Passenger Trains > Omaha NBC tv investigates search of CZ train/px as repo

http://www.wowt.com/mcknightinvestigates/headlines/Amtrak_Passenger_Upset_By_Patrol_Questioning_117620619.html

Carol Voss
Bakersfield, CA

It's been awhile since we had a thread on TO with 114 posts. http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,2411347
If you look at the current 3rd to last post the guy whose trip was disrupted gives details and an opinion as to why the reporter gave such a lousy and uninformed story.

That is the same story that was posted on an earlier thread about this search...

...and I would not call that investigative reporting.

I can assure you I would NEVER be polite with these TSA scums!

raytc1944 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can assure you I would NEVER be polite with
> these TSA scums!


My ole Daddy used to say, "when someone else is wrong, don't join 'em."

Take the high road and let the TSA folks be wrong by themselves.

raytc1944 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can assure you I would NEVER be polite with
> these TSA scums!

This was not the TSA. It was the Nebraska State Patrol (state police).

They pull the samething on I80 Put up signs saying drug check point ahead right before a turn off and hit every one that gets off LOL.

I'd say we're on the rails toward fascism.

Can't be good for long distance train travel. At least Investigator Lutter can't board at jet at 30,000 feet over Nebraska.

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can't be good for long distance train travel. At
> least Investigator Lutter can't board at jet at
> 30,000 feet over Nebraska.

Correct.

It's long been settled law that a state doesn't have power in the skies over itself if that flight doesn't have a stop in the state. States do very clearly have power over train operations and the sale of alcohol, drugs, etc inside their borders. I suspect that gives Mr Lutter carte blanche, regardless of what outlanders think.

There was an international incident in the 1970s when US authorities boarded the CP's (Via's?) train in Jackman ME and removed several US draft dodgers who had decamped to Canada. They were traveling from Montreal to Halifax with no intent to leave the train in the middle of the night Maine wilderness.

The Canadians put an advisory in their schedules that people should expect to be interviewed by US authorities and folks out of grace with the US, (like Cubans, draft dodgers, Black Panthers, etc) should go via a different route.

So perhaps this is a case of Nebraska State Police finding themselves busy-work just as we have Border Baboons daily on the Lake Shore.

Don't forget (as I said in the original thread about this incident) that the War on Drugs isn't just about narcotics prohibition. It's also a jobs program for law enforcement. The more drug busts the Nebraska State Police make, the more money they get from asset seizures and the stronger case they can make for various program grants.

Meanwhile, the smugglers make huge profits from the "black-market premium" on the huge proportion of contraband that gets through. Because where there is demand, there WILL be supply.

As for the whole "investigative reporting" thing, remember three things:
1) Most major investigative projects take weeks, if not months, to complete. You're not going to get a comprehensive story in the next day's paper based on a single incident like this one. But if there's a trend of Amtrak passengers being harassed by the narcs, there would well be a story.
2) Investigative reporting usually follows the paper trail. When you're dealing with law enforcement, that paper trail can be hard to follow if the authorities claim exemption from public-records disclosure. And if they have any whiff that the coverage might be less than favorable, they're going to do whatever they can to claim exemption.
3) All news media, print and broadcast, have severely cut back their staffs over the past five years because of plummeting advertising revenue. One of the first things to go, especially in broadcast, is in-depth reporting. Watch the local TV news some night and see how much is crime, fires, and traffic accidents. Besides the weather and sports reports, there might be a human-interest fluff piece, plus a few stories lifted from, or chasing the reporting in, the local newspaper. And most of what local TV news promotes as "investigations" tend to be consumer-oriented, rather than Constitutional law, too.

toledopatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> As for the whole "investigative reporting" thing,
> remember three things:
> 1) Most major investigative projects take weeks,
> if not months, to complete. You're not going to
> get a comprehensive story in the next day's paper
> based on a single incident like this one. But if
> there's a trend of Amtrak passengers being
> harassed by the narcs, there would well be a
> story.
> 2) Investigative reporting usually follows the
> paper trail. When you're dealing with law
> enforcement, that paper trail can be hard to
> follow if the authorities claim exemption from
> public-records disclosure. And if they have any
> whiff that the coverage might be less than
> favorable, they're going to do whatever they can
> to claim exemption.
> 3) All news media, print and broadcast, have
> severely cut back their staffs over the past five
> years because of plummeting advertising revenue.
> One of the first things to go, especially in
> broadcast, is in-depth reporting. Watch the local
> TV news some night and see how much is crime,
> fires, and traffic accidents. Besides the weather
> and sports reports, there might be a
> human-interest fluff piece, plus a few stories
> lifted from, or chasing the reporting in, the
> local newspaper. And most of what local TV news
> promotes as "investigations" tend to be
> consumer-oriented, rather than Constitutional law,
> too.

Very true, but in this case the reporter, Mike McKnight, is a veteran newsman and is billed by his station, WOWT, as an investigative reporter. I thought he did a remarkable job pulling together he did in a single news cycle. He had heard the Omaha World-Herald also had been contacted about this incident. However the newspaper hasn't run a story on this. JEB

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can't be good for long distance train travel. At
> least Investigator Lutter can't board at jet at
> 30,000 feet over Nebraska.

YET!!

If you take a look at the comments after the WOWT.com article, there is one guy who suggests that businessmen don't travel on trains. It takes too long, and time is money. And, either he or someone else has the usual disparaging remarks about the "left" coast. So, in either case, the people questioned on the train must be suspicious.

If that is going to be the barometer for search, then NE should open an office for Officer Lutt in Sparks or Salt Lake. He can just search the whole train before it fills up with "normal" people!

BLS
Edmonds



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/11 10:31 by poffcapt.

poffcapt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ts1457 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Can't be good for long distance train travel.
> At
> > least Investigator Lutter can't board at jet at
> > 30,000 feet over Nebraska.
>
> YET!!
>
> If you take a look at the comments after the
> WOWT.com article, there is one guy who suggests
> that businessmen don't travel on trains. It takes
> too long, and time is money. And, either he or
> someone else has the usual disparaging remarks
> about the "left" coast. So, in either case, the
> people questioned on the train must be
> suspicious.
>
> If that is going to be the barometer for search,
> then NE should open an office for Officer Lutt in
> Sparks or Salt Lake. He can just search the whole
> train before it fills up with "normal" people!
>
> BLS
> Edmonds
Well, regardless of how all the left coast talk sizzles my skillet, it all brings me to what is not being talked about. For example, the aggrieved passenger is an Indiana resident, on his way home. Many who travel #6 might similarly be homeward bound. All of this illustrates what huge business the "drug war" is, and why so many, yes, including those on the enforcement side, want drugs to remain illegal. Legalization would take a lot of cash from the enforcement side. Some of that cash does come from legitimate grants, and disposal of siezed assets. I think it best we do not get into the free-market "business" factors here. AA

Stanford White
Carmel Valley, CA

QU25C Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They pull the samething on I80 Put up signs saying
> drug check point ahead right before a turn off and
> hit every one that gets off LOL.


We (SBSD) did that in conjunction with the DEA om I-15 north of Victorville back in 1992 (or thereabouts) and the California Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional so we had to stop doing it.

whistlepig Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> QU25C Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > They pull the samething on I80 Put up signs
> saying
> > drug check point ahead right before a turn off
> and
> > hit every one that gets off LOL.
>
>
> We (SBSD) did that in conjunction with the DEA om
> I-15 north of Victorville back in 1992 (or
> thereabouts) and the California Supreme Court
> ruled it unconstitutional so we had to stop doing
> it.


NYC does it occasionally on interstate highways. Blinking sign goes up announcing a license and registration check one mile ahead.

People go down the exit ramp and find the cops waiting for them. It's a very effective, low cost way to grab folks with warrants outstanding, no license, no insurance, expired registration, fictitious plates, etc status. It only works safely in low traffic or late night stops, though.