[JTN]

Good guys win, but the feds say the "Papers please" policy will continue.

[ican'tbelieveit]

If they insist on doing it, just do it with purpose. Just glancing at it protects no one.

[gridlock]

So it looks like future arrests are not to be based on the "Access to Facilities" section, which applies to the government and not to the individual, but will rather be based on the section that requires individuals to comply with signs and lawful instructions of officers.

Frankly, if the Feds have the signs right, this will put them in a much stronger legal position. I would wager that their policy will be upheld in the courts, because they have wide latitude in setting up security.

That said, I wish they would just eliminate this problem and the potential vulnerability of bringing so many people through the gates who have no business there by just re-routing the buses. Just have all passengers to the facility get off at the Park and Ride and run them in on shuttle buses. How hard would that be?

[gondramB]

"Good guys win, but the feds say the "Papers please" policy will continue."

Basically they found a loophole to make this one case go away so they continue to prevent freedom of movement. Very sad day for our government.

[deport]

Good guys win, but the feds say the "Papers please" policy will continue.

---

What do you object to about allowing a property owner to ask for identification of those entering the property be it federal, state, local, private?

[untrained skeptic]

If you don't want to show an identification don't travel onto federal property. From the article: Federal officials said the Davis case was closed because of a technicality involving a problem with a sign at the Federal Center at the time Davis was ticketed. The sign was supposed to inform people that their IDs would be checked. She had already been there several times and had been asked to show ID in the past. It sounds like the prosecutor decided not to prosecute her. A little discretion on the part of the prosecutor is likely a good thing in this case. If she wanted to fight the policy of requiring identification, she had an opportunity to do so. Instead she complied the first time. Lied to federal agents the next time saying she forgot her ID the next time. Then she simply refused to follow the officers legal orders. The prosecutor decided not to prosecute, so she gets a pass on a criminal record even though she broke the law and created a situation that could have been dangerous. We the taxpayers get to pay the bill for dealing with her behavior and investigating if prosecution was the best route. The proceedure hasn't changed. I don't know if it's a reasonable proceedure or not. I've never been to the Federal Center there. However, her actions were irresponsible and she brought this on herself. She should have either refused to show her ID the first time when she first realized that they were going to require identification, or she should have formally complained about the policy.

[tenthirteen]

In the Federal facility near-by where I live, you are required to provide a photo ID to gain entry. There are usually three federal Officers at the entrance. No photo ID means no entry. Period. Those people are turned away and directed to leave property. They are monitored until such time that they have indeed left. Some are escorted off.

End of story.

[ctdonath2]

She then spent several days telling the officers she didn't have her ID with her and wasn't getting off the bus in the Federal Center anyway. Officers eventually told her she had to bring her ID or she couldn't ride the bus.

Interesting.

Supposed to have ID for "security purposes", but just say "oh, I forgot" and it's ok just don't forget next time.

Uh-huh.

Charges dropped on a "technicality" - sounds like she would have won, and they can't stand for that. New policy: drag each no-ID person to court, then drop the charges just before the rider wins - don't have to win the case, just have to harass people into compliance by making it too expensive via "press charges, then drop them". Methinks the court should (perhaps) have the option of saying "you pressed charges, you can't drop them just because you might lose."