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.
Hey, Wolfie. Glad you're here to join in the fun. Especially since I just got home from work and am off to bed.
In general, there is a broad political argument about the proper role, size and scope of government. Generally speaking, I think I fall more into the limited scope/small side of that spectrum. But that has nothing to do with the particular case here.
I would agree that perhaps there is no need for this federal facility. But it does exist, therefore the government has the responsibility and statutory authority to manage it and secure it. If they conclude that their responsibility requires them to demand IDs of people on the facility, whether they be in a bus or not, then they are well within their authority to do so.
Not vast experience.
One facility. First try.
When I observed the abject stupidity of the motions that they were going through, I decided to see if it was as useless as it appeared.
ID got a cursory look. No ID still got me in. What good does the ID do? N O T H I N G! Absolutely nothing.
Compliance training is all this is.
That's what it has to do with this particular story.
You make a great point.
Are those streets Federal property? Are the buses? Seems to me that the city should consider ending service to the Federal complex, including use of roads for Federal employees. Perhaps a roadblock on the access roads, with ID check to be sure no Federal employees are using them.
But the city is "allowing access" to the Fed property, but makes the minimal demand that the Feds honor the Constitution. I guess they could just bar access to the property, but what would be the point?
Just did an assessment of a former munitions facility before Thanksgiving, and I am working for a colleague who is in Colorado at another one (not the Lakewood one, but near it). Since you seem familiar with such locations, then you should realize that perimeter security along the roadway is also feasible and common.
Yeah, I know about that. I posted this link earlier in the thread.
Another thing struck me about that case when I re-read the site:
The pick-up had been driven by Dudley's 17 year-old daughter Mimi, with whom Dudley had been having an argument over a boy Dudley didn't approve of that she'd been seeing in town. Mimi got mad at her dad and punched him in the shoulder.At least she didn't call the boy and have him come over and shoot Dudley!
Yes, they could certainly do that. No reason they couldn't.
Of course, they could also check IDs on the bus. No reason they can't do that as well.
At the end of the day, this is a very simple case. The government is requesting an ID from people on their site, which is within their authority. The woman does not want to provide the ID, but does not really have a choice in the matter. If she is on the site, she is required to comply with the law, or face arrest.
Now, you may not like that, but that is the way it is. If you think this law is wrong, then by all means petition your Congressman and try to have it changed. That is a political process. But we should not whine and gripe and pretend their are legal or Constitutional issues where clearly none exist.
So it clearly states when getting on the bus that ID is required? How is a passenger to know whether this is a legitimate request or just a guy trolling for women's names?
And the Feds could provide their own transportation for employees. No reason they can't do that.
There is no requirement for one to have ANY ID.
Driver's licenses are voluntary, and intended for use only when driving.
SSN cards are voluntary (though hard to avoid), and intended for use only for dealing with the Social Security program; prior inclusion of "not for identification purposes" indicates original intent of non-ID use.
Passports are voluntary, and intended for use only when crossing national borders; majority of people don't have them.
And so on: all IDs are voluntary and for narrow purposes; there is no requirement to possess an ID.
As there is no obligatory National ID, and all IDs are intended for and only required in narrow use, it is preposterous to require - under threat of arrest - that citizens show ID.
As all forms of ID are for specific narrow purposes, demanding ID outside of those purposes amounts to "violating the security of one's papers" per the 4th Amendment. No gov't agent has a right (to wit my arrest if I do not comply) to see my driver's license if I am not driving, my SSN card if I am not addressing Social Security issues, my passport if I am not crossing borders, etc.; the 4th Amendment explicitly states that to see those papers, gov't agents (short of my voluntary compliance, or imminent need) must swear out a search warrant before a judge.
The only time an ID can conceivably be required is if police have reason to believe person A is person B, and B is wanted for criminal activity, police may apprehend A until they confirm A is or is not B, which is made much easier if A produces ID. (This does NOT permit fishing expiditions wherein every person on every bus/train/plane is checked against a list of criminal suspects; they must have articulable reason why they think A may be B; guilty until proven innocent is not acceptable.)
It is the fault of every elected official after Eisenhower that we are having to deal with ID checks. Every congress/senate person elected since back them lacks the spine it takes to run a country and not get weak in the knees with a sad immigrant sob story about their woes.
I've already covered this question, twice.
Obviously not convincingly.
Whatever else it is this in not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
How many objecting to this also want to rid the nation of illegal aliens? But without identifying them how could that happen?
No amount of discussion will convince some people, so why waste further time trying?
People believe one of two things:
1) Being asked for an ID by a law enforcement/security agent is a gross intrusion on our constitutional rights and has taken us one giant step closer to living in a Police state comparable to Nazi Germany.
or
2) Being asked for an ID is a slight inconvenience, one that is understandable since millions of Islamic radicals have taken a solemn vow that they will kill as many heathens as possible.
Apparently, when people don't have ID, they are told that IDs are required when riding this particular bus, but otherwise unmolested. This woman courted arrest by repeatedly refusing to produce her ID, day after day. By the time she was arrested, she was fully aware of the legal requirement, but chose to ignore it.
Presumably, the entity running the bus has no problem with the policy, so they are not likely to stop running buses.
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.