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.
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."
So they ask you to show your ID just so they can make sure you’re willing to produce an ID for the government.
I am not the government’s dancing bear.
How would that work, if the second someone has both feet on this side of the border, they're deemed to have "a right to be anonymous"?
I am not 100% of what your point is, and I do acknowledge that you are being sarcastic. But, it seems to me your comparing apples to oranges.
This article complains of excessive security causing a minor inconvenience to some. While the Mr. Atta reference is attributable to a different time, when security was lax and people were killed as a result.
Are you saying that nothing has changed and such methods as described here are insufficient?
No, she's entering the publicly-accessable grounds around a federal facility. There was no physical control of that area (i.e.: show ID or don't get in). The ID check served absolutely no purpose for security, as no analysis of the information thereupon was done. There was nothing indicating "crossing this line requires ID or arrest". There was nothing indicating "you must have ID to get on this bus". There was no fair warning. The enforcement of requiring ID served only the purpose of requiring ID - a stupidly circular argument, supporting only tyrrany.
On the other hand, she is paying state and local taxes, which probably provide well over half the funding for the city transportation system, and she has no control over what routes are taken by the buses she has been forced to pay for.
Not if she's not getting off the bus.
There are public roads that cross military installations but no ID check and no requirement to disarm (if carrying a gun in the car) while on those roads.
They can check IDs for those disembarking on the Federal Center Grounds but no need while traversing.
OH CUT THAT OUT. I've seen that line too much recently.
Per the recent thread on propaganda, that line serves to undermine those with a legitimate differing view. Many of us on FR oppose anything that plainly violates the Constitution, in this case the 4th Amendment (as the ID check only served to enforce compliance with ID checks, with absolutely no outcome serving security or any other legitimate purpose).
That is how they're powerful and becoming the big big brothers and then does facade hypocrite suits against a fed goc. like this.
4th Amendment. The federal gov't has no right to demand papers without articulable cause. Considering the info on the IDs was not checked, there was no articulable cause. That has nothing to do with the "suicide pact" rhetoric; anonymity IS protected unless there is probable cause, and that need be via sworn testimony pursuant a judge-signed warrant unless urgency of the situation requires otherwise - far from applicable in this case.
So it's impossible to get off a bus before it reaches the exit gate of the facility?
She's on the facility, she shows her ID.
If you're on a military facility, even on a road through the facility, you're SUBJECT to a stop, but it won't always happen.
Gee, after the Oklahoma bombing and 911, I guess the Feds can stop worrying huh?
Did you see them cross? Would a reasonable person conclude the only explaination is they crossed? if yes, then probable cause to question legality; if no, then 4th Amendment "leave 'em alone" applies.
If they're 10 feet from the border in the desert on foot, probable cause exists.
If they're crossing the street in a major city, then not - and anonymity applies.
The FedGuv has a right to restrict access and demand ID.
Then there is not much point in discussing the issue, as you're demonstrating wilfull ignorance. (Surely you know who "Mr. Atta" refers to. Being on FR, it's hard to believe you don't.)
Sorry folks the reason your bus is held up is because we have to check ID's as people get off the bus...
"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."
Ahmad? Is this a case of the lunatics running the asylum or what? Who blew up who, may I ask?
Sorry. I have little use for the ACLU but I'm willing to let them be the good guys this one time. Your papers, indeed!
And likewise I am sick and tired of seeing comparisons made between this type of action and either the Nazi's or the tyranny of communism, as was done in the original posting. There is a huge difference between the actions of both the Nazi's and Communists and the incident described here. The principle difference being that under those regimes people faced death for any resistance. Being asked to show an ID, while on a bus near a potential government target is a far cry from that.
Yes, I am also aware that I disagree with many fellow Freeper's on this subject, so be it. To be honest, I find it a bit odd, that so many conservatives feel the need to seemingly take pride in their stated refusals to co-operate with security and law enforcement.
You may have additional information, but it appears that this area requires having an ID to enter, since there is a fella there asking for ID.
By her own admission, she was fully aware that she required an ID and was only busted after refusing several days in a row. That would constitute notice, in my book.
As for analysis of the information, you don't think the fella asking for IDs gets to know everybody on the bus after a couple of days, so he can see who is a regular and who is not?
If this is a Federal Facility, they can do this sort of thing. Frankly, it seems a lot less intrusive than a lot of policies I have seen. If she doesn't like it, she can go around.
Personally, I think heading into a voting booth is plenty of probable cause. People who aren't legally eligible to vote are having a significant impact on our freedom -- much more serious than being required to flash an ID card. Illegal aliens, felons, people voting multiple times under different names (often under the guidance of leftist unions), are voting themselves "rights" to OUR money. And they vote in politicians and judges who ensure that nobody is allowed to stop them from doing this. I'd a lot rather produce ID whenever asked, than have the government confiscating huge chunks of my hard-earned money to provide schooling and medical care to illegal aliens, endless stints in "rehab" for drug and alcohol addicts, and all sorts of other expensive abominations.
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.