<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: NYC Subway Searches: A Response to Dan</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/12/nyc_subway_sear_1.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/12/nyc_subway_sear_1.html</link>
	<description>The Law, the Universe, and Everything</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:44:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Secondary Screening</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/12/nyc_subway_sear_1.html/comment-page-1#comment-61718</link>
		<dc:creator>Secondary Screening</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2005 03:05:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2005/12/nyc-subway-searches-a-response-to-dan.html#comment-61718</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Secondary Screenings on the Subways&lt;/strong&gt;

There&#039;s a fine debate -- ahh, hell, call it a mêlée -- going on over at the malapropblog, Concurring Opinions. A recent decision upholding the legality of random searches of New York City subway passengers set off the infighting. Here&#039;s...

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Secondary Screenings on the Subways</strong></p>
<p>There&#8217;s a fine debate &#8212; ahh, hell, call it a mêlée &#8212; going on over at the malapropblog, Concurring Opinions. A recent decision upholding the legality of random searches of New York City subway passengers set off the infighting. Here&#8217;s&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Secondary Screening</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/12/nyc_subway_sear_1.html/comment-page-1#comment-61717</link>
		<dc:creator>Secondary Screening</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2005 03:00:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2005/12/nyc-subway-searches-a-response-to-dan.html#comment-61717</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Secondary Screenings on the Subways&lt;/strong&gt;

There&#039;s a fine debate -- ahh, hell, call it a mêlée -- going on over at the malapropblog, Concurring Opinions. A recent decision upholding the legality of random searches of New York City subway passengers set off the infighting. Here&#039;s...

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Secondary Screenings on the Subways</strong></p>
<p>There&#8217;s a fine debate &#8212; ahh, hell, call it a mêlée &#8212; going on over at the malapropblog, Concurring Opinions. A recent decision upholding the legality of random searches of New York City subway passengers set off the infighting. Here&#8217;s&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Concurring Opinions</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/12/nyc_subway_sear_1.html/comment-page-1#comment-61716</link>
		<dc:creator>Concurring Opinions</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2005 07:01:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2005/12/nyc-subway-searches-a-response-to-dan.html#comment-61716</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Rational Security vs. Symbolic Security&lt;/strong&gt;

So much for concurring opinions . . . I&#039;ve been attacked by not only one co-blogger, but two. Earlier on, I posted a critique of the court&#039;s decision upholding the NYC subway searching policy against a Fourth Amendment challenge. Jason...

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Rational Security vs. Symbolic Security</strong></p>
<p>So much for concurring opinions . . . I&#8217;ve been attacked by not only one co-blogger, but two. Earlier on, I posted a critique of the court&#8217;s decision upholding the NYC subway searching policy against a Fourth Amendment challenge. Jason&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: KipEsquire</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/12/nyc_subway_sear_1.html/comment-page-1#comment-61715</link>
		<dc:creator>KipEsquire</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2005 04:36:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2005/12/nyc-subway-searches-a-response-to-dan.html#comment-61715</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ll leave the same comment here as I left for Prof. Mazzone:

You&#039;re tiptoeing around the fact that this is a random, suspicionless search with total discretion by rank-and-file police. That is totally unheard of in America and every Fourth Amendment precedent, every single one, argues against it.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ll leave the same comment here as I left for Prof. Mazzone:</p>
<p>You&#8217;re tiptoeing around the fact that this is a random, suspicionless search with total discretion by rank-and-file police. That is totally unheard of in America and every Fourth Amendment precedent, every single one, argues against it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

