AMTRAK SNITCHES ON RIDERS FOR PROFITS

Amtrak, the financially struggling national passenger rail system, has
found a new way to generate revenue: by snitching.

In return for sharing its passenger manifest with the Drug Enforcement
Administration, Amtrak gets a bounty of 10 percent of any seizures made
from its trains. DEA agents use the information provided by the railroad
to determine which passengers fit a "drug courier profile." Riders
unlucky enough to have paid for their tickets with cash or purchased
tickets at the last minute are questioned by federal agents who board
the train at the Albuquerque, N.M., stop. If one of these travelers is
carrying a substantial amount of cash, DEA agents confiscate it as a
drug asset and Amtrak takes 10 percent off the top.

It's a new twist on the Great Train Robbery.

On its Web site, Amtrak presents pictures of happy, satisfied passengers
that the company cloyingly calls its "guests." A more apt word is
"patsies."

The abuses of civil forfeiture -- in which police agencies profit by
confiscating money and property in the name of drug control -- are so
widely known even a Republican-controlled Congress felt the need to
address some of them, last year passing the Civil Forfeiture Reform Act.

But those changes came too late for On Hoang Thach, a Vietnamese
immigrant with limited English who had $148,000 taken from him by
federal agents as he was traveling from California to his home in
Boston. According to his attorney, Penni Adrian of Albuquerque, Thach,
26, was singled out for questioning in February 2000 because he had a
minority-sounding name, had paid for his one-way ticket with cash and
didn't give a call-back number at the time of the reservation.

During the stop in Albuquerque, Thach was approached in his roomette by
federal agents. The DEA says Thach gave an agent permission to search
the fanny pack he was carrying. But attorney Adrian said Thach didn't
understand what was happening.

She said a transcript provided by the government of the taped
conversation was missing important snippets from the original tape. "In
many places where (Thach) made clear he didn't know what the agents were
saying, those were left out of the transcript," said Adrian. For
example, the exchange where "the agent said to my client "how old are
you' and my client answered "I have three children,' " was left out of
the transcript.

After the $149,000 was found in the fanny pack, which Thach claimed was
gambling proceeds, the bills were taken outside to a drug-sniffing dog.
But the dog did not alert to the presence of drugs. So the agents tried
again with a second dog. It finally provided the desired result.
(Despite studies that show upward of 96 percent of all money in
circulation is contaminated with drug residue, police use drug-dog
alerts as a basis to claim the money is part of the drug trade.) The DEA
agents told Thach his money was suspected drug assets, took all but
$1,000, enough so Thach could continue his trip home, and left him with
a receipt. Thach was not charged with a crime, but he has had to post a
$5,000 bond and hire an attorney to help him get his money back. The
federal trial is set for October.

Certainly it is unusual and suspicious for someone to be carrying that
kind of cash, but there was no actual evidence of wrongdoing. Thach was
carrying legal tender, that is before the agents relieved him of it. And
no doubt Amtrak got its piece.

Bill Schulz, Amtrak's vice president of corporate communications, says
he doesn't know when this cooperative arrangement began or how much
money Amtrak has pulled in as a result. The railroad, Schulz says, has
its own force of 300 accredited police officers and welcomes "a close
working relationship with state and federal law enforcement."

As to the privacy expectations of passengers, Schulz says the Amtrak Web
site will soon warn customers in a privacy statement that reservation
information is shared with law enforcement.

Thanks for nothing. How about really doing something for passengers.
Tell the DEA that if it wants to board your trains to harass people
where there isn't probable cause to believe they are engaging in
criminal activity, the DEA will first have to get a warrant. Now that
would be privacy protection.

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico is in the process of
investigating the potential for a lawsuit on behalf of a number of
passengers, minorities mostly, who were profiled as drug couriers on
Amtrak, but nothing was found. Peter Simonson, the organization's
executive director, says by freely sharing information with the DEA,
Amtrak may be breaking the Privacy Act of 1974, a law prohibiting
federal agencies from exchanging identifying information without
following certain protocols.

Schulz disagrees. Amtrak isn't subject to the Privacy Act, according to
Schulz, since Congress specifically stated in Amtrak's enacting
legislation that it is not a federal agency.

However, in 1995 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Amtrak, while
privately incorporated, is a federally subsidized railroad with a
majority of its board chosen by the government, and is therefore
effectively part of the federal government and must abide by the
Constitution.

But this is quibbling over the legalities, not the ethics. Amtrak's
willingness to expose its customers to unwarranted police harassment for
a cut of the profits is shameful. The kind of people who typically pay
cash for tickets aren't drug runners. Some people don't like debt.
Others don't own a credit card, either due to bankruptcy or because they
have spotty employment and don't qualify. Why should their disadvantage
invite intimidating questions from federal agents?

Amtrak once had an ad campaign touting: "See America at see level."
Right. An America where police searches are routine, where you're a
suspect for being poor, and where 10 percent off the top is the going
price for help with a government shakedown.