Posted on 11/30/2005 11:34:30 AM PST by JTN
The first time she was asked to show identification while riding the bus to work, Deborah Davis was so startled that she complied without thinking. But the more she thought about it, the less sense it made.
That's how Davis, a 50-year-old Colorado woman with four grown children and five grandchildren, ended up getting dragged off the bus by federal security officers, who handcuffed her, took her to their station, and cited her for two misdemeanors. Davis, who is scheduled to be arraigned on December 9, is risking 60 days in jail to show her fellow Americans that they don't need to blindly obey every dictate imposed in the name of security.
The public bus that Davis took to her office job in Lakewood, Colorado, crosses the Denver Federal Center, a 90-building complex occupied by agencies such as the U.S. Geological Survey, the Interior Department, the General Services Administration, and the Bureau of Land Management. "The facility is not high security," says Davis. "It's not Area 51 or NORAD or the Rocky Mountain Arsenal."
Guards nevertheless board buses as they enter the complex and demand IDs from passengers, whether or not they're getting off there. According to Davis, the guards barely glance at the IDs, let alone write down names or check them against a list.
"It's just an obedience test," says Gail Johnson, a lawyer recruited to represent Davis by the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado. "It does nothing for security."
Ahmad Taha, supervisory special agent with the Federal Protective Service, which is in charge of security at the Denver complex, said guards there have been checking the IDs of bus passengers since 9/11. He declined to explain the security rationale for this ritual or to comment on Davis' case.
After complying the first day she rode the bus, Davis began saying she had no ID and was not getting off at the Federal Center anyway. One Friday in late September, a guard told her she would not be permitted to ride the bus anymore without ID.
Before taking the stand that led to her arrest, Davis says, "I spent the weekend making sure that the Constitution hadn't changed since I was in the eighth grade, and it hadn't....We're not required to carry papers....We have a right to be anonymous."
Last year the Supreme Court ruled that a suspect in a criminal investigation can be required to give his name. But it has never upheld a policy of requiring ordinary citizens to carry ID and present it on demand. Davis "wasn't doing anything wrong," notes Johnson. "She wasn't suspected of doing anything wrong. She was a completely innocent person on the way to work."
Johnson plans to argue that the ID requirement violates Davis' First Amendment right to freedom of association, her Fourth Amendment right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, and her Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty (in this case, freedom of travel) without due process. A civil case raising similar issues in the context of airport ID checks is scheduled to be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit the day before Davis' arraignment.
"Enough is enough," says Davis. "Our rights are being taken away a little piece at a time, and people are letting it happen."
Pulling out your driver's license may seem like a slight imposition, but the justification is even slighter. Since anyone can flash an ID, the procedure does not distinguish between people who pose a threat and people who don't. It does not even distinguish between people who are visiting the Federal Center and people who are merely riding a bus that happens to pass through it.
In a free country, citizens have no obligation to explain themselves to the government as they go about their daily lives. It's the government that owes us an explanation.
Can she get a refund on her taxes going to it? Are the Feds unable to secure a roadway through a facility?
ping
I fully agree!
Your incoherent post aside, let me say that I HATE THE ACLU.
However, I have the brains and principles to acknowledge when an organization I hate is taking an action I agree with.
It may be difficult to get them arrested but in Texas if it's after dark you can shoot them. Of course, a little common sense has to be used. If they're simply cutting across your front yard you shouldn't shoot them but if they're hanging out in the backyard all bets are off.
I'm glad this woman is challenging this. It does sound a lot like "an obedience test" to me too. Of course FedGov will claim that you automatically waive all your rights by entering "federal" property.
I must say that I was pleasantly suprised that it took 12 posts to get to the first supporter of the ever-expanding police state.
By the mosque they attend.
Small improvement to the situation. It's still just a bus on its route. Does each bus stop indicate whether ID will be required on the route? and that one faces eviction or arrest upon failing to produce ID?
Wasn't that Charlton Heston's line?
I've always thought of them as "Living Document Conservatives."
Why? Atta showed his ID.
I don't understand this delusion that a small piece of paper will protect us, and the RKBA should be restricted into oblivion.
The problem is that the entire premise is built on cooperation: cooperators are ever required to cooperate more, yet non-cooperators can still do pretty much whatever they want. It's stupid, backwards, and done only because it's easier to herd sheep than wolves.
The woman's claim that the Constitution gives her a blanket right "to be anonymous" is what I don't accept. The basic concept is flawed, and this is an area of law that is being exploited by a wide range of criminals, which ends up putting a lot of dents in my freedom.
Any bets she is also opposed to the War in Iraq and the War on Terror?
In which case, someone attracting attention by standing positively on their constitutional rights not to show ID should be ruled out.
The fourth amendment does not protect one from having to show IDs. Unless it is in the pernumbra.
Well, the little yellow line ends at the "RTD Parking Facility", which kind of indicates that the route ends there. I guess it's possible that the map is wrong, but I see no reason to assume that it is wrong.
Please explain how her destination was on the facility, yet you have no evidence that she is a government employee.
Well, I would imagine her destination was the Park and Ride Facility, and from there on to her home in her own car.
You are trying so hard to side with the enforcers, it makes me suspect you are a jackboot-licker who thinks federal government employees can do no wrong.
As for your characterization of me as a jackboot-licker, I really see no need to be insulting. You have stated all sorts of things for which you have no back-up, but you say I am the one making assumptions.
The government has legitimate security concerns and should have latitude when setting up physical security at their own installations. If they cannot demand ID's on this bus, I suspect they will just eliminate the bus route.
Like "That woman who alwways says she doesn't have ID"?
This story has been getting a lot of play lately, at least on Free Republic, where it's been posted several times, with hot discussion in the followup postings.
Something tells me this case is eventually headed to the United States Supreme Court. It will give us a good idea of where the "Bush appointees" stand [in particular] on such issues, and how well the emerging "conservative Court" will strive to protect the rights of the individuals under the U.S. Constitution in the twenty-first century.
- John
Do you get a refund on your taxes if you don't take that bus at all?
The FedGuv is allowing the bus route to be on their property, but makes the minimal demand that they be permitted to check IDs. I guess they could just bar the public buses from their roadways altogether, but what would be the point?
I always try to stay on the cutting edge..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.