MBTA bag inspections at Davis Station

[barry-rafkind.livejournal.com]

On my way down to the train at Davis Station around 8:30am this morning, I was about to pass through the gate when a transit officer asked me to submit to a bag inspection. There was a group of about 4 or 5 officers wearing yellow and black jackets standing next to a small folding table with a machine on top.

I was annoyed because my train had just come up to the platform, so I was afraid I’d miss it. So, I obediently went over to the table, and asked if I had the right to refuse the inspection. Yes, I could refuse, they told me, but then I’d have to leave the station.  One officer at the table asked rhetorically why anyone would want to refuse. I complied because I had nothing to hide and I wanted to get it over with so I could catch my train.

The inspection consisted of rubbing a small piece of fabric or cotton around the exterior of my backpack. Then, the fabric was put into the machine.  The officer performing this task explained that he was testing for explosives. No personally identifying information was requested from me. The test was negative, so I could get on my way. It’s notable that this test used a computer instead of a bomb sniffing dog, I wonder which is more effective and what the cost savings are.

The whole inspection took about 30 seconds and I was actually able to catch my train to Porter Station where no inspections were taking place. When I returned to Davis Station about an hour later, around 9:30am, the officers were gone.

The inspection left me feeling annoyed, inconvenienced, and surprised. I also felt vulnerable because I didn’t know my rights. I think the MBTA should do a better job of publicizing its inspection program so people can mentally prepare for it. The MBTA Police website contains a link to information on its bag inspection program near the bottom, but this information dates back to 2006 and made no mention of activities going on this month.

I wonder about the rates of false positives and false negatives of the explosives test. How effective is it at deterring or catching people who carry bombs? And why only inspect the exterior of the bag when there could be dangerous items inside?

Have you or someone you know been inspected? What was the experience like?

Note: I'm cross-posting this from the Somerville Voices blog.

Comments

[narya.livejournal.com]

It seems really improbable that they'd actually catch anyone this way. If you knew that you had something to hide, you'd presumably just decline the search and walk out.

In theory they might catch somebody who was unaware that they were carrying something harmful, but that scenario isn't all that likely and it's unlikely that the checkers would happen to be at the right station at the right time. I have also heard the argument that this program acts as a deterrent, but if you're 99.5% likely not to get stopped and you can leave without getting checked, it's unlikely to deter anyone.

I don't think this kind of testing is actually keeping anybody safe, so I think "inconvenience" is a fair characterization.

[barry-rafkind.livejournal.com]

Excellent points, narya! Given that I only discovered my right to decline the inspection only when I asked, it's possible that a naive bomber might not think to ask, and therefore be discovered under the assumption it was a compulsory screening. But any serious terrorist would know the rules and would therefore decide to leave instead of submit to the test.

Voluntary inspections such as these, like all "feel-good" security procedures, are a complete waste of tax-payer money, thoroughly ineffective, annoying, inconvenient, and an infringement upon our civil liberties. We The People deserve better!

[m00n.livejournal.com]

I think we need to start posting the text of the 4th amendment to the constitution on signs and telephone polls all over the country. *Most* people don't seem to realize that you can refuse literally any search, but it's definitely one of the most important laws in the constitution.

This issue has been covered here before

[http://users.livejournal.com/_mattt/]

If the MBTA did not do searches and something bad happened... Well, then there would be hell to pay.

IMO Effective? Probably not.
IMO Covering their arse? Yes.

Re: This issue has been covered here before

[barry-rafkind.livejournal.com]

Indeed, I just discovered that this issue has been covered before by derspatchel's sarcastic 9/9/08 post We are here to protect you (http://community.livejournal.com/davis_square/1435582.html).

Re: This issue has been covered here before

[http://users.livejournal.com/_mattt/]

I know him, and that's his humor. That was pretty funny, although I disagree on the MBTA's motives.