Despite zero threat, Chicago Police to start swabbing transit passangers’ bags for explosives

Alexandra Naples shared the content below about actions done on behalf of security theater that could negatively impact millions of rail riders in and around Chicagoland.

Individuals Responsible: Chicago Police employees who employ the tech
Outfit: Chicago Police Department
Phone: 312-746-6000

Chicago Police employees will soon be swabbing random passangers’ bags for explosives, yet the police have been cited in stating that there is no credible information that would cause them to implementing these procedures. As a Chicago transit user, I feel this is a clear and concise violation of peoples’ privacy. I also feel it has the potential to create menace enough to keep people who are experiencing homelessness off the train by being a present and intimidating danger.

As Tracy Swartz noted in Chicago police to check CTA passengers for explosives, this latest iteration of the expanding police state in Chicago is being funded by stolen coin provided by a DC-based gang in the form of a grant. But be clear, not all responsibility lies with those actors, as implementation of the program is due to those in Chicago who wear “Chicago police” costumes, who are responsible for stopping random people and employing the device.

As if to underscore the hubris of those involved in the deployment of this gadget, Nancy Lipman, the “commander” of the Chicago police outfit’s transportation, said, “It’s going to take 20 or 30 seconds of a commuters’ time, while we know the commuters’ time is precious but we think their safety is priceless.”

Shouldn’t each individual commuter have the option of deciding what risks they are comfortable taking?

If some self-proclaimed rulers wearing badges believes it is justified to prevent your entry into your  own residence for 30-minutes while they sweep your house under the guise of safety, should that too be allowed? If some purported “authorities” say it’s their “duty” to strip you and your family members down to ensure you are not carrying anything they deem “illicit” should that too be permitted?

At what point will you cease to obey tyrants? When will you stop funding them and granting them, and their bad ideas, legitimacy? You own yourself. Think for yourself.

As one commenter to Mauricio Pena‘s write-up, CTA to Randomly Screen Riders for Explosives, noted:


Police Accountability Groups in Chicagoland




No permission is needed to share this post or any content housed at We’re all better off the more good ideas are shared. Help fuel our efforts – donate Bitcoin: 1D6hdGKcFfzciJaMSLU6X1Tq69fcCsEh65




When you see “CopBlock” as the author it means it was submitted via our submission tab – you can share your story too. If you enjoy this content and/or believe “Badges Don’t Grant Extra Rights” get yourself some CopBlock Gear from our store or donate just $1/month to the CopBlock Network.

  • t

    I think the authors issue is best summed in the first paragraph as:
    “I feel” and “I also feel”

  • steve

    It’s not going to really hurt any body and it will blow over like bad fashion. When they don’t find anything for a couple months or when they raid someones home because of the machine picking up the molecular scent of phosphorous or sulphur from matches or whatever contaminants from everyday items that have a likeness element or chemical that will trigger the machine. They will be sued big time.

  • JC

    Another paranoid copblock article. They have been doing this for a long time. Big deal. Typical activist making mountains out of mole hills.

  • RAD

    Now can these tests also “hit” on guns/gun residue? Is this really a gun grab?

  • Aaron Horrocks

    The TSA had swabbed my Pelican rifle case, and the machine went off, and the worker told me that my luggage tested positive for gun shot residue. To which I answered, “Yes mam, this is a gun case.”
    She just stared at me. I don’t think she understood how worthless her job was.

  • Thenumber4

    Well after they took out all the drugs they had to replace it with something

  • steve

    Gun powder residue ,yes.

  • Shawn

    Interesting comment, since the LE in question can’t point to any credible threat themselves. I guess it is just they have ‘a feeling’.

    There are issues here, including how LE respond to false positives, and that whole toe in the door issue. You ignore such issues when they are clearly there.

    In and of itself, swabbing isn’t particularly invasive. But you guys have proven you don’t understand restraint. So letting you start down a road easily leads to excesses while you reach as far as you can. And people have to watch for that. Maybe if you guys were so eager to push, you wouldn’t face such distrust of taking things to far.

  • Shawn

    They don’t care about being sued for excessive behavior. They’re fine with it, so long as they can push the limits of authority.

  • t

    In typical SHAWN style……you miss the point.

    The author is having the CBer emotional only response. No thought….emotion.
    Read the Constitution. Get you a copy. I’ll wait….. …… …… …… ….. …..
    Back yet?
    K. Now read the opening line. Do see there in the preamble (which lays out what the rest of the document is going to be about) how it mentions “provide for the common defense” and “promote the general welfare”?
    K. You set it aside now. The lessons over.

  • steve

    Ass hat that doesn’t describe what you may read it to describe.I can recite it by heart

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union ,establish Justice ,insure Tranquility ,provide for the common defense ,promote general welfare ,and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity , do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.

    How can you get a jackboot definition out of “provide for the common defence” and “promote the general welfare”. This is how the ignorance of the brainwashed understand. This is not to promote police or or your general idea of protecting society. The SCOTUS has already stated that the police are not here to protect and serve the people.Provide for the common Defence against tyrrany of oppressive governments. The promotion of general welfare gives congress broad powers for spending money. The meaning of the general welfare has been a major and constant dispute from the beginning due to it’s generality of which continues to this day.

    Nothing here to give police the power they are getting away with now and there is nothing in the preamble that is in anyway for police power.

    Wearing that round hat on a square head will not help you.

  • steve

    In the broad scope of police power. It will only get worse here in America, that is ordained human history. If you read a little general history of nations they all grow to be abusive due to greed and power of the few in power over a generational time then they fall. some to become worse, some to become divided and some to become united and prosperous. The more power these police gain the worse it will be at their fall and it will come soon here in America and in China. The nature of Americans over history is to fight abuse and by nature we will overcome to regain our freedom and liberty to enjoy a prosperous life that is being taken away bit by bit.We are Americans. These electronic sniffers will only hurt the police and their ignorant ideology of safety.

  • steve

    Your so stupid.

  • t

    So many words just to get it wrong.
    The preamble is easy reading. It clearly lays out what the rest of it is going to be about.

    And yet… miss the point
    Remember a couple of things there guy:
    – the “Bill of rights” we’re amendments. As in…they were added after the rest of the document was completed
    – The Constitution created GOVERNMENT.

    Just keep that in mind in your future thinking. It’ll
    Make you look smarter.

  • Shawn

    “and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”

    He will ignore that part. T will only interpret the Constitution with any view that grants more power. And then he will miss all the documentation that points to intentions and concerns, including concerns about over reaching government.

  • Shawn

    “provide for the common defense”

    And in your mind that has no limits? No restrictions? No requirement that an actual threat is even realistic? Why bother with anything else then? That one phrase, which is an explanatory comment just like the militia comment in the Second, is the god of our land? Nonsense. You’re just reaching for whatever gives you more power. You’re no different than a liberal or politician. Anything for power.

    Do I need to give you that Benjamin Franklin quote again?
    “He who would trade essential liberty for temporary security deserves neither liberty or security.”
    And as I’ve added, you will have neither.

  • wickeddevelopment

    funny thing they cant afford the manpower to register sex offenders at the police station but they can afford to send them all over the city to track imagination and public fears.. over 600 sex offenders turned away from registration in the first 3 months of this year

  • wickeddevelopment

    well try to licence a right and you will step all over your yin yang

  • wickeddevelopment

    we have been winning in court on a regular basis now.. when the funds run out and they cry they wont be able to suppress us any longer then we will see how far this has truly gone

  • t

    “Winning on a regular basis”
    45,000,000 direct police contacts a year
    12,000,000 arrests

    A paltry few lawsuit payouts and even fewer court “wins” is the reality.
    You should join the “loser pays” movement. Cities/Departments would be far less likely to settle. If they didn’t have to bare the legal
    Costs associated. It would lead to more accountability and truth. Isn’t that what
    You want?

  • wickeddevelopment

    and only 12 civil complaints filed in St Louis for improper police action at the tune of $50 million dollars each.. ya i think that says it all