Fighting the Man

A 15-year-old took Tony Blair's government to court over curfew laws that allow police to force home anyone under 16 who is out at night without supervision. And the boy won. His rationale for putting up a fight:

"Of course I have no problem with being stopped by the police if I've done something wrong," he said in a statement. "But they shouldn't be allowed to treat me like a criminal just because I'm under 16."

That's a principle so simple even a child can understand it. Even if political leaders on both sides of the Atlantic have trouble.

The British High Court's ruling is a clear setback for Blair's campaign to curtail--I hope he actually used this phrase--"yobbish anti-social behaviour." But even if it fails completely, the PM can undoubtedly console himself by finding something else to outlaw. More here; link via Sploid.

Comments

[smacky]

If I were 15 years old again (or any similarly young age), I would totally idolize that kid as my peer. Good for him. Curfew was always something I vehemently opposed, especially when I was subjected to it.

[Ugh]

Of course, as of today you're now subject to random searches for using public transportation in New York City, so the police are now allowed to treat everyone as criminal.

No word on what happens if you refuse to cooperate.

[drf]

But, Ugh, if you're innocent, you should have nothing to fear...

[joe]

I'm innocent, and I fear being ripped apart by glowing shards of shrapnel the next time I take the subway. Does that count?

[David]

Good for the kid. He has way more balls that I did at that age.

[Ugh]

Well of course I have nothing to fear, I just don't want some transit cop pouring through the reams of porn I carry with me wherever I go. But I suppose it's a small price to pay for the extra security we'll gain; I mean, I'm sure nothing frightens a suicide bomber more than potentially being subject to a random bag search.

[Skeptikos]

of course there is always "Hedgepeth v. WMATA". Wherin it was held that if a child committs a crime that an adult would be ticketed for, it is perfectly acceptable to arrest said child, even if you didn't have to.

From what I hear there is a bit of Libertarian support for these kinds of judges.

[ChicagoTom]

Could this rationale be used to challenge curfews in the States? Do minors tend to have more rights in the UK ?

It seems that in the USA, minors are considered as having very few rights until the age of 18

[Dynamist]

From watching Parliament on C-SPAN, Anti-Social Behaviour laws are a big point of contention in the UK. The yobs are seen as a problem by most, but there's not so much agreement on how to handle it.

The Lib Dems seems closest to what would resonate on H&R:
http://www.libdems.org.uk/parliament/feature.html?id=4930&navPage=features.html

There is a point of common agreement in all parts of the House that, when behaviour becomes threatening, intimidating or harassing, and when people of any age intervene in the lives of other people to make their lives a misery, it is unacceptable.

There is a question as to what antisocial behaviour is, and the Joint Committee on Human Rights has suggested that we should be careful about how we define it. The Liberal Democrats have a fundamental objection to the way in which the Government have drafted this part of the Bill.

[Dynamist]

Last paragraph is part of the quote, too. Mea culpa.

[Ugh]

The scariest part of the Nytimes report on bag searches is the last quote from the police commissioner:

"It's a safety issue. People don't consider any measures that you take for safety to be an inconvenience. This is New York City."

[joe]

"But I suppose it's a small price to pay for the extra security we'll gain; I mean, I'm sure nothing frightens a suicide bomber more than potentially being subject to a random bag search."

The failure of his mission is pretty frightening, espcially to the people who build the vest, run the training camps, and organize the operation.

[Mo]

The failure of his mission is pretty frightening, espcially to the people who build the vest, run the training camps, and organize the operation.

Because a suicide bomber would never respond to being selected for a random bag search by doing something irrational like setting off his bomb prematurely.

[Mo]

Not to mention that if it's the vest that goes boom a random bag search will do precisely two things:

1) Jack
2) Shit

[Rhywun]

you're now subject to random searches for using public transportation in New York City

WTF??!? I'm speechless.

This is New York City

Meaning... what? We're used to putting up with bullshit like this on a routine basis, so one more thing won't matter?

[thoreau]

About these random searches in NYC:

Are some given percentage of people pulled aside at the turnstiles? Or is it one of those things that happen randomly during your trip, whenever a cop feels like it?

Cuz a bad guy might decide that a bunch of people standing in a line, slowed down by cops and checkpoints, constitute a "target rich environment.

Or, if he's sitting on the train, waiting for the right moment, and then he sees a few Infidel Cops come up to him, he might decide that the new target justifies pushing the button a little early.

And even if he was planning on leaving the bag behind and escaping alive, he might decide that dying for the cause is better than being arrested and either imprisoned for life or executed.

So the only terrorists that will be thwarted by this are the ones who would rather go to prison than die for the cause.

[joe]

Mo, at a minimum, random searches cause suicide bombers to set themselves off at less desireable locations (like the open air, rather than a sardine-can subway car), which reduces the damage.

This sort of thing has happened a number of times in Israel.

[Number 6]

I tried to get some kids organized against a curfew in my home city, and suceeded in nothing more than getting about 30 seconds of TV time on a local news show. The kids weren't interested. I wish I'd thought of bringing suit.

[Jennifer]

So, Joe, I take it you think that whole "search and seizure" bit in the Constitution is now obsolete?

[mk]

I just returned from an Amtrak trip to NYC. On the return, there was an announcement that certain riders would be chosen randomly and their bags would be searched. Oddly enough, leaving DC, there was no such search but the ticket-takers were much more vigilant about checking identification.

[joe]

Jennifer,

Going onto the MTA's property and using their services gives them some rights over your behavior. Just as when you go to the airport.

[Ugh]

Going onto the MTA's property and using their services gives them some rights over your behavior. Just as when you go to the airport.

I'd agree with you if this was a security measure taken up by private companies on their own property, but it's not it's the city of NYC and it's both the NY State and Federal constitutions circumscribe their conduct.

Mo, at a minimum, random searches cause suicide bombers to set themselves off at less desireable locations (like the open air, rather than a sardine-can subway car), which reduces the damage.

Except for, as I understand it, you will be able to refuse to be searched and then denied entry to the train/subway/bus. Then you just go to the next station and get on there.

[Jennifer]

Joe-
Almost every road and sidewalk in the country is government property, too. Does that mean the cops should be allowed to conduct random searches of everybody who goes out in public?

[Jode]

Random searches on the NY subway are ludicrous--especially if you can just refuse to submit to one and walk away, as I have read. Now, I am totally against random searches just on principle, but what good is a random search if you can just say "nah, don't feel like it today" and walk away? If I were a terrorist, this search thing would be very easy to get around.

[Rhywun]

The building I work in inspected every single bag for about six months after 9/11, then stopped. I have no problem when it's a private entity doing the searching, nor when it's every bag that they're searching. It's this "random" nonsense that pisses me off. 'Cos if they're *really* concerned about public safety, they'd check *every single* bag. Instead all they care about is giving the *appearance* of caring. Hm, just like the airlines.

[Dynamist]

Jennifer: I see it as a shortcoming of the state trying to provide services. The government can't discriminate because of the 5th, so we're left with the choice violating that right and searching everyone as they enter public space, or accepting that bad actors can use our system to kill us.

Make more (all) property private, and there's no sphere in which the bad actors are free to operate.

[kwais]

"So, Joe, I take it you think that whole "search and seizure" bit in the Constitution is now obsolete?"

Its been that way for sometime now I think Jen.

[kwais]

Also (as to the original thread), if you are legaly an adult at 18 in the US, how can a drinking age of 21 yrs be legal?

[Eric the .5b]

From what I hear there is a bit of Libertarian support for these kinds of judges.

Where do you hear that?

[Jennifer]

Kwais-
Yeah, I expect that our GOVERNMENT would try and take our rights away; I'm just surprised to hear a lover-of-the-People like Joe saying it's fine.

[Mo]

From what I hear there is a bit of Libertarian support for these kinds of judges.

Where do you hear that?

This is in reference to libertarian support of Roberts.

[Number 6]

I spent some time as a reserve MP, and we would occasionally do random searches of every x car to come through the gate. Invariably, car number x happened to be the one full of attractive females.

Random, indeed.

[Ugh]

And then there's this quote from MSNBC (via AP):

Kelly said passengers selected for searches will be approached by officers, who will ask them what they are carrying, and request them to open their bags. If an officer looking for explosives finds some other form of contraband, police said that person would be subject to arrest.

Super.

[joe]

Jennifer,

MTA stations have a different legal designation than public spaces like sidewalks and parks. The A is for Authority (you gotta problem with that? heh), which is a quasi-government entity that behaves like a private entity for certain purposes, and like a public one for others.

But that's not really the point, either. The Constitution forbids unreasonable searches, not all searches, so the question becomes, what is reasonable? Under certain circumstances, I'm sure you'd agree, even searches of citizens on the public sidewalk would be acceptable - given what are termed "exigent circumstances."

Even if we had a government airline like Israel, I wouldn't object to having my bags searched.

[Jennifer]

And, Joe, I take it you assume this newfound power will only be used for good purposes, not to expand government power?

The fact that the government runs it. and it is paid for by taxpayer dollars, is all the more reason why the Constitution should apply--it is to limit the rights of the government, not individuals.

I take it you also saw Ugh's comment? To protect us from them scary terrorists, the cops will apparently be increasing the number of marijuana smokers they arrest.

[Eric the .5b]

Random searches, eh?

Cue another batch of stories of little old ladies getting the third degree and security experts pointing out that searching some tiny, random fraction of MTA users won't do jack...

[joe]

Jennifer,

I used to have to go through a metal detector to enter Congressional office buildings and courthouses. Sometimes, they'd search the bag by hand.

You gotta problem wit dat?

[Jennifer]

Joe-
So the entire city has to be held to the same standards of security as the offices of the highest levels of government? Yes, in fact, I do have a problem wit dat.

[Rhywun]

Any other fellow New Yorkers here care to hazard a guess as to how this will go down? Long lines at the turnstiles? Shouting matches between guidos and cops? Fisticuffs? Shots fired?

[joe]

So, Jennifer, how many of us plebes does it take to equal a district court judge?

I blew it on the "Authority" comment, but you dropped the ball there.

[Jennifer]

Joe-
So I'd have to be arrogant to think a Congressman might be more of a target than an average person?

[Jennifer]

Maybe we should ALL have Secret Service escorts, too.

[Rhywun]

Also, one has to wonder at the manpower that's going to be required in order to search even a tiny fraction (say, 1%) of MTA riders. With over 7 million daily subway and bus riders, that's about 70,000 searches a day. If they're stopping 1 out of every 100 riders, that's maybe (totally guessing here) one every six minutes, or ten an hour. That's 80 searches per cop per day. Divided into 70,000 equals... 875 cops! Who apparently have nothing better to do.

[Troy]

First of all, I'd like to appologize for this long rant but Jesus, what a bunch of pussies. "Oh, freedom is so scary. People could do bad things to me." Well no fucking shit. I take it that the concept of living in a free country is just too fucking scary. Freedom by its very definition mean risk.
I have a suggestion: China. They have lots of rules. You don't hear too much about terrorists acts happening in china. And they don't have any of that due process crap to get in thier way.
And this "oh, its just a little inconvenience." I've been fucking "just a little inconvenienced" to death. I know George Carlin could do this better but just how many of the "little inconviences" do you have to have before life is one major inconvenience? Can't get sudafed in oregon. Can't get drugs if I am in pain. Gotta deal with stupid ass TSA agents at the airport. I'm open season in my car on the road. cops can search my bags now and don't even have to articulate any fucking suspicion. gotta have bags searched to get into seaworld. Gotta be stopped going in CA on I-40. Gotta be stopped going up I-5 outta San Diego.
Oh and DRF, fuck that "if your innocent, you have nothing to fear" Tell that to all those people who stared death in the face and have since been released from death row thanks to DNA. Tell them, with a straight face, that they have nothing to fear from the government. Maybe your not aware of this but cops lie... a lot. Prosecutors stick to strict liability crimes cuz they are too fucking stupid to prove mean rea. Cops plant evidence. Prosecutor bully people into plea bargins because, even if they don't have a case, people, even if they know they are innocent, will take the plea bargin rather than risk the full brunt of the law.
Imagine that folks. An attorney will make you sign a plea KNOWING that you are innocent because he needs big numbers to run for attorney general or a judgeship. Nah, that doesn't happen. What am I saying.
Thanks. Rant Concluded.

[Eric the .5b]

Oh and DRF, fuck that "if your innocent, you have nothing to fear"

Troy, I mostly agree with you, but you need to grow a sarcasm-detector.

[Dynamist]

joe: By using the word "reasonable" the Founders gave us a fuzzy line. It is an instance where the Court then must tell us what is reasonable today, in light of Original Intent and achieved precedent.

How would all y'all feel if as part of the condition of these random searches, to keep them reasonable and to limit executive overreach, it was declared that anything found in a transit search (and maybe even a Terry Stop) would be inadmissible in under any prosecution not following from the intent of the search? We can search anybody getting on the train because we want to protect the train and passengers from damage. If the search uncovers spray paint or Sarin, it is admissible. Weed and porn, conversely, are not admissible, and even if they found a suitcase full of meth, they couldn't use it as evidence of drug or conspiracy crime.

[Skeptikos]

I like joe, really I do, even though he just demonstrated a very, very good "slippery slope" arguement as he slide right into Stalinism.

[Jennifer]

Dynamist-

I don't know about Joe, but I'd consider your proposal.

Funny thing is, that's already how normal search warrants work (or at least it did in the 80s, when I took junior-high-school Civics)--a search warrant has to specify just what they're looking for, so if I'm a cop looking for proof that you lead a counterfeiting ring and I find a huge pile of cocaine on your kitchen table, I can't (or couldn't?) do jack about it.

Warrantless, random searches should be held to the same standards, assuming they should exist at all.

[Lowdog]

Unfortunately, Jennifer, I think the whole warrant thing is a lot more lax now, but I'm not sure of the specifics.

[thoreau]

Dynamist-

I guess my only concerns with your proposal are:

1) Spray paint? WTF? I mean, I know that vandalism is a problem, but if somebody takes the subway to a shopping center and buy ssome spray paint to take home and you want him arrested, whatupwidat?

But, more seriously:

2) I'm cool with not arresting people for having drugs if the search was to find bombs. But what if the cops find obvious evidence of murder?

3) What about somebody with some electronics that, to the cop's untrained eye, "might be" bomb components?

[Rhywun]

Dynamist,

anything found in a transit search ... would be inadmissible under any prosecution not following from the intent of the search

Sounds good. Is it even remotely feasible, or is it fantasy?

[Brian Courts]

Well, whatever you feel about the appropriateness of searching transit passengers, the fact that the proposal does virtually nothing to enhance safety while imposing significant costs in terms of hassle, invasion of privacy and potential incarceration for non-terrorist related crimes like carrying a joint, ought to be enough to prove its undesirability.

First, randomly searching is statistically just about the worst way to really catch a terrorist and we all know that even if we find it impolitic to admit. Second, the chance of being searched is going to be tiny unless they hire an army and grind the transit system to a halt. What makes anyone believe that someone willing to blow themselves up is going to fear at most a 1 in a 100 (totally unrealistic - more like 1 in a 1000, if that) chance of being caught? And, if what some have claimed is true - namely that you can refuse to be searched and the only penalty is being denied entrance, then the whole thing is an utter farce and provides absolutely no security whatsoever.

Ultimately there is simply no reasonable chance that this policy is going to make you any safer unless what you fear is your neighbor lighting up a blunt. Let's face it, this is simply going to be another tool in the "war on drugs" not the "war on terror." And don't think law enforcement doesn't know it.

[Rhywun]

I wonder if I'll get pulled over and searched tomorrow on the train/in the station/on the stairs/on the street over the station/somewhere nearby.
Actually, what I'm waiting for is that cool x-ray machine they had in "Total Recall". At least they search everyone equally. Of course, you can always jump out of the machine sideways and use nearby humans as shields to evade the cops...

[Rhywun]

Let's face it, this is simply going to be another tool in the "war on drugs" not the "war on terror." And don't think law enforcement doesn't know it.

Well said.

[Jason Sonenshein]

If the terrorists hate us for our freedom, doesn't that mean that any action that a government takes to diminish freedom is a capitulation to the terrorists. By making New Yorkers less free, Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Kelly are helping the terrorists. Why do Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Kelly hate America?

[dead_elvis]

Re: the whole searches on New York MTA thang: I'm surprised some street theater group hasn't taken up this idea: just get a whole bunch of people with vibrators and sex toys in their bags to go through next to parents with children. Enough of them get searched, and next thing you know Dobson is screaming against random searches "for the sake of the children."

[dead_elvis]

I just scrolled down to the next topic; they could also call it art and apply for a grant!

[Dynamist]

thoreau: The fuzz would still have to prove intent to defile the train with paint. I'm just saying they could use the paint as evidence. People with washing machine timers are still gonna get hassled at the point of contact, but it would hopefully keep the Maytag Repairman out of jail once Sargent Friday put the pieces together at the station house.

Jennifer: Sounds like we have similar experiences. joe brought up reasonable, and I'm looking for a way combine the other requirements of the 5th into practical terms.

Rhywun: Fat chance, because of thoreau's #2. Even if we finessed the terms, so that the non-sought evidence was admissible only in felony prosecutions, or some such thing, the "protect the children" crowd and the "law-and-order" types wouldn't want to make the trade-off. An attache full of Pedophile Monthly back issues probably couldn't be ignored.

First we would have to defeat in court the random searches as practiced, and then suggest replacing them with a more reasonable alternative maybe before it got appealed to the Supremes. I don't see the Executive giving up any power just because it makes sense under the Consititution.

[Jennifer]

Speaking of Troy's earlier comment, I heard on NPR this morning that Oregon's thinking of making cold remedies like Sudafed and Theraflu prescription only. It was a Democratic bitch who proposed the bill, but the Republican bastards support it too; one was quoted as saying that to defeat meth, "we all have to make sacrifices." Fuck you.

The last time I had a cold it cost me about twenty dollars for various remedies, plus twenty minutes of my time to go to the store, buy the stuff and go back home. But if someone in Oregon gets that same minor cold, it will be a MAJOR and expensive inconvenience.

I had no health insurance back in grad school, and I have no idea how I'd've afforded to make it through if I needed a doctor visit to take care of all the colds I caught. But, hey! It's all in the interest of public safety, right? Maybe the cops in New York can check my bags to make sure I have no illegal cold medicine, too.

[Jennifer]

Maybe Oregonians, in an act of mass civil disobedience, can go to the state house and let their runny noses dribble all over the legislators' desks. Yes, that would suck for the legislators, but as one pointed out, "we all have to make sacrifices."

[thoreau]

Jennifer-

If a group of people went to sneeze and dribble all over legislators, they'd probably be charged with bioterrorism.

I'd like to think that making cold medicine prescription-only would be the final straw that would provoke public resistance to the drug war. But studies would be released showing just how dangerous it (potentially) can be to use the wrong cold medicine at the wrong time and dose, and people would then "realize" that they "need" a doctor's advice before taking Sudafed. And the Drug War Propaganda Machine would kick into high gear against meth.

And, let's face it, they have a pretty good propaganda machine. I mean, even though marijuana is widely considered a joke, it's still verboten for politicians to talk about legalization. A propaganda machine that's more powerful than comedy is a very powerful one indeed.

Let's face it, this is simply going to be another tool in the "war on drugs" not the "war on terror." And don't think law enforcement doesn't know it.

This point needs to be repeated again, and again, and again.

[Jennifer]

Thoreau-
I really think our country's beyond hope, at least in its current form. I read 1984 for the first time when I was thirteen. And at the time, I found fault with the novel, specifically the way that today the government would reduce the chocolate ration from twenty grams to ten, and then tomorrow people started spontaneous demonstrations thanking the government for raising the ration to ten grams. No way, I thought. People can't be that damnably stupid. What the hell is Orwell talking about?

But damned if he didn't turn out to be right.

[Jennifer]

And another thing--I read once, a couple of years ago, that cold remedies can sometimes make a cold last even longer than normal, because suppressing the symptoms does something-or-other. (In retrospect, I think it was written by one of those virtue-through-suffering people.)

Anyway, when I was teaching I used to get colds all the time, from all those sick kids. So after reading that article, the next time I caught a cold I decided that I was going to Be Tough, and Stick It Out without medicine.

Bad, bad, BAD idea. The cold got worse and worse, and by the time it was two days old I felt so awful that I broke down and took medicine. But by then it was too late--the medicine did nothing because my cold had morphed into a viral infection or something like that, and I had to take off work and go to the doctor and get a prescription for antibiotics. Had I listened to Jeff and just taken some damned NyQuil and DayQuil right off the bat, it would have been a minor inconvenience, but because I refused to take cold medicine a minor inconvenience turned into a serious illness.

ANd I suspect that a LOT of folks in Oregon, those who don't have insurance or can't take the time off work without getting into trouble, will have the same experience as me. So in the interest of Combating a Major Health Problem, Oregon will increase the chances that a minor matter will become a Major Health Problem. Fucking brilliant.

[thoreau]

Jennifer-

What I find most Orwellian is the way that even self-described libertarians, of all people, have no problems with torture...um, I mean, frat pranks, and indefinite detentions without trial. You gotta figure that if anybody would oppose those things it would be libertarians.

And I realize that libertarians are a tiny fraction of the population. But given that a lot of conservatives (who are far more numerous) do the same thing, I'm forced to conclude that this isn't just some rare paradoxical quirk, but simply a manifestation of the way that the state can get anybody to go along with anything.

[Jennifer]

Thoreau-
Yeah. The torture apologists, or those who say that hell yes, the President should have carte blanche to decide who gets to be imprisoned for life without trial, wouldn't surprise me on a Freeper board, but here?

We're screwed.

Maybe after work I should stock up on NyQuil and DayQuil while it's still legal to buy.

[joe]

Jennifer,

In light of the last two weeks, I think you'd have to be delusional to think that ordinary people on the subway aren't significant targets of terrorism.

[joe]

Dynamist, I think that sounds about right. Also, I don't think it would be "reasonable" to make this standard operating procedure for rail (unlike air travel, where the damage can be exponentially higher), but should only be allowed if there is some reason for heightened security for subways - say, if a campaign of terror attacks on subways were underway.

Brian Courts, "First, randomly searching is statistically just about the worst way to really catch a terrorist and we all know that even if we find it impolitic to admit." Unlike searching every single bag that goes on a plane, this practice functions entirely as deterrence, not interdiction.

[Jennifer]

Joe-
So how much freedom are you personally willing to give up to enjoy the illusion of safety? In New York City, a car is an albatross that only the wealthy can afford to have. So you, Joe, Mr. Champion of the Poor and Downtrodden, have no problem with basically saying that New York's working class can say good-bye to the right to go to work or visit a friend without having the government search them and their personal possessions based on a whim, not a warrant.

As a person who officially qualified as Poor and Downtrodden until relatively recently, I'd like to say on behalf of my socioeconomic class: help yourself all you fucking want but for God's sake stop shoving your help down my throat.

Aw, fuck it. To prevent these random searches from clogging up the subway lines, maybe New York can ED some poor folk's homes to tear down and build Search Waiting Rooms. And Joe the Wise City Planner can determine just which houses have to go, and just where to search to provide maximum mixed-use utopian benefit. Please, Joe, tell me how to run my life! I can't be trusted with that big, scary responsibility on my own!

[JK]

So in the UK we have a national newspaper, the Independent, calling for airport style security on the underground (our name for the subway). Forget about rights for a moment. From a pragmatic point of view this scheme is deranged. It is hard to imagine how anyone even vaguely familiar with the underground might have begun to dream it up.

The leader claims security would only add 15-30 minutes per journey - "inconvenient, but not unreasonable". Do the math. If you commute every week day for 40 years you would spend over a year of your life queuing, presuming you take no time off to sleep.

Is this how civilisation will end, not with a bang but with a whimper? One half of the population employed to waste their lives searching the other half of the population who waste their lives obediently filing past.

There are more ways for terrorists to win than letting off bombs.

[jimmy]

amazing how a thread about curfews for juvenilss turned into another h&r "let's capitulate to the terrorists" fest.

[Brian Courts]

Unlike searching every single bag that goes on a plane, this practice functions entirely as deterrence, not interdiction.

Yes joe, that's the theory. But my point right after that dealt with the deterrence issue. Do you really believe it will be any deterrence at all to someone bent on blowing themselves up a subway car when the fact a 1 in a 1000 chance of being searched? Come on. This is just another step in the direction of law enforcement's ultimate dream to be able to search anyone anywhere anytime. If they have to rationalize it in terms of "national security" or the "war on terror" or whatever, so be it. It just helps to keep people looking the other way while their pockets are being picked of their few remaining subway tokens of freedom, if you will.

[Brian Courts]

Ugh, was in a hurry and should have hit preview - that sentence in the middle should read:

Do you really believe it will be any deterrence at all to someone bent on blowing themselves up on a subway car when they face a 1 in a 1000 chance of being searched?

[Bobster]

I wonder if curfew laws (the original subject of this thread) started off as a method to get kids who were actually causing trouble off the street? If you were not causing trouble, the cops would leave you alone.

If so look were we are now. Basically zero tolerance for kids out past curfew not matter what. What does this portend for the future of the subway searches? What will government history writers (as in 1984) of the future say about this?