No-guns signs not working: Columbus city bus passengers now asked to submit to "voluntary" searches

By Gerard Valentino

10TV in Columbus reported recently that the Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA), which illegally posts its busses with "no-guns signs", is still finding it necessary to increase security on city busses (see "Argument on COTA bus leads to teen's shooting" for an example of why).

Their latest plan includes asking people to submit to searches of their bags and person. In other words, under the guise of security and safety, the city is asking people to succumb to searches like common criminals.

From the story:

The Central Ohio Transit Authority is now using police dogs to increase security, 10TV's Angela An reported Wednesday.

While assaults against passengers and drivers are down compared to last year, police made 35 percent more arrests this year on buses and bus stops. There have been 158 arrests to date in 2009, An reported.

"The reason we started with bomb dogs is to make sure people aren't bringing suspicious packages on the buses and leaving them behind," said COTA's security director Stan Alverson.

The dogs are joining undercover officers in searching for anything illegal, from explosives to drugs.

Although it's easy to applaud programs that claim to deter crime and make public transportation safer, in this case the end does not justify the means.

Whenever someone in a position of authority, like a law enforcement officer, asks citizens to submit to a search without legitimate cause, it makes an unacceptable act seem acceptable. Regardless of whether the search is deemed to be voluntary, people in a position of authority convey a veiled threat of consequence to turning down any request they make. To put it in perspective, those on the left consider it sexual harassment for a boss to ask a subordinate on a date, even if there is no threat attached to the request. (Well, that is unless you're Bill Clinton, but that's another article.)

When the police or other law enforcement officials ask for consent to search, that request carries the full weight of law enforcement, even if it is a benign request - adding a trained police dog to the equation ratchets up emotion even more.

The intention of the vast majority of law enforcement officers is to treat honest law-abiding people with the utmost respect. Most law enforcement officers want to do everything to protect the rights of the "good guys" while destroying the ability of the criminal element to do their job.

Unfortunately, the mere presence of a badge, gun and police dog does a great job of projecting authority, which is why they are part of the uniform in the first place. Most honest Americans want to make sure they are doing everything possible to cooperate with law enforcement making a request by law enforcement equal to a demand in the eyes of many honest people.

Unfortunately, there are the law enforcement officers and prosecutors who are hell-bent on getting consent to search, and will trot out the argument that being searched is only a problem if you "have something to hide." To that end, most honest people will comply with a request for consent to search by any law enforcement officer.

After all, most honest people think if they didn't do anything wrong, everything will work out in the end.

As a liberty-minded American your blood should boil when a prosecutor or law enforcement official uses the "nothing to hide" argument to break down your aversion to waiving your constitutional rights.

When properly translated, the statement that "people with nothing to hide have nothing to fear" implies the threat of some type of unwanted action if you refuse to give consent to search. That gives further credence to the argument that when someone of authority makes a request - it ceases to be a request the moment there are consequences to refusing to cooperate.

Such an ignorant position on the issue of illegal searches also side steps one of the biggest issues in America today – wrongful convictions.

The stories of honest people wrongfully convicted after talking to police because "they were innocent and had nothing to hide" reads like something out of Soviet Russia. One case, in particular, is a textbook reason why Americans should always retain counsel before talking to police and should be extremely careful in giving consent to otherwise unlawful searches.

Gary Gauger was an honest citizen who was wrongfully convicted of murdering his parents because he felt, as an innocent man, he could just tell the truth and that would set him free. After an all night interrogation, the police claimed Mr. Gauger confessed to the murders, and despite a lack of physical evidence, he was subsequently tried for killing his parents.

The police in this case where well trained and told Mr. Gauger that he failed a lie detector test, and that they found his clothes in the house covered in his parent's blood – both statements, however, were untrue.

In what comes as a shock to most Americans, the police can lie to trick people into confessing to a murder and can use just about any type of non-physical coercion as well.

As it turned out due to being unsophisticated in the subject of police interrogations, "having nothing to hide" got Mr. Gauger convicted of brutally killing his parents and he ended up on death row.

The police did their job and got a confession from someone they believed was guilty so this isn't an indictment of all law enforcement or prosecutors. If my parents were murdered I would want the police to do everything within their power to find the perpetrators. On the flip side, however, is my firm belief that had Mr. Gauger retained a lawyer his case would have turned out differently.

Defense attorneys are skilled in dealing with police interrogation techniques and unlike criminals, the average law abiding person is not. So, using the experience of a good lawyer is a must for anyone thrust unexpectedly into the criminal justice system. Retaining a lawyer to help you through such a traumatic situation is like having a fire extinguisher in your kitchen, or wearing a seat belt, or even carrying a gun for self-defense.

They are all sound safety precautions designed to help in an emergency.

The Founding Fathers knew a constructive distrust of government was required if the American experiment was going to succeed. To that end, they created strict limits on the government's ability to search our person and our things.

The next time you hear a prosecutor, law enforcement officer, or a reporter imply that innocent people should have nothing to hide, remind them of Gary Gauger, or the thousands of other Americans wrongfully convicted that had "nothing to hide."

Cooperating with law enforcement is the act of an honest, law-abiding citizen, and as citizens we should do everything to help those tasked with serving and protecting the community. That cooperation is not impeded by retaining counsel if you find yourself on the wrong end of a police interrogation.

While there are cases that turn out badly, more than likely the truth will set you free, but what is almost sure to set you free is the truth coming out in the presence of a trained attorney.

Gerard Valentino is the Buckeye Firearms Foundation Treasurer, and his new book The Valentino Chronicles is now available in the Buckeye Firearms Store. A portion of the proceeds from each sale helps fund our current lawsuits against Cleveland and the City of Chicago.