Rocking the Bus - A Colorado woman takes a stand against arbitrary ID checks.

reason magazine ^ | November 30, 2005 | Jacob Sullum

[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.

[Oztrich Boy]

Was she arrested for not showing her ID, or was she arrested after not showing ID and then refusing to leave the bus?

If she leaves the bus she must show ID: If she doesn't show ID she must leave the bus.

[gridlock]

OTOH, she could just show the guard her ID and be merrily on her way.

[Oztrich Boy]

Only drivers are required to have drivers licenses. If someone isn't driving and doesn't have a driver's license, it seems absurdly harsh to arrest them.

But according to the way security apologists interpret the rules, they still have to present vehicle registration for every vehicle they may happen to own.

[Oztrich Boy]

You have stated all sorts of things for which you have no back-up, but you say I am the one making assumptions.

I notice that you made two assumptions in this very post.

[gridlock]

But according to the way security apologists interpret the rules, they still have to present vehicle registration for every vehicle they may happen to own.

I am going to go out on a limb here and suppose that by "security apologist", you are referring to me.

To permit entrance to a Federal facility, the FedGuv has the power to ask for whatever they want. They also have the power to bar people who fail to cooperate with their rules. For practical purposes, they ask for Drivers Licenses and Vehicle Registration because the regulation largely applies to drivers. But the bus riders are no less on the facility. I dare say that the folks who work there have a facility-issued ID.

I suppose the web-page could go on for three and a half pages about what exactly constitutes proper ID for a bus rider, but what would be the point? Don't they have the power to ask for what they want in order to grant access to their own facility?

Suppose you walked up to the White House and demanded to be let in without showing ID. How far do you think you would get? Should they let you in anyway?

Now suppose you walked up to the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, instead... Oh wait a minute, you can't, because it doesn't exist anymore.

[zeugma]

I always try to stay on the cutting edge..

So noted. I find these threads to be interesting because they allow for ready identification of those who will willingly support anything they are told to do by "the authorities".

[gridlock]

I notice that you made two assumptions in this very post.

I guess you are referring to the statements that I prefaced with "I guess", "I imagine" and "I suppose". These are not assumptions, obviously, because I am prefacing them with "I guess", "I imagine" and "I suppose".

Such statements are to be evaluated objectively, that is why they are set apart in this way.

[Mikey]



"When acting to enforce a statute, the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity; courts in administrating or enforcing statutes do not act judicially, but merely 'ministerially."

Thompson V. Smith, 155 Va 367,154 SE 583, 71 ARL 604

“When the officers detained appellant for the purpose of requiring him to identify himself, they preformed a seizure of his person subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.”

BROWN V. TEXAS, 443 US 47 (1979) At page 50

"The Fourth Amendment, of course "applies to all seizures of the person, including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest."

Davis v. Mississippi, 394 US 721(1069); Terry V. Ohio 392 US 1, 16-19 (1968)

“Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has seized" that person,' and the Fourth Amendment requires that the seizure be reasonable."'

United States V. Brignomi-Ponce, 422 US 873, 878 (1975)

.

"To this end, the Fourth Amendment requires that a seizure must be based on specific, objective acts indicating that society's legitimate interest require the seizure of the particular individual, or that the seizure of the particular individual, or that the seizure must be carried our pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers.”

See United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 US 543, 558-562 (1076).

"... But even assuming that purpose is served to some degree by stopping and demanding identification from an individual without any specific basis for believing he is involved in criminal activity, the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment do not allow it When the stop is not based on objective criteria, the risk of arbitrary and abusive police practices exceeds tolerable limits.”

See Delaware V. Prouse, supra, at 661 -

"It is the accepted rule, not only in the state courts, but, of the federal courts as well, that a judge is enforcing administrative law they are described as mere "extension of the administrative agency for superior reviewing purposes" as a ministerial clerk for an agency... “

"30 Cal 596; 167 Cal 762

"Jurisdiction is essential to give vadility to detemination of administrative authorities and, without jurisdiction, their acts are void."

Wallingv. LaBelle S.S. Co., C.C.A.., Ohio, 148 F.2nd 198.

"It is basic in our law that an administrative agency may act only within the area of 'jurisdiction' marked out for it by law. If an individual does not come within the coverage of the particular agencies enabling legislation the agency is without power to take any action which effects him."

Endicott V. Perkins, 317 US 501.

"A judge ceases to set as a judicial officer because the governing principles of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, records, arguments and rational for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from substituting their judgments for that of the agency."

Aisi V. US, 568 Fd2nd 284

[JeffAtlanta]

To permit entrance to a Federal facility, the FedGuv has the power to ask for whatever they want. They also have the power to bar people who fail to cooperate with their rules. For practical purposes, they ask for Drivers Licenses and Vehicle Registration because the regulation largely applies to drivers. But the bus riders are no less on the facility. I dare say that the folks who work there have a facility-issued ID.

So why isn't she being charged with simple trespassing?

[gridlock]

So why isn't she being charged with simple trespassing?

What was she charged with? All the paper said was "two petty offenses". Perhaps one is trespassing and the other is failure to obey a lawful order of a Police Officer?

The person doing the arresting was a Federal Protective Service Officer, BTW. They are Police Officers with full powers of arrest. But you don't see a FPS officer every day, so it is possible they had the officer on that bus that day to deal with this woman, who had refused to show ID several days in a row.

[gridlock]

Well, I gotta boogie. I'll catch up with Y'All later...

[JeffAtlanta]

According to papersplease.org...

When Deb is arraigned in U.S. District Court on the 9th of December, she will most likely be charged with the following federal criminal misdemeanors: 41 CFR § 102-74.375 (Admission to Property) and 41 CFR § 102-74.385 (Conformity to Official Signs and Directions).

[gridlock]

That seems reasonable. There are laws for admission to a federal facility, and she broke them.

[gridlock]

Now I really gotta go...

[Jigsaw John]

The public bus that Davis took to her office job in Lakewood, Colorado, crosses the Denver Federal Center, a 90-building complex

A 90 building complex?? In just one city? I wonder if the government could use a few dozen more buildings in Colorado.

[Pablo64]

"It's high time we got serious about developing a top-notch biometric national ID system. No papers to carry, just yourself."

A bit of clarification, please. Are you refering to some kind of chip or other subdural implant, or maybe something like a retina scan, or fingerprint?

I ask because I have issues with all of the above, but I can tell you for true and certain right now that I will never, ever, voluntarily have any kind of chip or other device like that implanted in my body, nor will anyone in my immediate family. That, in my opinion, is going too far.

[Oztrich Boy]

These are not assumptions, obviously, because I am prefacing them with "I guess", "I imagine" and "I suppose"

While all assumptions are not suppositions, all suppositions are assumptions. And the meaning of assumption in discussion here is: supposition, guess, imagining.

[GovernmentShrinker]

No implants, no papers, no cards. Technology is increasing very, very fast, and pretty soon, quick, on the spot, highly thorough and accurate DNA tests should be available. Especially if we make it a priority. That way we can know who we're dealing with. If a job applicant shows up for a nursing home job, gives some other person's name and employment history (so reference checks will come back fine), and fake photo IDs to match, you'll be able to quickly determine of the person is who s/he says he is, or if s/he's really the convicted mugger or rapist who's wanted on a parole violation, and is eager to beat or rape some helpless patients (and BTW, our nation's nursing homes are full of low level staffers who fit this exact description).

[elkfersupper]

"We have a right to be anonymous."

Sadly, we do not. Already decided.

Hiibel vs. Ashcroft

[Atlas Sneezed]

Now suppose you walked up to the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, instead...

---

How does ID checking on a bus have any relation to a truck with tons of explosives?