ACLU vs Metrolink, coming soon.

I live in Los Angeles, and I ride the Metrolink train daily, to and from work.
On June 12th, there was this flyer in every seat explaining how they were going to start random bag searches.

Well, my Constitutional buzzer went off, and I wrote an email to the ACLU, which has gone unanswered.

The ACLU has already filed suit over the same procedure being conducted in New York City and Boston, so I felt it was fair to inform them immediately of this procedure starting in my back yard.

Metrolink is funded by the counties it serves, and is paid for by our sales tax.
That effectively makes the Metrolink service a "public" service, which in turn means it is bound by the same operating procedures as any other city, county, state or federal operation, which is to say it is bound by the powers with which We The People choose to endow it.
That also means they are bound by the Bill of Rights.

If Metrolink was privately funded, and received no public funding, then it would have the right to do whatever they want within the guidelines of local laws.
Since Metrolink accepts public funding it must operate within the limited scope of the Constitution.

The 4th Amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

In this case, there is no probable cause, and there are no Warrants issued. Furthermore, there is nothing that describes what thing or person is being saught.
Lawyers have no doubt informed Metrolink that if riders "volunteer" for the search, there is no 4th Amendment violation. Therefore, Metrolink, which is funded by me and you, aims to restrict our access to the service, even if we have paid for the ticket, in an effort to persuade us to give up our civil liberties.

Carrying a suitcase or a briefcase, is not enough for probable cause.
Also, "random" searches are by definition arbitrary, which flies completely in the face of the letter and the spirit of the 4th Amendment.

Well, this morning, as I arrived at Chatsworth Station, I saw several cars from the Sheriff's department, and I immediately knew they'd set up a "random" search.
I walked briskly and didn't even slow down as I walked past the checkpoint.
I wasn't carrying anything besides a water bottle, and they didn't stop me, but that's not the point.
The family behind me wasn't as lucky, as I witnessed Sheriff's deputies stop them, open their bags and rummage through their underwear. Really? A family on vacation is a threat to my safety? Get serious.

I decided to snap some pictures, at which point Officer Roberts (far right in the photo) of the K9 unit jumped towards me and said "you can't take any pictures".
I calmly responded "Actually, I can. This is a free country."
To which he replied "Well, this is a checkpoint and we don't want you taking any pictures."
I said, "Oh, you don't want me to take pictures. You don't want me documenting you violating the 4th Amendment, is that it?"
At that point he stepped in front of me, blocking my view.
At the same time, a second officer, a younger and cockier version (to the left in the photo) of the other K9 officer stepped up and started the condescending spiel of "You know all the rules, don't you."
To which I responded, "As a matter of fact, I have studied the United States Constitution, you might want to do the same."
-"You don't think we've gone through the courts before setting this up? We've been told by Metrolink's lawyers that this is fine."
-"Of course Metrolink's lawyers would tell you that, that's their job. But that doesn't change the fundamental obscenity of what is going on here - you are searching people at random. Do you have warrants for any of these searches?"
-"We don't need warrants." Officer Roberts barked back.
-"Really? I don't see any probable cause here." I said.
-"We don't need any warrants at DUI checkpoints."
-"Driving is a privilege, not a right. Walking is a right."
-"You don't have to take the Metrolink."
-"Yes I do, I need to get to work."
-"You don't need to board here."
-"Yes I do, this is my station and going to another station from here would cause me to miss the train."
-"You're not required to ride the train."
-"That's not even the point. The point here is that our taxes are paying for this facility and therefore it is not permitted to violate our constitutional rights, because it is operating in a public capacity."
-"Well, the courts have ruled this constitutional." (this is a lie, no ruling has been made by a federal judge. The ACLU's cases are still pending)
-"No they haven't."
At this point, I was interrupted by the younger, cockier version who said:
-"You can't just do anything you want."
-"Yes, I can, this is a free country."
-"So you can punch someone in the face and it's OK?"
-"No, my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins."
-"So it's OK for you to take a swing at me as long as you miss?"
-"That's not what I said, I was making an analogy."
-"I've arrested plenty of people for swinging and missing."
-"Again, that's not what I said. The analogy means I can do what I want as long as I don't hurt other people. That's the basis of our freedoms."
Officer Roberts chimed in again: "The East Coast needs checkpoints for security."
-"And Boston and New York City have both been sued by the ACLU."
-"Well, there's a big surprise" snickered the young and cocky one.
-"Listen, I understand the security concerns, but not at the expense of our civil liberties. Those who are willing to give up personal liberties for temporary safety deserve neither."
At this point, the volume had gone up slightly, so a senior officer whose name escapes me walked over and asked if everything was OK.
-"Not really" said the young and cocky one with the sidearm in a holster and the man eating dog on a leash.
-"Yes, everything is fine, we're just having a conversation", I said calmly.
-"What's the issue."
-"I was simply expressing my disdain for what you guys are doing here today, as it is a clear violation of our civil liberties, primarily the 4th Amendment."
-"And you're just expressing your opinion?"
-"Yes, I can't sit idly by while these people are searched for no reason."
-"And you're expressing your concern, that's fine. That's one of the great things about living in this country."
-"Yes it is, and I for one would like to keep it that way, which is why I'm speaking out. The 1st Amentment is not more important than the 4th. They're equal."
-"You have a nice day, sir."
-"Thank you, you too sir, and I'd like to thank you for being calm, these other two gentlemen weren't all that calm."

And with that, I walked away and went back to the Metrolink Public Service Officer who was busy trying to find me a complaint form.
Ultimately, he was unable to find them in his car, and I had to get on the train.

The staff of the Metrolink trains are not to blame here, they're just keeping their paychecks coming. I get that. The problem here is the CEO and the other people in the upper echelon of Metrolink who decided this obscenity was a proper way to treat the people who pay their salaries.

I have filed a complaint to the ACLU and I will be following up on this matter with them.