the US constitution the U.S. Supreme Court has determined in Illinois v. Caballes That a dog sniff is not a "search" becuase A)the dog theoretically can only alert to illegal activity and B) the dog is not intrusive and detaining you is not required for the dog to search you.

And Skidmark, the 6th amendment is speedy trial and right to counsel, the 4th amendment is unreasonable search and seizure

Funny thing is, there's a lobby in there, where you can buy food and hangout for any period of time, with no requirement to get on the ferry. So, the search comes from just being in the lobby.... And it's very random.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Well my thoughts on this are

1) We in Western WA state consent to a search when we board the ferry. I believe the reason is due to the fact that ships are a unique environment versus traditional road transportation.
2) the search is not illegal as you agreed to such search by using the ferry

Can you cite?

I am under the impression in our state the ferry system is considered part of the highway system, you cannot be subject to search on the on ramp of a freeway would lead me to include the same for a ferry.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Can you cite?

I am under the impression in our state the ferry system is considered part of the highway system, you cannot be subject to search on the on ramp of a freeway would lead me to include the same for a ferry.

WA State ferries states on their website that anyone who refuses to consent to a search will be denied boarding. Under who's legal authority I'm unsure. I spent at least 45 minutes combing over the RCWs and WACs and I can't find anything specific to searches. also they state a captain's permission is required to leave the ferry if you board and then want off before the boat leaves, again cant find any legal authority for this in RCWs or WACs, so would that constitute unlawful imprisonment? I don't know. I have a friend who works for the ferries, i'll give him a ring when he gets off of work and ask if they have any authority to enforce that. but the state ferries has been putting signs up of that nature for 10 years and it's on their website

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Ferries/infodesk/faq/security/#security
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
So I went on the staten island ferry last night for the first time. What I witnessed was ridiculous. Unarmed security walking around with dogs who were "sniffing" random people's bags and belongings. Now, the sign I saw at the BACK of the lobby said that your presence here and desire to ride the ferry is contingent upon your cooperation with authorities to be searched or inspected. It also said it was pursuant to the rules and regulations of the coast guard. Now, I didn't see any coast guardies there... And I haven't really done any research, but the ferry is free...is it "public property"?

I was just amazed that people were allowing the dog to sniff them. No reason for a stop. And they weren't even law enforcement.

I mean, what if someone was carrying something? I don't understand how that could possibly stand up in court...or even a knife?

Idk.

Thoughts?

I have this vague recollection that courts have decided that a dog sniff from the outside is not a search. Specious of course, but I'm kinda sure that's the deal.

Lemme see if I can find something to cite about dog sniffs outside a car or luggage.

Here's some. You have to read down a little ways to the federal case out of Indiana:. http://fourthamendment.com/blog/index.php?blog=1&s=dog+sniff&sentence=sentence&submit=Search This is a great little blog, by the way. I check it regularly. And, it is a real treat when the blogger, a very experience criminal attorney, makes a comment about a court opinion.

Here seems to be a precedent cited by one of the cases at the link above. See the last three paragraphs of Section II: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=462&invol=696


ETA: Deleted possibly wrong information about FLIR (forward looking infra-red), and wrong information about why a certain warrantless dog sniffs are not considered unconstitutional by the courts.
 
Last edited:

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
I have this vague recollection that courts have decided that a dog sniff from the outside is not a search. Specious of course, but I'm kinda sure that's the deal. I kinda think its predicated on a version of the plain view doctrine. If the sniffing is done outside the car, or outside the luggage, then it is in plain sniff range, in a manner of speaking.

Illinois v Caballes. a dog sniff is not a violation since in theory the dog only alerts to drugs or explosives, versus the FLIR camera which can see everything from making love to feeding your goldfish. This second sentence is my assumption on why the chopper is illegal when the dog isnt
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Illinois v Caballes. a dog sniff is not a violation since in theory the dog only alerts to drugs or explosives, versus the FLIR camera which can see everything from making love to feeding your goldfish. This second sentence is my assumption on why the chopper is illegal when the dog isnt

I deleted my comment about the unconstitutionality of FLIR. I did a little checking, and found some federal decisions that held that FLIR was not unconstitutional. So, I'm not so sure now.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
I deleted my comment about the unconstitutionality of FLIR. I did a little checking, and found some federal decisions that held that FLIR was not unconstitutional. So, I'm not so sure now.

SCOTUS ruled in Kyllo v US that the FLIR constituted a search that needed a warrant. That the case I'm familiar with
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SCOTUS ruled in Kyllo v US that the FLIR constituted a search that needed a warrant. That the case I'm familiar with

Great! I'll check it out!

Found it:
"Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a “search” and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-8508.ZO.html
 
Last edited:

Vitaeus

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
596
Location
Bremerton, Washington
WA Art 1, sect 7 would cover both the sniffer dogs and the thermal question

State v. Young, unless the drug dog is a sworn officer, then I suppose s/he is using their natural senses versus some device.

http://law.justia.com/cfr/title33/33-1.0.1.1.6.html#33:1.0.1.1.6.2.1.4 33 C.F.R. PART 6—PROTECTION AND SECURITY OF VESSELS, HARBORS, AND WATERFRONT FACILITIES

"The Captain of the port may enlist the aid and cooperation of Federal, State, county, municipal, and private agencies to assist in the enforcement of regulations issued pursuant to this part." ...6.04-11

looks like Federal law covers it, but I am unsure how the federal law would work in conjunction with State property, if nothing else they can eject you for breaking the rule and probably hold you for either State or Federal LEO, depending on the offense?
 
Last edited:

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
I simply can't find any case law regarding ferry searches In WA case law. However the OP was asking about the legality of dog searches in New York City, without knowing any case law in NY I would have to say it passes the 4th amendment test though , and so the dog search, which may be illegal in WA, can be presumed by us freedom loving northwesterners to be Lawful on the east coast
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
I simply can't find any case law regarding ferry searches In WA case law. However the OP was asking about the legality of dog searches in New York City, without knowing any case law in NY I would have to say it passes the 4th amendment test though , and so the dog search, which may be illegal in WA, can be presumed by us freedom loving northwesterners to be Lawful on the east coast

Ok I'm sorry I didn't provide clarification as to how they were using the dogs.

There were multiple entrances, and there were no "screening lines", or area where everyone had to pass through. The guy was just randomly walking the dog around the lobby letting it sniff people. I saw two guys walk by with a bag, and then the third one, the guy stopped him to let the dog sniff his bag.

There was no one looking through bags and purses....now, this ferry is free, so who is paying for it?

I wish I would have taken a picture of the sign, it said something about pursuant to the rules of the coast guard, or something of that effect. I mean, half the time, the guy was flirting with this chick...but what would have happened if he would have walked up to me with his dog to allow him to sniff me? I understand the court cases saying a dog sniff isn't covered, like in a border stop or DUI checkpoint. But not to be in a public place on foot and have a dog randomly walk up to someone and sniff their bag. Especially without a line that EVERYONE had to walk through.....

(not implying that I was nervous to have the dog sniff me, but what option did I have...?)
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
"Excuse me! Could you please keep that filth ydog away from me I am extremely allergic to dogs. If I experience a allergic reaction as a result of you allowing that animal to touch me or my belongings I will be contacting my lawyer and the police about you assaulting me with your dog."

.....or something along those lines. Remember, New Yorkers are like that, all in your face and complaining.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
"Excuse me! Could you please keep that filth ydog away from me I am extremely allergic to dogs. If I experience a allergic reaction as a result of you allowing that animal to touch me or my belongings I will be contacting my lawyer and the police about you assaulting me with your dog."

.....or something along those lines. Remember, New Yorkers are like that, all in your face and complaining.

Sounds good. I wonder, though, if police haven't already had that one pulled on them, and have a counter-tactic already loaded and ready to go.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Screw with them, put scent drops on random bags. Deer, Pheasant, quail, duck,...... get creative.

One drop is all it takes to get a dog's attention.

All those false alerts should get the dog's testimony thrown out of court. The other thing to note is that dogs are being trained to give false positives by way of cues from the handler.

EDIT: to beat someone to the cite request

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/06/false-positives-police-canines-searches/
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Use of search dogs is a search under the 4th amendment. You would have to take them to court to see if an exemption is appropriate.
 
Top