Replies

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.

If you don't want to show an identification don't travel onto federal property.

She is on a public bus and is not getting off on the property. If the facility is to be secured, then it should not allow public transportation to use the property as a shortcut.

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.

Now you're calling her "dangerous"? Based on what? Did they find a bomb on her?