NYC to Bring Sniff Dogs Into Subway System
---
Having won the early legal rounds over their worthless (and therefore unconstitutional) random bag search program, the NYPD is taking the next illogical step in (the illusion of) protecting the subway system:
--Sniff dogs are not generalists: they are trained to sniff either for drugs or for explosives, but not both. So the fact that the police are "being coy" about which it is obviously means both: that some dogs are explosives sniffers and some are drug sniffers. And drug sniff dogs help in the War on Terror -- how?
--As for the explosives sniff dogs: How exactly are they going to help deter terrorists either? This is foul thought experiment that I abhor, but it's necessary: let's think like a terrorist for a moment. If your purpose is to blow up the subway system and kill as many people as possible, then you are going to do it during rush hour and on the most congested lines -- which is exactly when the sniff dogs won't be around, because it would be impractical if not impossible. Does anyone really believe that the NYPD is going to try to cram an 85-pound sniff dog onto a packed 4 train traveling between Grand Central and Union Square at 8:30 in the morning? Of course not. Deterrence factor: zero.
--Alternatively, if the terrorists prefer simply to inflict economic damage by causing multiple explosions all across the system, then they will do it late at night and at remote stations -- again, precisely where the NYPD will never deploy their sniff dogs. Deterrence factor: zero.
--Going back to "dogs on subway cars" (or, for that matter, dogs on subway platforms): One of the last great unanswered search-and-seizure questions is whether a dog sniff of a person can ever be a reasonable search consistent with the Fourth Amendment. There is a fundamental difference between a dog sticking his snout into your bag and sticking his snout into your crotch. Such a search would violate traditional notions -- including traditional constitutional notions -- of a "zone of privacy" and the right to one's own bodily dignity. The Court rarely finds a Fourth Amendment exception that it won't embrace, but even they would likely balk at this suspicionless affront to law-abiding people. (For an excellent discussion of police over-reliance on sniff dogs, see Justice Souter's dissent in the horribly decided dog sniff case Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005), or this post.)
Much of the NYPD's approach to subway security has been anchored on a patently absurd premise: That it is better to feel safe than to be safe (or to acknowledge that perfect safety is simply not possible). The erosion of civil liberties for warm-fuzzy-feeling theatrics ought not be tolerated.
The police department has deployed the "first class" of K-9 units devoted exclusively to the subway, the city's top transit cop said Monday.Some hasty stitches:
...
"The biggest issue here is deterrence," said Lt. John Pappas, commanding officer of the Transit Bureau K-9 Unit. "The overall mission is counterterrorism and to fight crime."
...
Police officials are being coy about the dog's [sic] abilities -- whether they are explosive sniffers or drug sniffers or both -- but say the training of each animal is extensive.
--Sniff dogs are not generalists: they are trained to sniff either for drugs or for explosives, but not both. So the fact that the police are "being coy" about which it is obviously means both: that some dogs are explosives sniffers and some are drug sniffers. And drug sniff dogs help in the War on Terror -- how?
--As for the explosives sniff dogs: How exactly are they going to help deter terrorists either? This is foul thought experiment that I abhor, but it's necessary: let's think like a terrorist for a moment. If your purpose is to blow up the subway system and kill as many people as possible, then you are going to do it during rush hour and on the most congested lines -- which is exactly when the sniff dogs won't be around, because it would be impractical if not impossible. Does anyone really believe that the NYPD is going to try to cram an 85-pound sniff dog onto a packed 4 train traveling between Grand Central and Union Square at 8:30 in the morning? Of course not. Deterrence factor: zero.
--Alternatively, if the terrorists prefer simply to inflict economic damage by causing multiple explosions all across the system, then they will do it late at night and at remote stations -- again, precisely where the NYPD will never deploy their sniff dogs. Deterrence factor: zero.
--Going back to "dogs on subway cars" (or, for that matter, dogs on subway platforms): One of the last great unanswered search-and-seizure questions is whether a dog sniff of a person can ever be a reasonable search consistent with the Fourth Amendment. There is a fundamental difference between a dog sticking his snout into your bag and sticking his snout into your crotch. Such a search would violate traditional notions -- including traditional constitutional notions -- of a "zone of privacy" and the right to one's own bodily dignity. The Court rarely finds a Fourth Amendment exception that it won't embrace, but even they would likely balk at this suspicionless affront to law-abiding people. (For an excellent discussion of police over-reliance on sniff dogs, see Justice Souter's dissent in the horribly decided dog sniff case Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005), or this post.)
Much of the NYPD's approach to subway security has been anchored on a patently absurd premise: That it is better to feel safe than to be safe (or to acknowledge that perfect safety is simply not possible). The erosion of civil liberties for warm-fuzzy-feeling theatrics ought not be tolerated.
Related Posts (on one page):
- NYC to Bring Sniff Dogs Into Subway System
- Sniff Dogs in Subways Not Effective
Posted by Kip on
28 November 2006
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
