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.
And if they're handing a Social Security card to a prospective employer, along with a real-looking driver's license that bears their picture and the same name as the SS card?
Oh, please. Save the insults. You obviously did not read my entire post, but stopped halfway through it. Read the whole thing, otherwise there is no point in discussing it further.
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.
Since the government owns the property, it would seem they have a property right, same as any other owner.
It goes along with the whole idea of a government of limited powers granted by the governed.
"A policeman's job is only easy in a police state." - Orson Welles.
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.
No, not quite. I'm not talking entering an open post like Ft. Carson (or how it used to be) but public roads that cross unsecured areas of bases. You aren't entering the facility and there would be no reason for passengers to carry ID.
Showing the ID in this case serves no purpose.
I said "military facility" and I'm 100% correct.
They CAN stop you, but they don't 99.9% of the time.
I can't comment on federal landmarks and national parks, though. But, I know the military itself cannot establish roadblocks on other federal property, even accessways, without specific authorization, as this would be an law enforcement responsibility.
Your statement was that there was no policy.
I would bet you dollars to donuts there is a sign on the side of the road as you enter notifying that vehicles are subject to stop and search and that ID is required.
It's a big country, with lot's of places that are not on a Federal facility. I suggest this woman spend her time is such places.
How can you know this? Just because you say so doesn't mean it's true.
She was arrested for DOING NOTHING. This is rapidly moving down the slippery slope. You think the tyrants you mention just leaped into executing people for not having ID? no, they started with the same "reasonable" (gack) requests, upping enforcement & punishment to force compliance - not for security purposes, but for rank obedience. Nothing in this situation warrants outright arrest.
Being asked to show an ID, while on a bus near a potential government target is a far cry from that.
How the heck is an uninspected ID presented by someone showing zero probable cause and behaving entirely normally an enhancement of security? There was no threat perceivable by anything more substantial than extreme unhinged paranoia.
Atta himself could still get on an airplane with a boxcutter - showing ID won't stop terrorists. This "ID = security" thing is moronic.
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.
Security? Articulate the security issue involved. It was a public bus with normal passengers just passing through. No sane person, even security minded, could believe there was the slightest risk warranting manhandling and arrest in this situation.
Law Enforcement? The law being enforced must be justifiable under the Constitution - not profoundly prohibited thereby. There is no sane interpretation of the 4th Amendment to justify this "law". Unconstitutional laws are not laws - so says SCOTUS. That a procedure is "law" does not automatically prove it's not tyrrany ... and opposing tyrrany is worthy of pride.
We're not talking about voting booths here, and you don't get arrested for showing up at a voting site without ID.
Voter ID is used only to ensure you vote once in your appropriate jurisdiction.
>Showing the ID in this case serves no purpose.
How can you know this? Just because you say so doesn't mean it's true.
Power... Right... Whatever...
The point is, this is, apparently, not one of those places where the general public is permitted to be without producing an ID on demand.
What does that have to do with the point of this thread? She was riding a bus. Leave her alone.
Would you happen to have a link to that thread?
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.