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.
In what significant way does this differ from Rosa Parks?
Still kind of rubs me the wrong way. If I'm not committing a crime, I shouldn't have to go around proving I'm one of the "good guys" all the time. I should be able to be left alone to go about my business.
Well, Rosa Parks was a put-up job as well, but that's neither here nor there.
The difference is that the authority to discriminate in the seating position on a bus was later found to be illegitimate, in addition to being objectively repugnant.
I don't think any court is going to find that government authority to control access to government facilities is illegitimate. In fact, most folks would agree that functional security at government facilities is a good thing. I don't see why people here are all exercised about being required to show ID when entering a federal facility.
The next big thing is going to be automated facial recognition. This is already being used, but is getting more reliable all the time. The courts have held time and again that individuals to not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when they are seen in public. What is changed now is that your picture can be taken and your name and personal information can be pulled off a database in a few seconds, based on an analysis of your facial features.
THIS is what the immigration freepers are asking for......., they are just too dumb to know it.
The Reagan Trade bldg in DC has at least 100 doors. All but 4 or 5 have been sealed off and unused since 9/11.
What's your point?
BTW, I bet that I can get just about anything that I want in there whether it is prohibited or not.
I assume you read the previous paragraph he posted? If not, please do so. If you read it and still have to ask, then you are so witless that explaining it to you would do no good.
"Functional" is the key word. As has been pointed out (597 times at last count) all they did was glance at IDs, without checking against any kind of list.
At any rate, I don't think that checking IDs at federal facilities is a legitimate exercise in the "Home of the Free." Being a habitual leadfoot, I have been in a few county courthouses. While I had to pass through a metal detector and empty my pockets, I've never been asked for ID. They aren't federal facilities, but the point is the same.
Here is the previous paragraph.
I can't let that comment go by unanswered, you let your mouth get way ahead of yer brain, pilgrim.I guess I'm witless, because I don't see how this changes anything.
What makes a 'federal facility' any more sacred than an office people or shopping mall or restaurant or movie theater or . . . .
Do you think that terrorists are merely seeking to target the government where there is some perceived level of scrutiny (not security) instead of unguarded targets with lots of civilians?
Your panic is not good reason to deny me my liberty without probable cause. There is no off switch on the Constitution.
It is not more sacred, but the government has a specific statutory authority to control security and require compliance at government facilities. This has been upheld in court, time and again. There is no Constitutional issue here.
Well, I you are entitled to your opinion, of course. Don't be surprised if other people have a different opinion.
The government has the statutory authority to control security at this location, and they are doing so with means that are well within their authority. Now, we can criticize the effectiveness of their efforts, but that does not impact the legitimacy of their authority.
You may think that screening IDs is an ineffective method of security, but I disagree. In any case, neither of our opinions matter.
LOL
YES! That is my contention.
Earlier this year, I told one of these dolts that I didn't have my ID in my wallet. I didn't lie. I took it out of the wallet and put it in my pocket where I could 'find' it if it became necessary. It wasn't.
Do you want to know what I had to do to get in without ID? She told me remove my glasses so that she could look into my eyes. I complied and she let me enter.
I asked "What the hell did that prove?"
Her response: "We have to be sure that you are alive."
I swear to God that I am not making that up. When I challenged her again, she told me to just go in and she walked away.
Are you still convinced of the intelligence of these people?
What does your vast experience taunting security guards have to do with this case?
The others that corrected you didn't provide a distinction that I believed was necessary, if not for you, but for others who may be reading this.
I do not see the need to ID yourself to ride thru this facility. She is not entering anything. She is in a vehicle passing thru and not attempting to enter a building. If she is a suspicious person, the feds can follow the 4th Amendment and get a warrant from a court and serve it the next time she rides thru.
This is just another useless exercise in security that has more to do with forcing compliance than in making us safer.
Assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, how does that effect the government's authority to require all persons entering this facility to comply with their lawful security arrangements?
Just because you do not see the need to for the government to require ID for people passing through does not mean the government is not permitted to do so.
Your 'statutory authority' is another way of saying that they will tax us to protect their sorry asses.
And yes, in the abstract there is a constitutional issue.
Did you ever stop to think that if the feds obeyed the Constitution, that there probably would never have been a need for a Murrah Federal Building to house all of those government agencies?
No, I am not saying the bombing was justified. I am saying that the feds have made themselves a huge target (physically) by growing beyond their just authority.
As someone else commented: A 90 building federal campus? WTF for?
Ah America - Land of the Free, Home of the Brave.
Davis' lawyers (whose services were arranged by the ACLU of Colorado) expect the government to cite two regulations. One says that on federal property closed to the general public, officials must "restrict admission to the property, or the affected portion, to authorized persons who must register upon entry to the property and must, when requested, display Government or other identifying credentials to Federal police officers or other authorized individuals when entering, leaving or while on the property." The other says "persons in and on [federal] property must at all times comply with...the lawful direction of Federal police officers and other authorized individuals." Presumably the government will argue that the first rule makes a demand for ID on a bus that happens to cross federal property a "lawful direction."Regarding the "federal property closed to the general public" requirement, this website on the issue says, "Through these charges, it appears that the Feds are claiming that people were on notice that they had to show ID. Nowhere is this evident, unless 'Public Welcome' flags are bureaucratese for 'Papers, please'." Public Welcome?
Try http://www.rtd-denver.com/routemaps/r0_5X.pdf for the route map.
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.