MBTA reinstates bag searches

Last week Gov. Mitt Romney told the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) to restart bag searches after the U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled in August that random visual inspections were acceptable on New York City subways.

"I think we recognize globally that transit systems, airport systems, and the like have been targets," Romney told The New York Times last week, referring to bombings in London, Madrid, Casablanca, and Bali. "We have to adjust our security parameters to no longer focus on just crime but to add the additional threat of terror."

During the Democratic National Convention in 2004, Boston became the first American city to search bags on the subway. Inspections were compulsory, and subsequent complaints from civil libertarians nearly shut down the practice until the ruling in New York, where the practice began after the July 2005 London train bombings.

Protecting the subway from terrorist attacks, the court said, constitutes a "special need" that supersedes the Fourth Amendment's protection from unreasonable searches.

"The government's trying to do what's best for you," said Rebecca Kostopoulos, CSON '10. "But terrorists attacks happen all the time, and I think people who are determined enough to do it are going to work their way around [any security measures]."

Scott Gentile, GA&S '11, shared this skepticism. "It's one thing to be doing it in airports where it's a very small, controlled environment," he said, "but to try to implement that sort of thing on a public transportation system where so much is going on, I think it's like looking for a needle in a haystack to try and weed terrorists out."

All doubts aside, most students wrestled with the ideas of security and privacy.

"In some ways it's an invasion of privacy, but if it's for the better good of the city or if people feel more secure that way, then it's validated," said Kate Daly, GSSW '08. "I'm used to living now in a culture after 9/11, where if you go the airport, wherever, it's expected that they'll search your bag, so I see it as a precaution."

In New York, police have a pre-determined search quota for any given day: They determine, say, to search one out of every five people before the day begins. Then they conduct visual searches of bags in the open and only target those large enough for explosives.

The whole process usually take less than a minute, and signs advertise the practice, so passengers can refuse a search if they leave the subway.

Since the appeals court approved random visual searches in New York, police on the T will embrace these limits by randomly swabbing the outsides of bags for traces of explosives rather than inspecting them visually.

After testing the sample in a portable machine, police can then determine if probable cause exists for a more thorough search. The entire process means to avoid another legal showdown.

"It's one thing if they detect explosives," said Chris Hogan, CSOM '09, "but if they're just going through it randomly, I definitely have a problem with that."

Romney, a Republican, and Joseph C. Carter, chief of the MBTA police, say the T system is in line with the New York ruling since searches will be announced, public, and brief.

"They affirmed the right of transit agencies to carry out this kind of a security program," Romney told the Times. "We believe the program will fall within the parameters the court outlined. It is not discrimination based on racial profiling. The hallmark of the program is the lack of predictability."

"I wouldn't really want to get on a subway that might have an explosive on it, so I don't mind getting searched as long as it's for my protection," said Michael Millonig, A&S '10, "but sometimes it can go too far, but I haven't really seen enough or heard enough to know if it will [here in Boston]."

John Reinstein agrees. As a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, he told the Globe last week that he'll wait to see if the new swab plan is effective and whether it protects passengers' legal rights.

A T employee, who requested anonymity since he was unauthorized to comment, said such patience was trivial since everybody wants protection, he said, but they get mad when the government tries to give it to them.

Caitlin Librizzi, LSOE '10, also likes the new policy and described it as "great." She said she advocates "whatever's necessary to keep us safe, especially in a city and a post-9/11 world."

Right or wrong, the battle between security and privacy is sure to rage on.