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.

[Petruchio]

*yawn*

[Allosaurs_r_us]

Here is part of the story the fabulous MSM is leaving out of this.

SNIP..........For a few subsequent days, she told the guards she wasn't getting off in the Federal Center and didn't have an ID. They let her stay on the bus.

Finally, on a Friday, a guard told Davis she had to have an ID the next time. Davis said she spent part of the weekend studying her rights and e-mailing Scannell.

That Monday, when a guard asked if she had her ID with her, Davis just said, "Yes."

"And he said, 'May I see it?' " she recalled, "and I said no."

The guard told her she had to leave the bus, but she refused. Two officers with the Federal Protective Service were called.

"I boarded the bus and spoke with the individual, Deborah N. Davis . . . asking why she was refusing," wrote the first Federal Protective Service officer in an incident report posted on Scannell's Web site. The officer was not identified.

"She explained she did not have to give up her rights and present identification," the officer wrote. "I informed her she was entering a federal facility and that the regulations for entrance did require her to present identification, before being allowed access."  (emphasis added)

"She became argumentative and belligerent at this time," the officer wrote.

Eventually, one officer said, "Grab her," and the two officers took hold of her arms and removed her from the bus, Davis said.

Davis has four children, including a 21-year-old son serving in Iraq with the Army and a 28-year-old son who is a Navy veteran. She has five grandchildren.

I would like to know if we should require ID to enter federal property at all? If not then I suppose it will be just fine with everyone the next time an a$$hole bombs a federal facility, like Oklahoma City, or the religion of peace decides we don't need a fed office in Denver. Seriously people, is this really asking too much? This has nothing to do with regular public causeways. This is nothing more than Homeland Security trying to do their job!

[ican'tbelieveit]

What point is accomplished by showing ID, given the description of how they are showing ID, no matter where you are driving?

GET THIS SINCE YOU LIKE TRYING TO BE SMART!!!!!!!! IF YOU AREN'T RECORDING OR VERIFYING THERE IS NO POINT!!!!!!!! IT IS USELESS EFFORT!!!!!!!! IT IS A WASTE OF EVERYONES TIME WHO HAS TO DO THIS EVERY SINGLE DAY!!!!!!!!

If you want to see my ID every time I go through your facility, you better be recording the information from that ID and verifying it. Otherwise, it is a useless effort. That is the point this woman is making.

If a religion of peace person wants to blow up the federal facility, the requirement to show an ID is not going to stop them, seriously. Showing the ID will not stop the bomb in the unconnected backpack from going off.

[Petruchio]

Sigh. Once again, (and I will type slowly so you can follow along)

This is Public Transportation, on a Public Road, following a fixed route. This defined route traverses a Federal Campus. The only time Public Transportation (Busses) will follow a set route on Federal property it is on request of the Federal Agency in charge of the location. Most often, as in this case, it is to accomodate commuters that work there.

Get it? Public Transportation. Not Private Government only Busses, Public Transportation.

If they wish to have a guard ride along while in the Campus area and card everyone that gets on or off . . . Fine.

However, there are valid Constitutional issues with carding someone simply for being on a Bus. This individual apparently is known as a regular passenger that pays a fare for a seat on a Bus. She has never attempted to exit the Bus in the Campus area. She has only attempted to sit in a seat that she has paid for while the Bus follows it's assigned route.

To suggest that she be denied the seat she has contracted for (by paying the fare) is wrong. There is no law that says that Public Transportation can be denied to a paying customer. That's discrimination.

It is an unwarranted search to demand an ID on that Bus because that requirement is not being applied to all Public Busses Nationwide. If a valid ID is required to exit the Bus on any of the stops within the Campus FINE, no objection.

If the Bus in question went from a central point and only delivered passengers to stops in the Campus, then it would be a private charter Bus and they can ID to thier little heart's content. Public Transportation is another story. Public Transportation must allow all paying customers a seat if there is a seat available. If you ID all passengers on this route and not on all other routes it is discrimination and illegal.

Remember this is Public Transportation that has been requested to provide a route traversing this Campus. She is on Public property (the Bus) not the Campus. What the Bus travels through to get her from her boarding point to her exit has no bearing at all. She has paid her fare. There is a contract to move her from point A to point B. The bus travels a fixed route. She can't alter that route to avoid the Campus. To ask/demand that she get off before her contracted stop is in violation of her contract. Can't do that according to contract law.

[Allosaurs_r_us]

GET THIS SINCE YOU LIKE TRYING TO BE SMART

 

Now just what in the hell does that mean? I have done nothing except state the facts. Does that make me smart? Well maybe, I have one up on you I guess, as facts are facts, and it is the law. If you don't like the law then work to change it by the means furnished in the constitution.

 

And let me ask you something. Is it your opinion the guys checking ID are complete dolts, or do ya just suppose they might have a little training in order to spot candidates who just might want to do us harm? You are acting like the officers are also blindfolded! Get a grip and quit yellin at me! That tactic is reserved for the fools at DU. It doesn't look good on a FReeper.

 

From the looks of this thread you are definitely in the minority. I guess 90% of us here just don't get it, huh? It is the law to furnish ID entering a federal facility! After doing a little research, it has been the law at this particular facility since the Oklahoma City bombing. This woman had made this trip countless times in the past. Why do you suppose she decided to be a pain in the arse at this juncture? Do you, or do you not obey the law? If you think it is just fine to obey the laws you agree with and ignore those that you don't, if that's the case I guess you and this media whore can share the same cell.

 

I have never stated this to be any kind of solution. Hell I doubt it will do any good  if someone really wanted to pull something, but it certainly doesn't mean we should just ignore it. We are living in dangerous times. I don't think it is asking to much for us to cooperate when asked by our government. You are acting like showing your ID will send you to a concentration camp. We have to show ID in order to cash a damn check, why does this put your panties in a rip?

 

I don't know what else there is to say........good night all!

 

[ican'tbelieveit]

Let me challenge you. They are glancing at ID's; the religion of peace character that is getting ready to blow up the facility has a legitimate ID. How did checking that ID stop him?

[ican'tbelieveit]

Oh yeah, in response to "Is it your opinion the guys checking ID are complete dolts"

TSA screeners at airports. Need I say more?

[ican'tbelieveit]

Oh yeah, in response to "We have to show ID in order to cash a damn check"

When I have had to show an ID to cash a check, the teller is smart enough to RECORD the ID number. That is not being done here.

[gridlock]

Please use correct terms.

1-She was on Public Transportation, NOT a POV.

True, but irrelevant. I never said she was. I was using the POV example to point out the illogic of saying she was not on government property just because she was on a public bus. The means of conveyance is irrelevant to the question of whether or not she was on a government facility.

2-Public Transportation travels on a fixed route, thus it is not a discresionary route.

True, but irrelevant. She has the discretion to take or not take this bus, if she does not wish to comply with the lawful and reasonable security requirements of the federal facility through which the bus passes.

3-This route traverses a Federal Campus NOT a Facility.

I fail to see the distinction. The campus, facility, whatever, has controlled access with ID required. If the word "campus" is meant to imply that it is open to the general public, that is simply wrong. Access in controlled.

4-Her paid ride goes through the Federal Campus. She never exits the Bus during this portion of her paid ride.

True, but irrelevant. Early on, I was under the impression that the Park & Ride was inside the gate, but it is not. But that doesn't matter anyway. She is on the federal facility while the bus traverses the campus. She could get off the bus in the campus at an uncontrolled bus stop. The government has a legal power and responsibility to control security at the federal facility, and is only requiring compliance with this legal power and responsibility.

5-At no time is she in a Federal Facility, she is in a Bus traversing a Campus.

This is simply not true. The "campus" is the facility. The road on which the bus travels is inside the facility. It is not a public road. The gates through which the bus passes on entering and exiting the facility are owned and controlled by the government. Just because she is on a public bus does not change the fact that she passes through these gates and is inside the facility.

[gridlock]

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.

She was not on a public street. If the bus were stopped and held at the gate while all IDs were checked, I don't think we would be having this conversation, because all these people would not be able to pretend she was on a public street. It was not a public street.

[gridlock]

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?

The former use of the facility as a munitions plant is relevant because it effects the way the buildings are arrayed and the design of the buildings, as well as the nature of physical security installed when the facility was built.

Munitions plants usually have a number of large buildings set apart from one another with large unbuilt zones between them to protect from spreading fire and explosion. The buildings are High Hazard Occupancies under building codes, and thus have doors located at 100 foot intervals around the perimeter of each. This decentralized nature and the numerous doors makes it difficult to control access to the individual buildings.

On the other hand, since it was a munitions plant, the facility will have good perimeter security, with a defensible fence, traffic control gates and patrol roads. It is a reletively simple matter to control all access through this small number of gates, and then control access to the individual buildings through a card-key or brass key system.

So the method of controlling access, by requiring IDs at the gate, is the only logical method of controlling access. Doing this on the bus as opposed to holding the bus and checking all IDs at the gate is just a courtesy to move things along.

I suppose there is a greater question on whether it is logical to control access to federal facilities, but we could argue that until the cows come home. The statutory power exists, granted by Congress, and the feds are well within their powers here.

[gridlock]

Not very good odds...

True enough. Not even even-money anymore...

[gridlock]

I'm sure that your typical terrorist bomber would have the required papers.

Timothy McVeigh had no license plate on his car. If he had attempted to carry out his plan on this facility, he would have been busted when he attempted to drive his getaway car onto the facility, and the bombing would have been thwarted.

It is a fortunate thing that many criminals and terrorists are self-selected for stupid.

[Oztrich Boy]

The security detail has been trained to spot forgeries of all kind

I think you are getting into the realms of fantasy here.

[Badray]

Regarding your 'suicide pact' comment. . .

Do you know the origin of that remark? Who said it? In what Supreme Court decision?

Did you know that it was by ONE justice in the MINORITY dissent? The majority essentially said that our rights are more inportant that any government claim of security or necessity?

[Badray]

Earlier this year, I attended a seminar that was a conducted by a private group, but held in a 'federal installation' as one guard described it.

Over the course of the 3 days, I 'tested' security by complying with their ID requirements in less than conventional ways after observing that the guard who asked for our IDs didn't even look at our faces, just at the cards that we handed him. They ran the explosives 'sniffer' over the materials in the trunk and checked underneath the car with mirrors, but they didn't check the interior of the car or personally search or scan us as they did if you walked into the building.

Think about that. If I carried a small amount of explosives or a handgun in thru the front door, they probably would have caught me. But if I DROVE into the building with a large bomb in the passenger compartment or a box of rifles, I could get in without a search.

On the third day, I didn't even show ID and was still admitted to the building with nothing more than a cursory check. I did this TWO times that day and was checked the 2nd time by one of the supervisors who did nothing more than the first one did in the morning.

If I had evil in my heart -- or the balls to risk going to jail for showing them what a fraud they are -- it would be easy to defeat 'security' there.

BTW, there was about 200 guards / police officers there each day representing a multitude of federal agencies.

Do you feel any safer now? Homeland Security is a massive and expensive jobs program and does nothing for security.

[gridlock]

This is Public Transportation, on a Public Road, following a fixed route. This defined route traverses a Federal Campus.

This is not a public road. Not a public road. Not a public road.

I say it three times, because you seem to think that repeating something numerous times is what makes it true.

The bus was not on a public road. It was on a government facility.

The only time Public Transportation (Busses) will follow a set route on Federal property it is on request of the Federal Agency in charge of the location. Most often, as in this case, it is to accomodate commuters that work there.

And, apparently, the bus company has no objection to complying with the security arrangements of the government, since they are permitting the government to check IDs on the bus.

Get it? Public Transportation. Not Private Government only Busses, Public Transportation.

Got it. Public transportation. On a government facility. Why does the name painted on the side of the bus matter again?

If they wish to have a guard ride along while in the Campus area and card everyone that gets on or off . . . Fine.

Why is it OK to demand an ID from some people on a bus but it is not OK to demand an ID from others? They're all on the federal facility.

However, there are valid Constitutional issues with carding someone simply for being on a Bus. This individual apparently is known as a regular passenger that pays a fare for a seat on a Bus. She has never attempted to exit the Bus in the Campus area. She has only attempted to sit in a seat that she has paid for while the Bus follows it's assigned route.

This person is not simply being on a bus. She is on a bus in a federal facility. The government has the power to check her ID if she is on the federal facility. This power has been granted by Congress and upheld by the courts. There is no Constitutional issue here. One could argue that there is a practical consideration, but given the physical configuration of the plant, I don't see any other way to do it, aside from holding the buses and checking IDs at the gate or directing them around the facility.

To suggest that she be denied the seat she has contracted for (by paying the fare) is wrong. There is no law that says that Public Transportation can be denied to a paying customer. That's discrimination.

She can ride the bus all she wants. But if she refuses to comply with the laws regarding entrance to a federal facility, she can also be arrested every morning and evening, on her regular commute. Seems like an odd way to get to work.

It is an unwarranted search to demand an ID on that Bus because that requirement is not being applied to all Public Busses Nationwide. If a valid ID is required to exit the Bus on any of the stops within the Campus FINE, no objection.

Not all public buses nationwide go onto a federal facility. A valid ID is required to exit the bus on the facility, because the passengers need to turn over valid ID to be on the bus.

If the Bus in question went from a central point and only delivered passengers to stops in the Campus, then it would be a private charter Bus and they can ID to thier little heart's content. Public Transportation is another story. Public Transportation must allow all paying customers a seat if there is a seat available. If you ID all passengers on this route and not on all other routes it is discrimination and illegal.

All other routes do not go onto the federal facility. When the bus crosses that line, the government has a power to control access, demand ID, search all persons, and search all vehicles entering and exiting. This is not discrimination, since it applies to anyone who crosses the perimeter. It is certainly not illegal, since it is specifically permitted by law.

Remember this is Public Transportation that has been requested to provide a route traversing this Campus. She is on Public property (the Bus) not the Campus.

You keep saying that, but it doesn't make any more sense the tenth time than the first time. I don't understand. She is on the bus, and the bus is on the government facility. How does that mean she is not on the government facility? Is there something magical about a bus that means it is not subject to the laws of man and nature? Why would this magical property also not apply to other private vehicles, like cars?

What the Bus travels through to get her from her boarding point to her exit has no bearing at all. She has paid her fare. There is a contract to move her from point A to point B. The bus travels a fixed route. She can't alter that route to avoid the Campus. To ask/demand that she get off before her contracted stop is in violation of her contract. Can't do that according to contract law.

The requirement for ID is a condition to the contract known to her before she purchases her fare. Notice that people are not hauled off the bus the first time they fail to produce ID. She had to court arrest by refusing to produce ID several days in a row to get herself hauled off that bus. So she was notified in person, and certainly through road signs posted at the entrance to the facility. At that point, she can enter into the contract, subject to those requirements. It is not a violation of anything to require her to meet them.

[Badray]

Power... Right... Whatever...

Don't be so quick to dismiss the substantial difference between those two words.

Powers of the government are delegated to the government by the sovereign people and they can be withdrawn -- however unlikely.

Rights of the people are inherent. They are ours by virtue or our birth. Rights can only be withdrawn after due process. We are endowed by our Creator. . .

Do those words sound familiar?

How about "probable cause"?

Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither.

[gridlock]

Thank you for the correction of my error. For the tenth time. Not the tenth time by you, actually. But the tenth time overall.

In any case, probable cause is not required to check IDs and control access to a federal facility. The statutory authority gives the government the power to require IDs from all people entering the facility, whether they have probable cause or not.

[Badray]

Don't you just hate it when someone challenges an order of the government? How dare she? /sarc

It doesn't matter to me what stripe my would-be authoritarian masters wear, an authoritarian is an authoritarian and I will resist. I applaud her standing her ground.