No, President Trump Did Not Sign A Bill Allowing Warrantless Home Searches. No.
H.J. Res 76 "Granting the consent and approval of Congress for the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland, and the District of Columbia to enter into a compact relating to the establishment of the Washington Metrorail Safety Commission."
Relax, H.J. Res 76 https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hjres76/BILLS-115hjres76enr.pdf is good for the Tax Payers of Virginia, Maryland and DC. It is common to indemnify operations from lawsuits arising from something an employee might do by diligently and consistently running a professional operation. This didn't exist before and if it is really a first, perhaps it is what is wrong with Police Departments. H.J. Res 76 holds individuals responsible for their willful, harmful, or self-enriching actions, stuff having nothing to do with ordinary mistakes in the line of work and takes the Tax Payer off the hook.
Search H.J. Res 76 and you'll find authority invested in a Commission to develop a plan of inspection, maintenance, budgets, training and security screening of employees, elimination of conflicts of interest and hiring of qualified engineers, etc. Imagine that! There is no mention of searching residences, homes, domiciles, apartments, warrants (because they are not cops), but would a shanty town near the rails be something within the scope of public safety? I think a reasonable person would say yes. The Transit Authority would be out of compliance, liable if they don't keep everything inspected, in good repair and free from hazards, unscreened/unqualified employees or situations that would harbor threats to our critical infrastructure or impede movement of the transit should something occur.
Now the 2016 ruling Utah v. Strieff http://atlantablackstar.com/2016/06/21/justice-sotomayor-slams-racial-profiling-illegal-search-and-seizure-in-scathing-dissent/ was earth-shattering on the heels of other cases decided in favor of Law Enforcement. What could be done with the 2016 ruling is limited only by the imagination.
The media said 2016 was about protecting the SCOTUS from a Conservative because of Roe v. Wade, but let's visit the 4th Amendment, the Bill of Rights in future posts.
Unfortunately that is not entirely true. If you look at the actual text, the bill is granting very broad powers...
“In performing its duties, the Commission, through its Board or designated employees or agents, may: Enter upon the WMATA Rail System and, upon reasonable notice and a finding by the chief executive officer that a need exists, upon any lands, waters, and premises adjacent to the WMATA Rail System, including, without limitation, property owned or occupied by the federal government, for the purpose of making inspections, investigations, examinations, and testing as the Commission may deem necessary to carry out the purposes of this MSC Compact, and such entry shall not be deemed a trespass.”
The bill grants the Commission authority to enter property adjacent to the Metro Rail System “without limitation” for the purpose of “making inspections, investigations, examinations, and testing.”
If that is not permission to conduct "warrantless searches", what would you call it...
Warrants are to regulate Law Enforcement activity against the People and their property. An Authority, a landlord doesn't need one if they are performing due diligence on a property they lease/own/control. Companies don't need one to drug test us, but the police would.
A derailment into adjacent areas, suspected tunneling...2 examples off the top of my head where TA shouldn't wonder whether they can start investigation. Broad powers to do what? These are typical powers an Authority would have over it's employees and it's operations as a utility. They have the powers of a meter readers or an electric company and the obligation to keep that monopoly running and free from corruption.
..."upon reasonable notice and a finding by the chief executive officer that a need exists, upon any lands, waters, and premises adjacent to the WMATA Rail System"... Clearly not only referring to Washington Metro. Area TA property. Next, refer to the limiting language ..."including, without limitation, property owned or occupied by the federal government"... That would imply, a private residence next to the metrorail that is not owned or occupied by the federal government can NOT be searched without a warrant according to the law. However if you dig a little deeper into "including, without limitation", the intent can become vague and the meaning can become whatever the federal government wants it to be... http://www.adamsdrafting.com/including-without-limitation/ ... I may be completely off base (and it wouldn't be the first time) but it has been my experience, when the government gets a new toy - they are going to play with it... Steem on... :)