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.

[Allosaurs_r_us]

I would be more agreeable to this request for ID if the ID's were recorded in some fashion. But to carelessly glance over them is foolishness and a waste of the commuters time & a waste of my tax dollars paying the wages of those doing this "check."

 

You are overlooking the fact that this is federal policy throughout the nation. You can hardly ask one place to follow the rules and not another, can you? Also, there is always a chance that the scrutiny will force some idiot's hand as to his intentions and it will give him/her away, thus saving lives. I realize this particular facility seems like a waste of time, but I have to believe it could also be that this is also what a terrorist might find appealing since the security is lax.

 

We are getting off topic anyway. I thought the debate was over whether or not this policy is asking to much of America's citizens? In my opinion, it is not, as it is Federal Policy divvied out by Homeland Security. Is it up to us the citizens to distinguish which policies we are to submit to? My whole argument is that it is a nationwide policy, therefore it was not unduly infringing on this particular woman's rights. If she was being singled out then of course we would all agree it was an unfair practice. However it appears everyone, every single time, this bus traverses this res they are asked to produce ID. She even admits she has done it previously. Why did she not have a problem with it before. I submit she is doing nothing more than committing a Cindy Sheehan. In other words, being a media whore!

[Allosaurs_r_us]

Your tact in this debate baffles me, since this passage is taken from your personal page here at FR.

 

In order to prevent terrorist acts in the general public, we need to have a National Concealed Carry Act. The Law Enforcement Officers in place now cannot possibly be everywhere. The general public must be able to stop a terrorist threat as it happens. According to USC Title 10 Section 311 Chapter 13, we have an obligation to assist in the common defense. This includes stopping terrorist activities and also violent criminal activities. Without a National Concealed Carry Act, we are stripped of the ability to fulfill our obligations as spelled out in the U.S. Code.

 

Does this argument only count when it is in your best interests?

 

So, as you appear to have exactly the same idea about terrorism as I myself do, how is it you do not see that crossing a federal reservation could have a different circumstance than the usual day to day routine of American life? How can you argue in one instance it is our responsibility to aid the government, but in this case we don't have to? Most people would call that hypocrisy. I thought we left that to the left, they are a hell of a lot better at it.

[Petruchio]

What is so hard to understand? BTW, you are comparing apples and oranges. Calling for a Nationwide Concealed Carry is nothing more than calling for the restoration of the Second Amendment to it's proper place of honor. Much different than presenting papers to any stormtrouper that comes along.

[RGSpincich]

Employees will have their ID's check as they enter their buildings.

And before the bus enters the federal complex. No unauthorized personnel are allowed to roam the grounds.

Your forged document argument comes under the heading "Told you these terrorists were stupid". The security detail has been trained to spot forgeries of all kind, spotting a fake ID is like a terrorist in the bank. What could be a bigger admission of guilt than carrying a falsified ID into a secured federal complex. That is exactly what they are looking for and that is one good reason to check IDs. Oh and the terrorists would not bother to attempt a fake if they didn't believe that IDs were being checked faithfully. Another good reason to diligently check legit IDs.

[ican'tbelieveit]

They are not entering a building. They are driving down a road. I drive by federal facilities all of the time and am not stopped and searched.

[ican'tbelieveit]

Then you check the people as they get off of the bus. Why are inconveniencing people that are riding on a bus through the facility with no intention. If I were to go to the FAA building down the street, I will park in the parking lot, then be searched as I enter the building. If I go to the federal court house, I drive to the parking lot, then am searched as I enter the building.

[Atlas Sneezed]

When was the last time you were at a Federal Office Building. Near as I can tell, they have all required IDs since the Oklahoma City bombing.

---

To drive past on the street outside on a public bus?! I don't think so. These Colorado goons are on the cutting edge of thuggery.

[Atlas Sneezed]

As for the logic, consider that this facility is a former munitions plant.

---

I see. How does the former use affect the rational need for government geologists to have special security measures?

Why do you refuse to address the illogic of the measures taken?

[ican'tbelieveit]

Also, given the description as I read it, they are not "checking' the ID's in a fashion that would prove if the ID's are fake or not. They are making people pull them out and "glancing" at them. That doesn't make me feel secure, nor does it prevent anything. If a terrorist really wanted to bomb the facility, checking his/her ID is not going to stop that from happening; the bomb isn't going to be in the ID.

[Petruchio]

Your tact in this debate baffles me, since this passage is taken from your personal page here at FR.

[snip]

This is so sad.

You go and read my homepage and still can't grasp the concept of Limited Government? The Constitution was created with the Federal powers severely limited. You are calling for us to surrender all to the almighty federal government.

Perhaps you are on the wrong forum.

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

[Michael.SF.]

If this had anything to do with enhancing security or law enforcement I'd be for it.

My observartion was not based solely on this case. There have been others, covered here, where similar positions were taken. The woman in Salt Lake City, a leftist photographer, who was asked to show ID, also a man in Washington, on the Mall, who was approached and took offense to any and all questions from the police.

The police and security have a tough enough time as it is w/o innocent people getting all riled up about being asked to produce ID's.

[durasell]

I agree.

[GregoryFul]

It's high time we got serious about developing a top-notch biometric national ID system.

Put a ring in your nose with your SS number in it. You will be able to go anywhere! Except perhaps for my digs.

[GregoryFul]

I would bet you dollars to donuts...

Not very good odds, what with the government imposed inflation over these many years.

[The Westerner]

"Enough is enough," says Davis. "Our rights are being taken away a little piece at a time, and people are letting it happen."

Thank you Miss Davis.

The ACLU is performing its proper function on this one.

[GregoryFul]

I'm sure that your typical terrorist bomber would have the required papers. Wouldn't want to goof up a plan, you know. I'd be more suspicious of people with impeccable IDs than those without, but then, that's just me.

[FreedomCalls]

The police and security have a tough enough time as it is w/o innocent people getting all riled up about being asked to produce ID's.

So what does requesting an ID do? Atta and his gang all had IDs. Timothy McVeigh had an ID. IDs (real and fake) are easy to get. Unless you are actually checking them against an access control list, just asking for one does nothing to enhance security. I would rather they do stuff that does enhance security rather than wasting their time on this stuff.

[porkchops 4 mahound]

"Much different than presenting papers to any that comes along." (sic.)

I can't let that comment go by unanswered, you let your mouth get way ahead of yer brain, pilgrim.

She was on a bus.
She didn't have to be on that bus.
That bus was on a road.
That road is on federal land, (call it a campus, call it a facility, call it whatever you want), that road is on FEDERAL land.
She had shown the Federal guards her ID before, multiple times in fact.
The Guards had let her slide a couple of times, (they should be disciplined for that, the rule should be no slack, we are at WAR).
She contacted an "activist".
She premeditated to refuse to show her ID.
She refused.
She was detained.
She is now outraged, OUTRAGED I say!, that her rights are being "violated".

BRAVO SIERRA, pilgrim, BRAVO SIERRA.

FEDERAL land, Federal rules. Don't like it? Don't go, or go around.

That any American, would call Federal guards doing their duty, what you did, "stormtrouper" (sic.), shows that you are a wingnut, not a patriot.

ARGGGH! Do yer worst, ye scurvy lubber.

[Allosaurs_r_us]

According to USC Title 10 Section 311 Chapter 13, we have an obligation to assist in the common defense. This includes stopping terrorist activities and also violent criminal activities.

 

Is this not part of what you are portraying? I guess you just want to use the bits and pieces you find useful, huh? I also remarked if it were not a FEDERAL RESERVATION I could completely agree with the fool who did this. As it is a federal res, it is the frikkin law. Why is it several here cannot get past that?

 

Granted, this is not exactly some top secret CIA, Ammo Dump or Nuclear Res, but federal policy is federal policy. If that is too hard to understand..................(shakes head) all I can say is I just don't understand why this seems to be some kind of rape to you. If we are going to have a policy on federal property I don't expect there to be ANY exceptions.Who are you or I to decide when it should be followed?

[Allosaurs_r_us]

I drive by federal facilities all of the time and am not stopped and searched.

 

No shirt! How about trying to drive .........wait for it..............wait for it..............Thru a federal facility?

 

Or can't you understand the difference? As I understand it, this place has a great big sign at the gate stating

 

"YOU ARE ENTERING FEDERAL PROPERTY"

 

"YOU MUST SHOW ID IN ORDER TO ENTER"

 

Or something similiar. I guess that makes no difference either. huh?