Rocking the Bus - A Colorado woman takes a stand against arbitrary ID checks.

reason magazine ^ | November 30, 2005 | Jacob Sullum

[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.

[gridlock]

Most youngsters (<16) do not typically carry IDs. Does this mean that they cannot ride the bus?

Of course they can ride the bus. But if they are unaccompanied on the federal facility, there will have to be some accomodation made. If they were to do it on a daily basis, perhaps the facility could issue them an ID.

But that is irrelevant to the question of statutory authority, and is thus irrelevant to the matter at hand.

[gridlock]

Does the word "Welcome" imply anything? How about when it's "Visitors Welcome"?

Visitors are welcome in my house, but they have to follow my rules. Visitors are welcome in Disneyland, but they have to follow Disneyland's rules.

Similarly, visitors are welcome on this facility, but they have to abide by the lawful rules of this facility. Producing an ID on demand is one of those rules, and it is entirely lawful.

[gridlock]

The Nuremberg Defense!

My remark, in context, was that the security officer was just doing his job instead of being on a personal power trip. This makes him less like a NAZI in my eyes, but your milage may vary.

[gridlock]

At what point do we, as citizens, cede all rights to the governemnt?

When you cross the boundry of a federal facility, you cede certain rights. Fortunately, you are not required to do so. If you wish to remain anonymous, then don't go there!

The statutory authority only extends to the limits of their property, so it cannot effect you in your home.

[Socraticus]

"The statutory authority only extends to the limits of their property, so it cannot effect you in your home."
Yet.....

What essential liberty will you give up in order to obtain a little temporary safety?

[Atlas Sneezed]

The Nuremberg Defense!

My remark, in context, was that the security officer was just doing his job instead of being on a personal power trip. This makes him less like a NAZI in my eyes, but your milage may vary.

---

In my book, the "I was just doing my job" defense is the same in principle as "I vas only follovink orderss!"

[Atlas Sneezed]

Is there anyone on this thread who was never a government employee, who believes that this action (by government employees in the name of protecting government employees) was fully justified legally and practically?

---

[Crickets chiping]

[Badray]

LOL

I wonder what happens if you are compelled to go to a Federal Facility -- say, for an IRS audit -- and don't bring ID. Will they force you to go in or refuse to let you in?

[Badray]

If there is a statutory duty, don't they likewise have a responsibility to actually do something effective to comply with their duty?

Don't we as taxpayers have a right to expect something in return for our tax dollars?

[Badray]

Evil unspeakable things?

No, I think that they were just exercising their statutory duty to make Germany a better country. /extreme sarcasm

'Doing their job' differs from 'just following orders', how?

When you give mindless dolts a little authority, they like it. The ones who excel at it get promoted. Compliance training screens out the incompetent ones.

Is it that you are scared for you life or do you just love telling people how to live theirs?

[JTN]

There is a specific law, cited back around Post 200 or so, that specifically empowers the government to ask for ID on a government facility.

I assume you are referring to my earlier post, in which I quoted this Hit and Run post, which gives the regulations under which she would probably be charged.

One says that on federal property closed to the general public, officials must "restrict admission to the property, or the affected portion, to authorized persons who must register upon entry to the property and must, when requested, display Government or other identifying credentials to Federal police officers or other authorized individuals when entering, leaving or while on the property."

Gondring, you may remember, posted this image in #346.

So visitors are welcome, and she was on a public bus, which anyone who pays the fare may board. The facility is not "federal property closed to the general public."

[ican'tbelieveit]

I love this part: "... who must register upon entry to the property."

[JTN]

I love this part: "... who must register upon entry to the property."

Right. If there is no registration requirement, then there is no authority to ask for ID.

[FreedomCalls]

I love this part: "... who must register upon entry to the property."

And I wouldn't have any problem with it if they made her register and then at a different point checked her ID against the registration list. That would actually be doing something. But just checking to see if she has a ID in her possession, regardless of whether or not it is valid is just stupid and accomplishes nothing.

[ican'tbelieveit]

There are some here that believe that will stop the bomb in the backpack from going off. I am amazed at the power of glancing at an ID.

[Petruchio]

Don't worry, It's just another DuckBite. Nothing to see here . . . move along.

/extreme sarcasm

[JTN]

And I wouldn't have any problem with it if they made her register and then at a different point checked her ID against the registration list.

Actually, something that's bothered me about this thread is that some of the posters who agree with me on the surface issue really would have no problem if the guards were doing more. As much as I hate the ID check, I would have much more of a problem with the Big Brotherism of writing down names or forced registration. If they want to compare the names to a watch list, that would be much less egregious, although I think the ID check for most federal facilities is goofy no matter what.

[FreedomCalls]

I would have much more of a problem with the Big Brotherism of writing down names or forced registration. If they want to compare the names to a watch list, that would be much less egregious

I'm assuming that the purpose of registration would be to check against a watch list or to verify an appointment or something like that. If it's registration for the sake of registration and nothing more (ie, she hands over a fake ID, they write down the fake info and hand it back to her, she goes on her way), then it's just as big of a problem. A security measure needs to accomplish something that actually enhances security.

[Petruchio]

Another question no one wants to ask:

Is this level of security necessary to fulfill the mission of the Agencies located there? Is this a nuclear lab? No. CIA? No. DEA? No. Well, what IS there that demands this level of security?

Geologists.

Yup Rockhounds. The U.S. Geological Survey is based there. All this fuss for the safety of the USGS. The same folks that climb into active volcanoes are afraid of an office worker that won't show an ID.

Someone get me a drink!

[gridlock]

I gotta get rolling, so I am just going to answer these repetetive arguments all at once.

#365 - Irrelevant to the question at hand. It is not a matter of whether this policy is good or not. It is a matter of whether this policy is legal or not.

#366 - Irrelevant to the question at hand. The motivation of the guards is not the issue here.

#369 - Irrelevant to the question at hand. The government is stupid and inefficient. This is news you?

#370 - Irrelevant and stupid. Comparing the security personnel in this case to the NAZIs is obscene and spits on the graves of the millions killed by that murderous regime.

#371 - Interesting, but ultimately irrelevant. This case will be tested in court, and the Fedgov will win. They have wide latitude in these areas, and no court is going to take it away.

#373 - Ditto to #371.