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

[shaxxon.livejournal.com]

I think they're still working out the kinks. They called over a girl this morning telling her she'd been selected randomly and then another officer shouts "No, not her, you can go" then the other officer came back and started asking a bunch of questions I couldn't really make out.

[kalliejenn2.livejournal.com]

"the whole inspection took about 30 seconds"

...30 seconds is an inconvenience? i don't know how effective these tests are, but that seems like chump change if the test actually works and keeps people safe. also, 30 seconds is way better than the hour you spend in line at the airport being thoroughly checked. just think of it this way - they could have spent 5 minutes rifling through your bag instead.

[dmaze]

I was also stopped this morning. I asked if they had a warrant; they asserted that since they were only inspecting the outside of my bag they didn't need one. (IANAL, but it seems to me like if it's not something they can tell visually then it's still a "search".) I told them that I wanted to leave and go to a different station and wasn't bothered further. So me and my potentially explosive-laden bag got on the T at Porter instead.

The effectiveness of this program vs. using the same MBTA police officers to address actual known problems, such as violent crime on the Orange Line, is left as an exercise for the reader.

[blacktigr.livejournal.com]

I've had it happen to me at the Mass Ave and Sullivan orange line stations. They're not that big a deal.

[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.

[spud.livejournal.com]

While not a big deal as far as time is concerned, would you feel it not a big deal if officers randomly approached you on the street and did the same search? What if they came to your home and decided to do the same tests on the outside of your car? What if it was once a week? Once a day? There is really no difference between any of these searches.

Where do we draw the line on the rights we are willing to give up in the name of a sense of security. I say "sense of security" here, because anyone who did have malevolent intent could easily just leave and go to a different T station to continue their plans. I believe that Benjamin Franklin's quote was along the lines of, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

Simply my $.02 on the issue.

[ron_newman]

Except that a concert hall or an amusement park is privately owned. The T is publicly owned, even though it charges a fare. The public should not have to subject itself to a search to use a public facility.

I see no valid reason that these searches should occur at all, at any station.

[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!

[barry-rafkind.livejournal.com]

30 seconds is long enough to miss a train and then the next train might not come for 2,5,or 10 minutes, depending on what's going on. Yes, I think that qualifies as an inconvenience as does an hour at the airport.

[rxrfrx.livejournal.com]

The newest airport detectors apparently work by mass spec, which if you've ever done mass spec, is not a comforting thought.

[wallacestreet.livejournal.com]

There are two ways in which this exercise could be useful to the MBTA police. First, it could represent field training for officers on policies and procedures for using the machines. I frankly can't envision a scenario or a tactical concept in which they would be even vaguely useful on the T (this certainly isn't it), but perhaps the T police have. If so, they field training for the officers isn't a bad idea. Second, this can condition the public to accept random searches in more and more venues. They're already accepted at airports (public) and stadiums (public and private). Random searches of this type are pretty useless at catching people with bombs, but are great for catching folks with drugs, large sums of cash, and other types of contraband; if they become accepted, as they are at airports, evidence could be admissible even without a warrant.

Increasing habituation to and acceptance of random searches absolutely makes it easier for the police to catch various types of criminals, although not necessarily the ones they claim to be looking for in justifying the searches. However, I, and I hope you, find the price in lost liberty unacceptable. I always hope that the police will leave me alone, but if and when they don't, I will walk (or take the bus) to Porter Square, and write a letter of complaint to the T management and the newspapers. I hope you will consider doing the same when they "ask" to search your bag.

[barry-rafkind.livejournal.com]

I agree that the inspection qualifies as a search that would merit a warrant AND that resources would be better spent on known issues.

[ukelele.livejournal.com]

Hey, I did a lab with mass spec once! I remember the exact data point where the machine broke.

[barry-rafkind.livejournal.com]

wallacestreet, I disagree with your first point because I fail to see the advantage in training officers to swipe bags in public when the same swiping skills can be trained just as effectively in the police academy.

I don't think voluntary searches can be effective at catching any type of contraband.

I do agree that these inspections condition the public to accept increasingly frequent random searches AND that this is an unacceptable loss of liberty.

No searches

[jokabri.livejournal.com]

Are you more mad at the "inconvenience" of being searched, your perceived ineptness of it all or just that you may have had to wait an extra 5 minutes for the next train?

If no one wants more security then we need to go to the system that I have long advocated for -- everyone packs heat. You get on a bus - you bring a rifle. A plane; a bazooka. Without random searches that's about the only way to stop the terrorists from committing another 911 or Madrid.

Re: No searches

[ron_newman]

I'm in favor of no searches. I see no evidence that "more security" is needed at all. We should gradually begin to undo all of the harmful changes to society that followed 9/11.

Re: No searches

[barry-rafkind.livejournal.com]

jokabri, I'm most angry that taxpayer dollars are being wasted on this ineffective security placebo, total kabuki theater. The inconvenience is not my main concern. I'm not sure what you meant by "perceived ineptness of it all", I think the word ineptness better describes the system of voluntary searches.

[curiositykt.livejournal.com]

As a New Hampshire resident, where fireworks are legal, I just want to say that it's interesting to note that had I been playing with such on New Years (which I have done in the past) and then taking the T the next day, it could have been an exciting morning.

Thankfully, it was not.

I'm always slightly aware of Will I be taking a plane in the next few days? Have I been around explosives? Do I currently smell like gun powder? (which I also periodically, legally, play with)

[stormsdotter.livejournal.com]

It's good to hear that they're not opening bags, I get no end of grief because I have a pocket knife, and my bag always contains a Leatherman, first-aid kit, and a sewing kit, all of which are deemed "unsafe" by the folks at airport security, and are frowned upon by Boston's City Hall inspectors.

Honestly, I would feel much safer if they had the dogs trained to sniff for explosives and drugs do the check. The dog whiffs your bag, you go on your way or and the dog will actually catch contraband, unlike the stupid machines they have.

[ron_newman]

I wish they'd get rid of the bag check at Boston City Hall, and for that matter at the State House. Cambridge and Somerville city halls don't have bag checks, and neither do the Ohio and New Hampshire statehouses. These security checkpoints alienate citizens from their own government.

Re: No searches

[barry-rafkind.livejournal.com]

To clarify, I'm most angry about our loss of liberty and the waste of public funds on this program at a time when the government is cutting back on vital services.

[m00n.livejournal.com]

I actually did set one of these things off at one point in an airport. I don't know what it was that got the machine's attention (and of course they wouldn't tell me) but they seemed so incredulous about it that they literally tested my laptop on every machine at the security counter (this being O'Hare, there were many) until they found one that tested negative, and then let me through. They had definitely stacked the odds against themselves with that one.

I have a strong suspicion that either they have no procedure for what to do when you actually test positive, or the procedure at that point becomes so invasive that even TSA officials will do anything to avoid going down that route.

[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.

[m00n.livejournal.com]

I second this. I find it really upsetting to see resources used this way when there is *definitely* a shortage of patrol on the T in general.

Re: No searches

[m00n.livejournal.com]

I'm glad I don't [yet] live in a society where people are so paranoid. Also, my personal safety isn't so important that I'd be willing to give up living in a free and open society. And I don't just mean "open" in the sense of not being searched at random. I also mean one in which I do not have to fear that if I look at someone wrong on the train, they might be tempted to shoot at me. Guns tend to beget gun fights.