Denver bus riders forced to show ID or risk arrest and prosecution

November 22, 2005 @ Michael Hampton → 65 Comments

Deborah Davis was riding the bus to work in Denver one fateful morning last September, when security guards boarded the bus and demanded to see everyone’s ID. Davis refused and federal police boarded and arrested her.

The Denver bus route that Davis used happens to cross the Denver Federal Center, and although Davis doesn’t get off the bus there, she was still asked to show ID.

On Monday, September 26th 2005, Deb Davis headed off to work on the route 100 bus. When the bus got to the gates of the Denver Federal Center, a guard got on and asked her if she had an ID. She answered in the affirmative. He asked if he could see it. She said no.

When the guard asked why she wouldn’t show her ID, Deb told him that she didn’t have to do so. The guard then ordered her off the bus. Deb refused, stating she was riding a public bus and just trying to get to work.

The guard then went to call his supervisor, and returned shortly with a federal policeman. The federal cop then demanded her ID. Deb politely explained once again that she would not show her ID, and she was simply commuting to work. He left, returning shortly thereafter with a second policeman in tow.

This second cop asked the same question and got the same answer: no showing of ID, no getting off the bus.

The cop was also annoyed with the fact that she was on the phone with a friend and didn’t feel like hanging up, even when he ‘ordered’ her to do so.

The second cop said everyone had to show ID any time they were asked by the police, adding that if she were in a Wal-Mart and was asked by the police for ID, that she would have to show it there, too.

She explained that she didn’t have to show him or any other policeman my ID on a public bus or in a Wal-Mart. She told him she was simply trying to go to work.

Suddenly, the second policeman shouted “Grab her!” and he grabbed the cell phone from her and threw it to the back of the bus. With each of the policemen wrenching one of her arms behind her back, she was jerked out of her seat, the contents of her purse and book bag flying everywhere. The cops shoved her out of the bus, handcuffed her, threw her into the back seat of a police cruiser, and drove her to a police station inside the confines of the Denver Federal Center.

Once inside, she was taken down a hall and told to sit in a chair, still handcuffed, while one of the policemen went through her purse, now retrieved from the bus.

The two policemen sat in front of their computers, typing and conferring, trying to figure out what they should charge her with. Eventually, they wrote up several tickets, took her outside and removed the handcuffs, returned her belongings, and pointed her toward the bus stop. She was told that if she ever entered the Denver Federal Center again, she would go to jail.

She hasn’t commuted by public bus since that day. — Papers Please

While there is no general requirement for people to carry and show identification on demand, when not suspected of criminal wrongdoing, the federal government does require that persons entering federal property show identification.

The real kicker to this story is that the guards didn’t seem to be doing anything with the identification. They didn’t check it against a database. They “barely even glanced at” people’s identification cards.

A review of the Denver Regional Transportation District’s maps and schedules show that it would be fairly difficult to travel that route and avoid the Denver Federal Center, an extensive two square mile compound. Such a route would involve several transfers and likely an hour or more of added bus travel time.

This raises the question of why a city bus is entering federal property in the first place, as this sort of thing was bound to happen sooner or later.

(Seen on Bayosphere)

If you ride this bus in Denver, I’d like to hear from you. What, if anything, do the guards do with your identification? Do they check ID on every bus, or only randomly?

Update December 5: Protesters are planning a rally on Friday, December 9, at the Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, from 8:30 to 9:00 a.m. Davis will address the public at that time.

Update December 9: While all charges have been dropped against Davis, the rally went on as scheduled this morning

Share this story:

65 Comments → “Denver bus riders forced to show ID or risk arrest and prosecution”

Brian Rose

Nov 22, 2005

I have many friends who take the bus each day; I’ll make sure to speak with a few of them about this and get their reaction.
JcT

Nov 23, 2005

Are all the Americans as stupid as Mr. Bush and his “gang” are?
JcT

Nov 23, 2005

Are all the Americans as stupid as Mr amBush and his “gang”?
SP

Nov 23, 2005

JcT you tell us, you clearly couldn’t figure out how to press submit comment button once.
TazDevil091102

Nov 23, 2005

The Prez has no real power it’s Congress that has all the power so why not blame them for this stupidity. They pass the law the Prez only signs them or veto’s them. congress can still get them pass into law with a 3/4th vote for them.
Jason

Nov 23, 2005

I don’t understand what our President has to do with a bus ride through the Denver Federal center. Were you simply looking for any random forum to spread some kind of hate rhetoric?
Michael Hampton

Nov 23, 2005

Oh, the stupidity. When will it end?
TheeFool

Nov 23, 2005

I think those officers had every right to what they did. That lady deserved everything she got. I’ve worked in the US Military before and could never understand how snobbish americans can be sometimes.

This coming from a veteran.
Michael Hampton

Nov 23, 2005

TheeFool, when did you decide that the Constitution wasn’t worth preserving, protecting and defending anymore?
Naomi

Nov 23, 2005

Sadly,this will not be the end of the pointless harrassment here in the US.. you can be sure of that.
Nick

Nov 23, 2005

Unfortunately when entering a federal facility an I.D. check can be used. Usually they do let you know that there will be a check of I.D.s whether they actually do or not. The bus service should have let it’s riders know that I.D. checks will be used on the routes that take them through federal facilities that they travel through. Let’s face it most people don’t know the federal laws, little alone most laws. Example of the police that confronted the woman did not even know what they were talking about. You do not have to show your I.D. in Walmart. This is bad news when you have people trying to enforce the law and don’t know the law.
Brad

Nov 23, 2005

IO ERROR, Why does the constitution have anything to do with what happened? We as americans grant certain powers to police officers and military personell to do their jobs to the fullest. If you cant respect a military person or police officer by taking 10 seconds out of your conversation to show your ID then you need to be arrested for suspicion. I think what happened was right by all means to what happened to this lady.
Saying that all of this is part of bushes plan to destroy what is left of american privacy is rhetoric. You go risk your life everyday and tell me how you would react when a civilian doesnt comply with a simple request.
Desire Campbell

Nov 23, 2005

TheeFool: Just because she was ‘a snob’ and ‘rude’ doesn’t mean they could manhaddle her like that. They told her to show them her ID, without giving a reason. And apparently they didn’t do anything with the IDs they saw. It was a pointless endevour that could not have had any informative gain.
They did have the legal right to ask for ID, but did not have the legal right to assault her as they did. And they DID assault her.
They also lied directly to her about the legality of asking for ID.
Michael Hampton

Nov 23, 2005

Suspicion? The only thing to suspect her of is being an American willing to stand up for her rights. And the last time I checked, being suspicious wasn’t a crime. Maybe I live in some other country now, and the America I thought I lived in doesn’t exist anymore.

It sure as hell doesn’t, when the men and women in uniform don’t even respect the Constitution they swore to uphold.
Steve

Nov 23, 2005

Everyone keeps saying “in the constitution”, but the constitution doesn’t say a damn thing about providing ID by request of an officer or other government official. Because of its silence, Congress was able to pass a law that says while entering federal (i.e. government owned and operated) property, all civilians are required to present ID.

So, because this is a law and the Constituion doesn’t infact say anything about it (therefore it doesn’t say anything about what rights civilians do have in that situation) civilians are forced to abide by it.

And for you people that will try and pull the unlawful searches and seizures right listed in the Bill of Rights: that won’t work because the police aren’t searching you, they ask you to go into your own things and retrieve your id without any interaction from them. therefore it isn’t a search. And because the woman was infact breaking a federal law requiring all civilians to show id on federal property, the police had every right to do what they did, so it isn’t an unlawful seizure.
Joe

Nov 23, 2005

I’d say that Steve has it pretty well covered. While I personally find it to be stupid, distasteful and a waste of resources for military personnel to be doing this, it seems that they are within their rights to request the ID and/or deny entrance to a federal facility. Davis’ side has portrayed her arrest/removal from the bus to be heavy-handed (how many arrests aren’t?). The arresting officer says that Davis was disruptive, argumentative and was talking on her cell phone and deliberately ignoring the request. I find that the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle in these situations – I’m sure that neither side has “clean hands.”

Even though the arresting officer was incorrect in his statement about when an ID had to be produced, he was correct about the part that really mattered at that moment. Just because they weren’t cross checking the IDs against a watch list doesn’t mean that they can’t ask to see them, although I readily admit that it appears to make the whole process meaningless. Arresting her was petty, but it seemed that it was the outcome that Davis wanted to provoke. The officers, after some discussion and after giving her several chances (which she showed her disdain for by making a cell call during the incident) finally obliged her.
Mike

Nov 24, 2005

it seems to me that the comment made in reference to the bus line posting that id’s are required is what should be considered. if indeed there is a sign on the bus then it becomes what is known as “implied consent”, kind of like when you are choking and refuse treatment until you pass out…then when you cant answer its open season on abdominal thrust procedures…hehheh
Nov 26, 2005

Cyclelicious
Fatboy

Nov 26, 2005

Hey I/O, not sure what I think about this. The actual charges are not available at this time. Seems like the best course of action is to not use government transportation as this is the mechanism that will allow the government to control people.
Po'Boy

Nov 26, 2005

Steve and Joe above seem to think there’s a federal law that requires people to show ID when entering a federal facility. Show me that law, guys. There is no such law. The regulations they listed on Deb Davis’s citations (at http://papersplease.org/davis/legal.html are regs that say federal buildings HAVE TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC during ordinary weekdays. The public includes everybody, not just those who have an ID or who choose to show one. Again, show me a law that says you have to show ID on entering a federal building. If you can’t find one, would you think differently about who’s in the wrong here? Or is your mind already made up?
Joe

Nov 26, 2005

Ah, a show-me guy, eh? OK, try this:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/julqtr/pdf/41cfr102-74.375.pdf

Please don’t rely on Davis’ website as your sole source. There is more spin there than a Maytag on rinse cycle.

These regulations have been on the books for years – think military bases, courthouses, even state and local facilities can require it, if they have an actual regulation. The difference between laws and regulations are sometimes misunderstood. Congress, and only Congress, enacts laws. Federal executive departments and administrative agencies write regulations to implement the authority of laws. Regulations (as well as Executive Orders and Proclamations) are ancillary or subordinate to laws but both laws and regulations are enforceable. The U.S. Code is the official compilation of codified laws by subject, the U.S. Statutes-at-Large is the official chronologic compilation of all laws, and the Code of Federal Regulations is the official compilation of regulations.

So, the real question is, did she violtae the regs? It loks like she violated two – failure to produce ID and failure to follow the directives of the federal personnel (See ‘signs & directives’ under the above link). Obviously, if she didn’t break laws or violate the regs (which are just as enforceable as laws – try violating OSHA regs or IRS regs and see what happens), then what happened is wrong. However, it seems pretty clear that she broke at least two regs. We’ll know more on 12/9 when she goes to court.

Care to try again, Po’ Boy?
Michael Hampton

Nov 26, 2005

All right, let’s clear this up now. Deborah Davis received two citations. One is for violation of 41 CFR 102-74.375(c), and the other is for violation of 41 CFR 102-74.385. We’ll take these two in order.

41 CFR 102-74.375(c) states that all people entering Federal property when it is closed to the public must present identification upon request. Denver RTD’s route 100 detours around the Denver Federal Center when it is closed to the public, according to the route map.

This is an obvious and necessary part of security: when the place is closed, you don’t want anybody in there that shouldn’t be.

41 CFR 102-74.385 states that all people must comply with official signs and the “lawful direction of Federal police officers.”

Now, since it clearly states in the regulations that you only have to show ID to get in when it’s closed to the public, one can argue that the directions given by the police officers were not lawful, and thus, the case goes out the window.

Keep in mind that it’s the Feds who wanted to press this non-issue and turn it into a nightmare.

Now, someone is bound to come along and find — or more likely, make up — some other reason why everyone must show ID when entering the Denver Federal Center, and that’s fine. If you can, go for it. But remember, that whatever you can come up with, or make up, will not be what she was charged with.
Joe

Nov 26, 2005

OK, but what about this: “Ensure, when property or a portion thereof is closed to the public, that admission to the property, or the affected portion, is restricted 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. Failure to comply with any of the applicable provisions is a violation of these regulations.”

It is my understanding that “a portion” (several, actually) of the federal center is never open to the public. It’s a fine line, but if I am correct, it appears that they have the option of requiring ID for entrance to the entire facility OR just the section that is closed to the public. This may be a key point in the Feds’ case.

I agree that the Feds made way to big of a deal about this, but so did Davis. Whether or not the ID request is reasonable and/or legal, she deliberately chose to pick a fight and she got one. If the court determines she didn’t break any regs, she wins and they change the rules.

I have a question – do you know if pedestrians are asked to show ID before entering the center? I see that they ask drivers to show a valid license, just wondering how they deal with foot traffic.
Fatboy

Nov 26, 2005

You parsed that in correctly.

Ensure, when (property) or (a portion thereof) is closed to the public, that admission to the property, or the affected portion, is restricted 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. Failure to comply with any of the applicable provisions is a violation of these regulations.

Also, note the regulation also states what is required to “close” government property. The government may very well not have a case.

I don’t think Davis made too much a big deal out of this. There is no reason to show an officer of the law your ID unless you are under arrest. If you have done nothing wrong, are not suspected of doing anything wrong, then who you are is none of their business.
Winterknight

Nov 27, 2005

Surely, the easiest way around this problem of public transport passing through Federal property, is to say that the internally the bus is public territory and ID may be required if you leave the bus. Ensure that the bus only allows people to disembark at designated places, and place the security personnel at these designated places.
Joe

Nov 27, 2005

I’m going to take a guess and say that the Feds will use the current ‘condition yellow’ terror threat as justification for ID checks at federal facilities, based on a terror advisory issued in February of 2003. I’m pretty sure that there is legal precedent regarding the enforceability/legality of the homeland security ID requirement when entering a federal facility. If so, this may cause the “signs and directions” charge to stick as well. (see http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1130157956384 for precedent)

I/O – Per Davis’ own web site, she won’t actually be charged with anything until the arraignment:
“When Deb is arraigned in U.S. District Court on the 9th of December, she will most likely be charged with the following federal criminal misdemeanors: 41 CFR Â§ 102-74.375 (Admission to Property) and 41 CFR Â§ 102-74.385 (Conformity to Official Signs and Directions). “

Also, I’m still not sure if I’m misinterpreting the “portion closed to the public” thing or not. As I read it, if even a portion of the facility is closed to the public, they can ID anyone entering any part of the entire facility. Am I wrong here? The comment from Fatboy didn’t really make things clearer for me.

Again, I agree that if she didn’t violate the legally enforceable rules, regulations, laws or whatever, then she wins hands down. As always, I guess it comes down to exactly what she’s charged with and how the courts interpret it.
Michelle

Nov 27, 2005

As for the comment about foot traffic, the only way in or out is thru a guarded gate so anyone walking/riding/joggin into the fed center is ID’d.

There are signs all over the place that simply state, Valid ID required for entry. This is for everyone, and though they don’t check it to a database, they do make sure that the ID is not expired and that the picture matches your face.

As for the ID being needed only if you leave the bus, then we would be dealing with a bus driver who has no right to enforce the laws telling someone they can’t get off the bus with out an ID. It doesn’t seem to make any sense to have the bus driver check ID’s when people get off a bus, and anyway what do we think Davis would have done in that situation if she obviously doesn’t respect police officers why is she going to give a damn about a bus driver?

I think that Davis took up more peoples time then she had any right to. Think of all the other riders who were late to work because she wouldn’t show an ID. I would like to hear from those people.
Fatboy

Nov 27, 2005

There is no reason to read beyond the first set of conditions. Seeing as how she in no way attempted to enter the property. She never left her seat.

Function (Ensure) { While (((property) || (a portion thereof)) && (is closed to the public)) { return(checkid); } }
Joe

Nov 27, 2005

Well, now you’re splitting hairs over a technicality. Are you saying that if someone drives their car into the center and never leaves their seat, then they are not on the property? Why would that be different from being on a bus? You can’t be serious. I’ve also seen a few folks on other sites say that she was on a “public thoroughfare” at the time of her arrest. I can’t say for sure, but I bet that at the point at which the bus was stopped (the gate), the bus was already on federal property. It just wasn’t allowed to continue past that point. The gate itself is definitely on federal property.

Either way, the point you raise is a red herring. If her physical person crosses over the property line, she’s on the property, whether she’s on a bus, in a car, on foot, on a pogo stick or on piggyback. By refusing to leave the bus, she was definitely attempting to enter the property. “She never left her seat” is irrelevant. I’d be hard pressed to believe that even Davis or her supporters would attempt to use that argument in her defense. The real points here (IMO) are: 1) does the center have the right to refuse entry to persons who do not have, or refuse to show, ID? 2) is the request to show ID a ‘search’, and if so, is it reasonable?; 3) if the ID requirement is NOT legal and/or it IS an unreasonable search, then will the charge of refusing to follow the directions of the security/police still be enforceable? A 4th and 5th question might be that even if the center can legally require ID, does their failure to evenly enforce the rule (e.g., by allowing people without ID who are not getting off of the bus to proceed) invalidate it? Does failure to cross check it against a watch list invalidate it? But those questions become moot if the ID check is ruled invalid.

Keep in mind that it appears that Davis purposely set out to commit civil disobedience in order to have these questions answered. If you don’t understand this basic fact of the case, then you’ve completely missed the point that Davis herself is trying to prove. She WANTS the case to proceed in order to have those questions answered. Arguing that she wasn’t on the property defeats the purpose of her civil disobedience and makes all of the hardship she’s had to (and will continue to) endure purposeless.
Fatboy

Nov 28, 2005

Well, now youâ€™re splitting hairs over a technicality.

Why yes, yes I am. The law is a very technical thing.

Are you saying that if someone drives their car into the center and never leaves their seat, then they are not on the property?

No, I was saying that she was driven on to the property while riding public transportation. In many jusiditions, vehicles are considered part of the domisile of the owner. In this case, that would be public property.

does the center have the right to refuse entry to persons who do not have, or refuse to show, ID?

Not while they are on the bus, passing through.

Is the request to show ID a â€™searchâ€™, and if so, is it reasonable?

Without probable cause, what purpose does this ID check serve? It sounds unreasonable to me.

If the ID requirement is NOT legal and/or it IS an unreasonable search, then will the charge of refusing to follow the directions of the security/police still be enforceable?

No, because it was not a lawful order.

That makes as much sense as prosecuting someone who appears to have lied about a non-crime before a grand jury. Then again, that kind of liberal crap is in-vouge these days.
Joe

Nov 28, 2005

Well, now youâ€™re splitting hairs over a technicality.

Why yes, yes I am. The law is a very technical thing.

I have more to sy on this, which I’ll post later. Believe me, I understand technicalities.

Are you saying that if someone drives their car into the center and never leaves their seat, then they are not on the property?

No, I was saying that she was driven on to the property while riding public transportation. In many jusiditions, vehicles are considered part of the domisile of the owner. In this case, that would be public property.

1) Give me a real life example; 2) Your argument makes no sense. Think it through – under your theory, my car would be my domicile and therefore I’d be on private property. 3) what happens if I’m on bus or in a car that travels across state lines, from PA to NJ for example. Under your theory, am I in NJ, PA or still in my domicile or on public property? 4) This case will be heard in Federal court. Why, because she was on Federal property at the time. If she wasn’t the local police would have jurisdiction. 5) Iâ€™ve never been to the DFC, but based on similar facilities I have been on, combined with the facility map and the Route 100 map, Iâ€™d say she was clearly stopped at a gate which in on the DFC property. The bus appears to use gates one & four, which are clearly set back from the public thoroughfare and on the DFC grounds. 6) Continuing to make a point of this only shows that you’ve mssed the whole point of Davis’ case. You think you’ve made a point, which you haven’t, but it’s still a red herring issue.

does the center have the right to refuse entry to persons who do not have, or refuse to show, ID?

Not while they are on the bus, passing through.

I’m still not clear on the whole bus thing. Why does being on the bus trump everything else? Is the bus some kind of special, law enforcement free zone? Is it because the bus is public property, so when I’m on public property I can do whatever I want. You need some facts here, Fatboy, ‘ole buddy. Just saying “I think it is” just doesn’t cut it.

Is the request to show ID a â€™searchâ€™, and if so, is it reasonable?

Without probable cause, what purpose does this ID check serve? It sounds unreasonable to me.

Ah, unreasonable to you. I’ll be posting what the Federal and Colorado Supreme courts have ruled in similar cases, including links to the opinons of the courts. But that won’t be until tomorrow night, as I am just too tired right now. Suffice it to say though that simply asking for ID under these circumstances has been ruled not to be a search.

If the ID requirement is NOT legal and/or it IS an unreasonable search, then will the charge of refusing to follow the directions of the security/police still be enforceable?

No, because it was not a lawful order.
The courts say otherwise. Stand by until tomorrow night.

That makes as much sense as prosecuting someone who appears to have lied about a non-crime before a grand jury. Then again, that kind of liberal crap is in-vouge these days.
Non-sequitur.
Joe

Nov 28, 2005

Part II

Davis claims on the Legal Case page on her site that the case is about one thing: the right to travel. Lets go here next:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200403/msg00226.html. html

John Gilmore is like Davis but far more amped up he is a political activist who, like Davis, brought his case before a federal judge in order to test the legality of the requirement. Key points:

* Plaintiff John Gilmore is suing the United States and Southwest Airlines for refusing to allow him to board an airplane on July 4, 2002 without either displaying a government-issued identification or consenting to a search. Plaintiff alleges that these security requirements imposed by the United States government and effected by the airline companies violate several of his constitutional rights, including his rights under the First and Fourth Amendments.
* Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that as a result of the requirement that passengers traveling on planes show identification and his unwillingness to comply with this requirement, he has been unable to travel by air since September 11, 2001. (Sound familiar? Davis says that she hasnt ridden public transportation since her arrest)
* Plaintiff’s complaint asserts causes of action challenging the apparent government policy that requires travelers either to show identification or to consent to a search which involves wanding, walking through a magnetometer or a light pat-down. Whether this is actually the government’s policy is unclear, as the policy, if it exists, is unpublished. However, this Court for the purpose of evaluating plaintiff’s complaint, assumes such a policy does exist, and reviews plaintiff’s complaint accordingly. (So, like the previous case, even though there is no published policy, the court says that since there is a de facto policy he will treat it as a de jure policy)
* Violation of the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. In plaintiffs’ case, he was not required to provide identification on pain of criminal or other governmental sanction. Identification requests unaccompanied by detention, arrest, or any other penalty, other than the significant inconvenience of being unable to fly, do not amount to a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiff has not suggested that he felt that he was not free to leave when he was asked to produce identification. None of the facts submitted by plaintiff suggests that the request for identification implicated plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim that the identification requirement is unreasonable does not raise a legal dispute that this Court must decide.

(Change significant inconvenience of being unable to fly to significant inconvenience of being unable to enter the DFC and youve got the same legal principle as the Davis case. Those you have argued that she was arrested for not showing ID are incorrect. She was NOT arrested after she failed to show her ID, she was free to go at that point and even more importantly, she WAS ASKED TO LEAVE! It was only when she failed to leave that she was arrested.)

* Violation of the right to travel protected by the Due Process Clause. Plaintiff’s allegation that his right to travel has been violated is insufficient as a matter of law because the Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation.
Joe

Nov 28, 2005

Part I

OK, where to start. There have been so many side issues discussed here. Im going to start with a few assumptions about the case and then try to justify those assumptions. Ill also address the side issues, which are mostly red herrings distractions from the real issues which are not germane to THIS case.

The real points here (IMO) are: 1) does the center have the right to refuse entry to persons who do not have, or refuse to show, ID? 2) is the request to show ID a search, and if so, is it reasonable?; 3) if the ID requirement is NOT legal and/or it IS an unreasonable search, then will the charge of refusing to follow the directions of the security/police still be enforceable? A 4th, 5th and 6th question might be that even if the center can legally require ID, does their failure to evenly enforce the rule (e.g., by allowing people without ID who are not getting off of the bus to proceed) invalidate it? Does failure to cross check it against a watch list invalidate it? Does the fact the an ID does nothing to enhance security (at least in Davis and her supporters thinking) invalidate the ID check? But those questions become moot if the ID check is ruled invalid.

Keep in mind that it appears that Davis purposely set out to commit civil disobedience in order to have these questions answered. If you dont understand this basic fact of the case, then youve completely missed the point that Davis herself is trying to prove. She WANTS the case to proceed in order to have those questions answered. Arguing that she wasnt on the property (Im pretty sure she was), that the bus route shouldnt take it across the property (I believe that it should), that she wasnt trying to enter the property (Im convinced that she was) or that saying that by being on the bus with no intention of leaving while it is on the property negates the ID check all defeat the purpose of her civil disobedience and makes all of the hardship shes had to (and will continue to) endure purposeless. Ill state my evidence to support my beliefs later, lets just say for now that she either was already on federal property and/or that by refusing to leave the bus before it went through the gate, she was attempting to enter Federal property. Id be hard pressed to believe that even Davis or her supporters would attempt to use any of those arguments in her defense as they only serve to nullify her deliberate efforts to force this issue into a courtroom. Davis and her team really want questions 1-3 answered first, and failing success with those, they would then try to make a case for questions 4-6.

Lets take my Q.1 – Does the center have the right to refuse entry to persons who do not have, or refuse to show, ID? Several folks have said show me the law that says they can ask for ID! Actually, a better question might be show me a law that says they cant. There is no such law. If you think about it, most laws tell you want you cant do, not what you can do. I can walk down the sidewalk, but I cant walk down the sidewalk naked. However, if the cops came up with a rule that said you can walk down the sidewalk, but you have to show your ID or be subject to arrest, well then there would be issue. In court Id say that they were violating my right to free travel and my right against unreasonable search & seizure. And barring any extremely unusual circumstances, Id prevail and you me & the Constitution are all winners. Yeah!

Now, lets look at the Davis case. Is there legal precedent? I believe there is. Look at this case, which like the Davis case will fall under Federal jurisdiction:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1130157956384

The key points from this case in relation to Davis are:

* In United States v. Smith, 03-1588, Wendell Smith claimed that his First and Sixth amendment public trial rights in a proceeding before Judge Charles Siragusa were violated by a requirement that all visitors to a federal building containing courtrooms were required to show photo identification.

* The requirement at the Kenneth B. Keating Federal Building Complex in Rochester, N.Y., which has courtrooms and other non-judicial government facilities, was imposed during a period of heightened security concerns by the Department of Homeland Security.

* Siragusa took testimony from Marshal Peter Lawrence, who said the photo identification policy was actually put into effect after Sept.11, 2001 — and the policy dictated that photo IDs were required when the federal government raised the terror alert level to three (yellow) or four (orange.)

* Because the yellow alert was in place (like there is now) during Smith’s trial, the marshal said, all visitors where required to show ID and sign-in before entering the building.

* Siragusa denied the motion for a mistrial, finding the policy was a matter of “common sense,” it was not applied in a discriminatory manner, and, where the court itself did not restrict trial access, the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was not implicated.

* On the appeal, Parker said the policy passed muster under the U.S. Supreme Court’s analysis for public trial access in Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984).

So, a federal Judge has said that this particular ID request is legal, makes common sense and is non-discriminatory, even though there is no published regulation. But wait, you say theres no bus involved here. OK, Im getting there, but the principle of law is still valid even though denying entry to a federal building when no ID is presented isnt a published law, the ID request was not illegal and no Constitutional rights were violated.
Joe

Nov 28, 2005

Part III

But wait, you say. Davis was already a passenger on the bus. Asking for her ID was a search, and an unreasonable one at that, especially given the fact that the ID wasnt checked against a watch list or a no-ride list. This is where things get very interesting, in that the argument actually works to weaken Davis case, not strengthen it. Look here and well see how the courts in Colorado have ruled in similar circumstances:
http://www.csp.state.co.us/academy/ar202.htm

Key points:

* May a police officer request a passenger in a lawfully stopped motor vehicle to provide identification, and if he does so request, may the passenger refuse or ignore the request? If identification is provided, may the officer retain the identification while he determines whether there are any outstanding warrants?

* A police officer stopped a motorist one evening. The officer requested and received the driver’s license, registration and proof of insurance. He also asked for and received identification from the passenger, Derek Lavan Jackson. The officer did not suspect Jackson of a crime, nor did he consider Jackson a threat. Having received the identification of both driver and passenger, the officer told them to “hang tight in the car. I’ll be back with you in a minute”. The officer returned to his patrol vehicle and conducted a “routine clearance” check to determine whether the motorist’s license was valid and whether there were any outstanding warrants for either person. The officer found there were three outstanding traffic warrants for Jackson, so the officer arrested him.

* The Colorado Supreme Court held: 1. Police officers do not violate the 4th amendment by merely asking to see identification and travel documents and simply posing questions to a citizen. The fact that Jackson was a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation does not change this conclusion. The officer’s request of Jackson for identification merely initiated a consensual encounter for which no suspicion is required, and which request Jackson was free to either ignore or decline.

and 2. However, when the officer retained Jackson’s identification and instructed him to “remain in the car” while running the identification for warrants, what began as a consensual encounter escalated into an investigatory stop which needed a reasonable suspicion to justify it. Because the officer did not have any reasonable suspicion, ordering Jackson to stay in the car while retaining his identification was a violation of his 4th amendment rights.

* The court’s holding, therefore, teaches us that:
1. A police officer may ask passenger(s) in a vehicle stopped for a traffic offense for identification. The passenger may properly comply or refuse to comply with the request.
2. The officer may not, however, retain the identification to check for warrants or for any other lawful purpose , unless he has at least a reasonable suspicion that the passenger is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime.

So, as in the Gilmore case, merely asking for the ID in the Davis case was not a search. However, if the security guard at DFC had used that ID to check Davis against some kind of database or watch list, he would then be conducting an investigation without reasonable suspicion, which very likely would have violated her 4th amendment rights.
Joe

Nov 28, 2005

Part IV (FYI- some of the ‘red herring’ quotes are from other blogs I’ve visited)

I think that the courts have spoken clearly with regard to my first two questions. Lets look at Q3. “If the ID requirement is NOT legal and/or it IS an unreasonable search, then will the charge of refusing to follow the directions of the security/police still be enforceable?”

This one is questionable & I havent had the time to really dig in on it. However, I believe that based on the precedent Ive cited, the ID requirement is legal and the request for ID was not an unreasonable search. Keep in mind that under citations she was issued, the US Code could easily be interpreted as authorizing the ID check, but with or without it, if the Govt prevails on 1 & 2, 3 is a foregone conclusion.

If so, then Q. 4-6 come into play. “Q. 4 even if the center can legally require ID, does their failure to evenly enforce the rule (e.g., by allowing people without ID who are not getting off of the bus to proceed) invalidate it?” I think Davis may actually have a decent argument here the rule is not important because (she alleges) enforcement is somewhat lackadaisical. So lets say that they invalidate the Davis ID check under this premise. Q 1 & Q2 are now dead issues and that MAY mean the Q3 is out too, since the request to leave the bus MAY be ruled as not being a legal order. Looks like victory for Davis and her team, yes? But I say, no, this will only serve to exacerbate the conditions that Davis is fighting against. Imagine Davis wins on this premise – what do you think will happen the next day? That guard who let people on the grounds without ID who said they werent getting off of the bus gets fired. And from that day forward, NO ONE gets on the grounds without a photo ID – NO EXCEPTIONS. Why? Because they need to uniformly enforce the rule to make it pass legal muster. You surely dont think they’re just going to roll over and say bye-bye to the ID rule, do you? Net result: bad situation now made worse. Be careful what you wish for.

Q5 – Does failure to cross check it against a watch list invalidate it? As the court has said, no. However, checking it against a list does violate the 4th Amendment. A swing and miss.., next batter!

Q.6 – Does the fact that an ID check does nothing to enhance security (at least in Davis and her supporters thinking) invalidate the ID check? Maybe, but not likely in my opinion. I think the Feds could make a stronger case that it does vs what Ive seen so far from team Davis. Whatever arguments Davis may make on this, I dont think they will be strong enough to invalidate a process that the courts have already said is acceptable under threat levels yellow & orange. Just ain’t gonna happen.

Now, the red herrings. Remember, these are interesting issues to debate, but theyre either speculation, erroneous, or not germane to the Davis case.

“She was on a public thoroughfare.” I seriously doubt it, for several reasons. Ive never been to the DFC, but based on similar facilities I have been on, combined with the facility map and the Route 100 map, Id say she was. The bus appears to use gates one & four, which are clearly set back from the public thoroughfare and on the DFC.

“She wasn’t entering, she was just going around/passing through.” “She wasnt planning to exit the bus.”
Im still not clear on the whole bus thing. Why does being on the bus trump everything else? Is the bus some kind of special, law enforcement free zone? Is it because the bus is public property, so when Im on public property I can do whatever I want? Is there a force field of some kind around the bus? Im just not getting it.

“Where’s the limit? Do they own the airspace? Can you not fly a plane 100′ over a Federal agency?” “What about the post office? What about federal Parks?”
Its a question of reasonableness. Because these are reasonable (not to mention somewhat enforceable), there is no public outcry. There currently IS a no fly-over rule for some federal buildings: the White House for sure and maybe the Pentagon too. If no-fly zones were to become unreasonable, there would be public outcry and it wouldn’t be allowed. Ditto for the Post office & Public Parks.

“The Denver Federal Center is not a high security area: it’s not Area 51 or NORAD.”
Neither was the Murrah Federal Building, but I sure do wish that there had been better security in place there.

“Changing the bus route would be an excellent idea.” I dont think so at all.

“DON’T ROUTE A PUBLIC BUS INTO A PLACE WHERE YOU HAVE TO SHOW YOUR CREDENTIALS. PERIOD.”
I say, why not? The DFC employs well over 6,000 public and private employees and they deserve the right to have access to public transportation. This is the reason why the bus goes through the base during business hours and stops after business hours its a convenience and a service that the City of Denver provides to those people. Why would you want to take that service away from them? If you take the bus away, they have to walk from their offices to the perimeter to get a bus. The people who work there all would still have to show ID to enter the base, whether they are on foot, car or bus. These people understand the rules of the facility and abide by them and none of them (AFAIK) have protested the ID requirement. I bet most of feel more secure because of it. Davis is the intruder into their world, not vice-versa. The people working in the park are likely the majority of the bus riders during business hours. And, What if it were a military base? What if it were an office park on private property that required ID? Why would you deny those folks access to a public facility?

“She didnt intend to get off of the bus.” This is a real non-issue. Whatever her intention might have bee, once she entered DFC property she was subject to their rules. The Magic Bus Rule that so many people think comes into play well, it doesnt. If they told her No shirt, no shoes, no service, shed have to abide by that too.

“You see the slippery slope, of course.”
No, absolutely not. Cases like this come before the courts for that very reason. Even the courts dont always get it right, which is why there are appeals courts and the Supreme Court. Davis is right to fight for what she thinks is right. The ACLU is likely on board as well not because they think Davis is some kind of Rosa Parks type hero, but because they are looking for a test case. They are watchdogs, and pretty darn good ones. I just dont think Davis and the ACLU are going to fare well, given the precedents that Ive pointed out.

Let me know if Ive missed any red herrings that still need addressing.
Steve

Nov 29, 2005

While Joe does lots of analysis, he quickly glosses over the issue of whether the bus is on a public roadway. The bus isn’t the issue — the road is.

“Im still not clear on the whole bus thing. Why does being on the bus trump everything else? Is the bus some kind of special, law enforcement free zone? Is it because the bus is public property, so when Im on public property I can do whatever I want? Is there a force field of some kind around the bus? Im just not getting it.”

At least he’s honest about not getting it.

The question is whether the roadway is federal property or public property. There is a difference.

I have a friend who is the traffic supervisor at a private university. They have to close the campus roads every three years and roadblock all entrances to campus. During that 24 hour period, you have to show ID and explain your need to be on campus in order to drive on the campus roadways. That state’s law says that if the roads are open to the public continuously for a certain period of time then those roads become public roadways and the university loses all control over them.

From this, it is reasonable to conclude that there is a significant distinction between public and private roads. If the road is a public road, the federal guards have no right demanding ID for travel (whether on a bus, car, or other mode of travel) on a public road. If it is a private road, the city needs to provide a _reasonable_ alternative route that doesn’t go through the middle of private property. They shouldn’t cancel service to the federal facility, but they also shouldn’t require passengers to travel through the federal facility.

I know someone who has a permanent ban from another university campus. If he’s on campus, campus police detain him and the city police arrest him for trespass. In theory, he can be detained and arrested for driving through campus. There is a bus route that goes through campus. Would it be reasonable for him to be arrested if he rode the bus through campus (from his home to his workplace) and did not get off?

The federal government has a large (85% of the size of Rhode Island) laboratory in the middle of Idaho. If someone on a terrorist watch list decides to go whitewater rafting on one of a couple of Idaho rivers, he almost has to drive on one of the US highways that runs through the middle of the site. While I can understand the potential cause for concern, there is no reasonable basis to deny him passage on a public roadway through the middle of a restricted area so long as he doesn’t leave the roadway.

I agree it’s splitting hairs, but splitting hairs is how the line gets moved. If I’m required to show ID to ride a bus through the middle of the Denver Federal Center without getting off, then it must be reasonable for me to be required to show ID when driving through INL on a US highway. After all, travel on US 26 puts me less than one mile from a restricted facility.

From there, it’s just a matter of degrees. Everyone going from Idaho Falls to Arco will now be required to show ID since you’ll be driving through the middle of the site. Perhaps any travel on US 26 should be restricted to those with proper ID. The people who live along US 26 could get some kind of special pass. Where do you want to stop?
Joe

Nov 29, 2005

Steve,

Oops, I mssed this one: “From this, it is reasonable to conclude that there is a significant distinction between public and private roads. If the road is a public road, the federal guards have no right demanding ID for travel (whether on a bus, car, or other mode of travel) on a public road. If it is a private road, the city needs to provide a _reasonable_ alternative route that doesnâ€™t go through the middle of private property. They shouldnâ€™t cancel service to the federal facility, but they also shouldnâ€™t require passengers to travel through the federal facility.”

Now that you’ve proven my point that the road is “private”, there are a few items in this statement that I can speak to:

1) Do you know for sure that there is no other bus route to get from Davis starting point to her ending point? I bet there is. It may involve switching buses, but many travel routes require that anyway. The city has no obligation to provide a single route that goes from every possible starting point to every possible destination. It may involve a longer commute time, but so what? Again, not the city’s responsibility to provide the shortest possible route.

2) And why can’t a bus route go through private property? As long as the property owner grants the bus a right of way, so what? (BTW, this is common where I live, and I bet it happens in Denver as well. There are several bus routes that go onto private property, such as shopping malls. There is even an active trolley line nearby that cuts through a cemetery! http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_bos001.htm

3) What qualifies as a reasonable route? This is strictly a judgment call.

4) They shouldnâ€™t cancel service to the federal facility I so completely agree that service into the facility should not be canceled. Think of the thousands of people who work in the park that would be inconvenienced.

5) but they also shouldnâ€™t require passengers to travel through the federal facility
Nobody is requiring anyone to travel into (or through, if you want to continue to split those hairs that you think are so important) the DFC. However, those who chose that route because it is the most convenient must also agree to the rules of the private property oweners who grant the bus (and therefore the passengers) the right of way onto their propery.

I’d say you’re still batting a thousand, bucko.

— Joe D. —
Joe

Nov 29, 2005

Steve,

What “I don’t get” is why someone can cling to this idea of jurisdiction being a point in this case. Clearly it’s not, and your posting actually proves my point (see more, below). If you think I glossed over the public roadway issue, read my posting labeled #30. The line is clearly defined, and I want to stop at that line. The line is perimiter of the DFC – the property line. Any road that doesn’t cross that border (or the border of any other gated, secure Federal facility is public property) is where I would draw the line. Simple, clear concept, but then you added mud – what about a US highway that passes within a mile of the Idaho lab? You mention “he almost has to drive on one of the US highways that runs through the middle of the site”. Almost doesn’t count. If any roadway, federal, state, city or town, runs through a secure federal facility, jurisdiction falls to the Feds at that point. They can choose to ID or not. If a US highway actually DOES run through a secure, gated facility (serious question – is there really one that does?), chances are the Feds, thinking in terms of being both reasonableness and enforceability, would choose NOT to ID all vehicles passing through? Why? because they would be resonably confident that thos vehicles have no way to leave the highway unless they take an exit. That is where the ID check would be performed. The DFC is different, because there is no exit option. Once you’re in, you’re in.

I agree itâ€™s splitting hairs, but splitting hairs is how the line gets moved. If Iâ€™m required to show ID to ride a bus through the middle of the Denver Federal Center without getting off, then it must be reasonable for me to be required to show ID when driving through INL on a US highway. After all, travel on US 26 puts me less than one mile from a restricted facility.

This doesn’t make any sense at all. How does a highway a mile away equate to being on Federal property? Please tell me you’re not trying to say that US highways are federal property? While your logic isn’t too good most of the time, you do seem brighter than that, but maybe now. I’ve seen this argument on other web sites and it is another red herring and also dead wrong. If you think US highways are fed property, you haven’t thought it through. US highways are called US highways because they are interstates – designated routes that travel from state-to-state. They are NOT Federal property. They are state property and under state jurisdiction. The roads are patroled by state police and maintained by the state, not the Feds.

That stateâ€™s law says that if the roads are open to the public continuously for a certain period of time then those roads become public roadways and the university loses all control over them.

Good example, but not valid here. The DFC roads are closed to public every night, which is why the bus goes around at night. I would actually argue that although the “public is welcome” during business hours, the DFC roads meet the same criteria for being closed that you used in your campus example – that is, it has a roadblock at all entrances and people need to show ID before they are admitted to the DFC. Your example only proves my point – the roads are on federal property and more importantly, under federal jurisdiction. Thanks for the help on that one.

You said “The bus isnâ€™t the issue â€” the road is.”The question you raise, whether the road is public road or not isn’t an issue in this case. The roadway is just asphalt. The issue issue is really who has jurisdiction. For the Davis, the Feds had jurisdiction.

This also voids the “bus is private property” argument, which is the other thing I don’t get. That argument also fails becasue people are confusing “property” with “real property” ,which the legal term for real estate (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q013.htm). Real property is land and all the things that are attached to it. Anything that is not real property is personal property and personal property is anything that isn’t nailed down, dug into or built onto the land. A house is real property, but a dining room set is not. A bus is not real property.

Steve, you pretty much missed on all points except one. But the one you were right about actually proved my point, not yours. Well played, old chum, well played.
D Beauregard

Nov 29, 2005

If any Federal facility has bus routes through their territory, and they are concerned about security(always their own of course),then they should inform each person riding through that territory whether ID checks are mandatory and by what authority. It should be clearly posted so that each and every passenger is well aware of what legal duty is expected of them. If there is no such authority, then the bus should be re-routed around the facility, or only required of passengers exiting the bus. I am not buying the “show-me-ze-papers please” crowd who thinks they(police of any stripe) are only doing their jobs. The whole process is nothing more than conditioning so that we all get used to it….just like the good little citizens of what was once known as Nazi Germany!
Joe

Nov 29, 2005

Ah, the “Nazi” card is finally played in this thread! Bravo! Here we go, down the slippery slope, yes? Hold on kids, we’re all going to be fascists now! Thank God that Davis is there to protect us!

Hey Fatboy, if you’re still out there, will you parse this for me: Explain to me how this premise: “If any Federal facility has bus routes through their territory, and they are concerned about security” leads to this conclusion: “then they should inform each person riding through that territory whether ID checks are mandatory and by what authority.? How does informing the people about the ID check enhance the security? Anyone visiting the base would or should know this. Informing the riders would be strictly a courtesy to the riders. And we’ve already seen, per Davis’ statements, that if a rider DOESN’T have an ID and isn’t getting off at the DFC, then they are allowed to pass through. Or am I still parsing incorrectly?

Again: do we know for a fact that there is no posting on the bus or that the driver makes no announcements? No. Do we know for a fact that there ARE visible postings about the ID requirement at the entrance to the DFC? Yes. And that anyone who crosses through the gate by any means must show ID? Yes. Is it practical and/or reasonable to only ID those people getting off of the bus on DFC grounds? Doubtful. Do we know for a fact that Davis was well aware of the requirement on the day in question? Yes. So is this a germane issue in the DAVIS case? No.

This “issue” is just another distraction. Per Davis’ own web site, it looks like the ACLU is going to fight this case as a freedom of travel issue, not on the legality of the ID check or on having “prior notice.” These things have been raised on the Davis site for one reason: to incite the knee-jerk (over) reaction among the general population. So in that regard, Davis has been quite successful. The sheep are lapping it up. Based on the Gilmore case, the courts have already spoken on this issue, so while she wins the case for riling the public outcry, her chances with the courts are: Doubtful
Fatboy

Nov 29, 2005

Joe,
You make the accretion that this situation is manufactured and is therefore, somehow, “bogus”. Do you think it would be better if she just continued to lie to the security guard and tell him she did not have an ID? I think this argument is genuine. There is no public good servered by IDing passengers on public transportation.

Way back up the thread you wanted to know if a passenger can be IDed in a car. No, without probable cause, they can’t. Anything you logically build upon the idea that they can, is a non sequitur.
Fatboy

Nov 29, 2005

How does informing the people about the ID check enhance the security?
When I read that, all I could think was “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

The ability to travel without papers inside your own city, I would hope, is an essential liberty.

Hell, just look at what they are attempting to do in Miami.

Don’t get me wrong, when it comes to dealing with terrorists, I say grab them and send ‘em off to Gitmo. However, there is no need to ID citizens moving about their own city.
Fatboy

Nov 29, 2005

* The courtâ€™s holding, therefore, teaches us that:
1. A police officer may ask passenger(s) in a vehicle stopped for a traffic offense for identification. The passenger may properly comply or refuse to comply with the request.

Gee, thanks for making my point. She refused to comply and was arrested.

Anything else you posted appears to have a larger agenda than *this issue*.
Joe

Nov 29, 2005

Joe,
You make the accretion that this situation is manufactured and is therefore, somehow, â€œbogusâ€?.

Let me clarify what I said, or intended to say. What I think is this: Davis set out with deliberate intent to commit civil disobedience as a way to test the legality of the ID check and the perceived infringement of her right to free travel. This is her right (and maybe even her moral duty) if she feels her civil liberties/constitutional rights are being trampled on. I just don’t think she has a winnable case. I don’t think any law was broken and I don’t think her rights were violated. I think she and her supporters are fighting a losing cause. I think that the media and people in general have been caught up in the one-sided perspective presented on her site. I think that she deliberately loaded it with innuendo and ‘side issues’ that distract people from the real issues that court will rule on: was a crime committed (by either Davis or the DFC) and/or were her Constitutional rights violated. Anything else, like “the next step is we’re all gonna be Nazis” is just speculation. The Gilmore ruling, which is quite similar, was deemed reasonable, legal, and it was ruled that his Constitutional rights (inluding the right to free travel) were NOT violated. I think (my opinion, of course) that the Davis case, because of the similarities, will result in a similar outcome.

Do you think it would be better if she just continued to lie to the security guard and tell him she did not have an ID?

No, I’ve never suggested that she do so. But it was an option that she availed herself of when it was convenient for her to do so.

I think this argument is genuine. There is no public good served by IDing passengers on public transportation.

Yes, I agree that there is not a lot of public good or enhancement of safety with the ID check, regardless if someone is on foot, in a car or on a bus. I do think it may add a very slight increase in safety for those people who work on the DFC grounds, but I agree that it’s minimal at best. So.really, not much impact from the ID check. But, like I keep saying, so what? It’s an interesting topic for you, me, Steve, and I/O to debate, but is it relevant to the Davis case? Based on the precedent I cited in the first two cases, I seriously don’t think so. But most people we’ve heard from on this and other blogs are using it as a rallying cry to defend Davis’ case and cast the DFC staff and the police as goons. Does the effectiveness (or lack of) of the ID check make Davis’ case stronger? Does it change the legality of the ID check? Or of any potential violation of the Constitution? I think the answer is no to all. How about not checking the ID against a watch list? Precedent has shown that asking for the ID and refusing entry for failure to produce it are legally sound. But precedent also shows that checking it against a watch list is a 4th amendment violation. But yet Davis’ site seems to make a case for the latter, illegal choice. Why? Because it gets people riled up for her cause and distracts them from thinking clearly about the legal and Constitutional issues, which ultimately are what the courts decide. Because they think something “isn’t fair” they think that it invalidates the case. Look back at how you & Steve have focused on these side issues in your debate with me. You never answer the real questions, you always go down the path that Davis’ team wants you to follow. When Davis loses the case, as I believe she ultimately will (though it will likely go all the way to the SJC), the folks who’ve never really considered the issues of law will scream bloody murder and blame it “liberal judges trying to legislate from the bench”, when nothing could be farther from the truth. But the talk show hosts and bloggers will have a field day with it, continuing to focus on the non-issues.

Again, I just don’t see how being on a bus changes any of this. An ID check pedestrians or autos is no more and no less effective and serves no more or less common good. The bus, like the jurisdiction issue, the rent-a-cop issue (all he did was stop the bus and call his boss), the “bus is private property” issue and the “she wasn’t trying to enter the facility issue” are all distractions from the real issue – what laws, if any were broken and what rights, if any, were violated. I think the ACLU is going to say that her Constitutional right to free travel is the big issue and I think that, based on Gilmore, they will lose.

Way back up the thread you wanted to know if a passenger can be IDed in a car. No, without probable cause, they canâ€™t.

I guess you didn’t really read what I wrote. What I said was, it is not illegal for a cop to ask a passenger for ID. I also said that the passenger can refuse the request. This is exactly what happened in the Davis case. What I also said was that as long as that person is free to go (like Davis was), the Constitution hasn’t been violated. This is not just my opinion, it is the ruling of the Federal and the Colorado Supreme Courts (and likely several other State courts as well.) However, the passenger cannot be arrested for failure to show ID unless there is probable cause to believe that have, or intend to, commit a crime. Do a google search for “Terry stop” and you’ll see what I mean. Or, just go back and read posting #33 a little more carefully.

BTW, it IS legal for a cop to ask you for your ID in a Walmart. It’s also just as legal for you to refuse to show it, unless, as you pointed out, they have reasonable suspicion that you have commited, or are about to commit, a crime. This is the basis for the “Terry stop” rule.

Anything you logically build upon the idea that they can, is a non sequitur.
Since this statement is built on a faulty premise, it is also incorrect.
Joe

Nov 30, 2005

* The courtâ€™s holding, therefore, teaches us that:
1. A police officer may ask passenger(s) in a vehicle stopped for a traffic offense for identification. The passenger may properly comply or refuse to comply with the request.

Gee, thanks for making my point. She refused to comply and was arrested.

No, no and no! Read the Gilmore case! Read the Davis website! Read my freaking posting! Not only was she told that she was free to go when she didn’t produce the ID, she was ordered off the bus! It was her failure to leave the bus (refusing the lawful order of the officer) that got her arrested. This is what she was cited for on the ticket they gave her! She was asked three times to leave the bus! This is the basis of the Gilmore ruling. As long as there was no threat of arrest directly related to the ID request, it’s legal! C’mon, man, you’re still buying into the propaganda on HER site! They are deperately trying to tie the arrest to the ID refusal, but the FACTS of the case show that she was free to go!
Joe

Nov 30, 2005

The courtâ€™s holding, therefore, teaches us that:
1. A police officer may ask passenger(s) in a vehicle stopped for a traffic offense for identification. The passenger may properly comply or refuse to comply with the request.

Gee, thanks for making my point. She refused to comply and was arrested.

No, no and no! You’re not reading the whole case. You didn’t read the Gilmore case. You clearly didn’t read (or just didn’t comprehend) my posting. She was asked three time to leave the bus. She was free to go. That is not an arrest. She was arrested (and cited for) for failure to follow the instructions of the Federal police by attempting to enter the DFC in violation of their legal request to require that ID be shown. This isn’t splitting hairs and isn’t even a fine line. She was clearly free to go until she attempted to enter the DFC by remaining on the bus. If she has left the bus there never would have been an arrest. Forcing the arrest was Davis’ goal, otherwise she doesn’t get to bring her case to court, which is what she wants. What is this so hard to understand???
Joe

Nov 30, 2005

oops, sorry for the double post – it didn’t look like the first one went through, so I tried again. My bad. I/O, please feel free to delete one or the other, but not both, please!

How does informing the people about the ID check enhance the security?
When I read that, all I could think was â€œThose who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.â€?

The ability to travel without papers inside your own city, I would hope, is an essential liberty.

Excellent quote, but THIS case is not about travel without papers in your own city. I really hope you don’t believe that. I’ve never said that. Anyone who is selling that point of view is selling snake oil.

Also, just because Franklin is a Founding Father does not mean anything that eminates from his jowls is the Truth. We give up little liberties almost daily for the sake of safety. Besides, what liberties, from a Constitutional perspective, were given up in the Davis case? None, I say.

Hell, just look at what they are attempting to do in Miami.

I haven’t looked at that story, but I will. I’m not sure how it will impact the Davis case.

Donâ€™t get me wrong, when it comes to dealing with terrorists, I say grab them and send â€˜em off to Gitmo. However, there is no need to ID citizens moving about their own city.

What about when anyone, terrorist or not, enters private property? Davis is free to go just about anywhere in the city, as long as she follows the rules of the property that she is on. Banks can deny you entrance if you wear sunglasses or a hood. “No shirt, no shoes, no service” is another example. “No pets allowed” is another” “ID required to enter this nightclub” is another.
Fatboy

Nov 30, 2005

I think the ACLU is going to say that her Constitutional right to free travel is the big issue and I think that, based on Gilmore, they will lose.

If you read the ruling, you know the court stated that it did not have jurisdiction to make a decision on the portion of the complaint regarding ID checks.

. Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action: violation of the Due Process Clause

Plaintiff alleges that the identification requirement is
“unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth Amendment because it is vague, being unpublished, and thus
provides no way for ordinary people or reviewing courts to conclusively
determine what is legal.” Complaint, P52. This claim directly attacks
the policy, regulation, order or directive requiring production of
identification at airports.

In this case, the federal defendants refuse to [*10] concede whether a
written order or directive requiring identification exists, or if it
does, who issued it or what it says. They contend, however, that to the
extent this action challenges an order issued by the TSA or the FAA, 49
U.S.C. ï¿½ 46110(a) vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Courts of Appeals
to decide the challenge.

…

Because this claim squarely attacks the orders or regulations issued by
the TSA and/or the FAA with respect to airport security, this Court does
not have jurisdiction to hear the challenge. As a corollary, without
having been provided a copy of this unpublished statute or regulation,
if it exists, the Court is unable to conduct any meaningful inquiry as
to the merits of plaintiff’s vagueness argument. This argument would
better be addressed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals or to the
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, both of which
have jurisdiction to review these matters.

I don’t see who the two cases are related. Gilmore was regarding (among other things) regulations about producing ID to purchase private transport. This is about producing ID *DURING* public transport.

I guess you didnâ€™t really read what I wrote. What I said was, it is not illegal for a cop to ask a passenger for ID.

I guess you don’t really understand what I said. You cannot be forced to produce your ID without probable cause.

She was asked three time to leave the bus. She was free to go.
If they would have left her alone, she would have left the property by simply sitting in her seat.

She was arrested (and cited for) for failure to follow the instructions of the Federal police by attempting to enter the DFC in violation of their legal request to require that ID be shown.
I had no idea the DFC was inside the bus and she attempted to enter it.

What about when anyone, terrorist or not, enters private property?

Ok, let’s just go with that mental masterbation. Say the bus passes through a private shopping mall. The mall security guard gets on and asks for ID. I tell Mr. Fife that that he may not see my ID. Mr. Fife calls Officer Taylor to board the bus. Officer Taylor asks for my ID and I refuse. Should I be arrested for refusing to follow Officer Taylor’s directives? I was not aggressive, I broke no law, I in no way obstructed justice. No, hell no.
Joe

Nov 30, 2005

I donâ€™t see who the two cases are related. Gilmore was regarding (among other things) regulations about producing ID to purchase private transport. This is about producing ID *DURING* public transport.

The legal principle is the same. Also, do you know for a fact that he was purchasing the ticket at the time of the incident? The case also mentions wanding, which happens after you purchase your ticket, so my guess is that this took place at at the gate. In order for Gilmore to make the guss that his travel rights were being suppressed, he’s had to have a ticket. If the airline refuses to sell him a ticket, he’d being suing the airline for not selling him a ticket.

I guess you didnâ€™t really read what I wrote. What I said was, it is not illegal for a cop to ask a passenger for ID.

I guess you donâ€™t really understand what I said. You cannot be forced to produce your ID without probable cause.

Again, she was not forced to show her ID. She always had the option to leave. This IS addressed in Gilmore: “In plaintiffs’ case, he was not required to provide identification on pain of criminal or other governmental sanction. Identification requests unaccompanied by detention, arrest, or any other penalty, other than the significant inconvenience of being unable to fly, do not amount to a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiff has not suggested that he felt that he was not free to leave when he was asked to produce identification. None of the facts submitted by plaintiff suggests that the request for identification implicated plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim that the identification requirement is unreasonable does not raise a legal dispute that this Court must decide.” Change “inconvenience of being unable to fly” to “inconvenience of being unable to ride the bus on DFC property” and the rulings are virtually identical.

She was asked three time to leave the bus. She was free to go.

If they would have left her alone, she would have left the property by simply sitting in her seat.

No, she would have continued to travel further into the property. regardless of that, she was not placed under arrest at that time or for not showing ID. She was arrested for not following the directives of the Federal Police officer.

She was arrested (and cited for) for failure to follow the instructions of the Federal police by attempting to enter the DFC in violation of their legal request to require that ID be shown.
I had no idea the DFC was inside the bus and she attempted to enter it.

You’re back to the jurisdiction argument again. The bus, which is not real property and therefore not “public property” in a real estate sense, was on DFC property and under fed jurisdiction. The ultimate proof of this is that Davis’ case will be heard in Federal court. If the judge rules that it’s nor under Fed jurisdiction and sends them to take their case to a different state court, I will admit that I am wrong about this. But that isn’t likely.

What about when anyone, terrorist or not, enters private property?

Ok, letâ€™s just go with that mental masterbation. Say the bus passes through a private shopping mall. The mall security guard gets on and asks for ID. I tell Mr. Fife that that he may not see my ID. Mr. Fife calls Officer Taylor to board the bus. Officer Taylor asks for my ID and I refuse. Should I be arrested for refusing to follow Officer Taylorâ€™s directives? I was not aggressive, I broke no law, I in no way obstructed justice. No, hell no.

Actually, there’s no need to continue, since it’s pure speculation and as such, not related to the Davis case. We both know the scenario you propose is both unreasonable and unenforceable. Also, there is no law on the books that says you must follow Mr Fife’s directions. However, there is a law on the books that says you must follow the direction of the security personnel when you are on DFC property. If she wasn’t on DFC property…. oh, wait, that’s the jurisdiction argument again.

One more thing – since everyone takes what is said on the Davis site as gospel, where does it say that the security guard – the one who originally asked for her ID – is a ‘rent-a-cop?” She uses the term “security guard”, which could mean a few different things. He could have been a DFC or federal employee. Everyone seems to be operating under this assumption that he’s a rent-a-cop. Not that I think that him being a rent-a-cop in any way invalidates the Fed’s case, I just think it’s one more non-fact that has been assumed to be fact. But I agree with you, arguing that issue serves no point, as it really doesn’t affect the outcome in the Davis case. As I’ve said before, these side issues are all distractions from the real crux of what the courts will decide: what laws, if any, were broken and what Constitutional rights, if any, were violated. If you want to argue about Barney Fife, I’ll drop out and let you “win” that point.
Steve

Nov 30, 2005

> If a US highway actually DOES run through a secure, gated
> facility (serious question – is there really one that does?)

US 20 runs through the middle of INL. The highway itself isn’t gated, but if you get 15 feet off the roadway and cross the fence and ignore the no trespassing signs, you will find yourself on the wrong end of a gun barrel. If you turn off the highway onto one of the lab roads, you will have to cross a security checkpoint.

You could either argue that the lab is two disjoint piece of property on two sides of the highway or that there is an easement allowing public travel through the middle of the lab. Either one would be a reasonable description of the situation.

> 1) Do you know for sure that there is no other bus route
> to get from Davis starting point to her ending point? I bet
> there is. It may involve switching buses, but many travel
> routes require that anyway. The city has no obligation to
> provide a single route that goes from every possible starting
> point to every possible destination. It may involve a longer
> commute time, but so what?

I haven’t had time to play with a Denver bus map and schedule, so I don’t know what her alternatives are.

As long as the commute time isn’t unreasonably longer, the city has met the requirement to provide some sort of reasonable service that doesn’t require travel through DFC. If choosing not to travel through DFC means that your trip is five or ten minutes longer and you make a bus change along the way, that’s not unreasonable. If it is 60 minutes longer, that’s not a reasonable alternative to having to traverse the facility.

> 2) And why canâ€™t a bus route go through private property? As
> long as the property owner grants the bus a right of way, so
> what?

Nothing is wrong with having a bus route go through private property, except this property owner grants the bus a right of way to everyone on the bus who chooses to submit to an ID check. That is a condition that the city is imposing on the bus riders as a result of its agreement with the property owners and that’s the condition that many people don’t seem to want to submit to.

> 3) What qualifies as a reasonable route? This is strictly a judgment call.

Agreed. It’s entirely subjective.

> 4) They shouldnâ€™t cancel service to the federal facility I so
> completely agree that service into the facility should not be
> canceled. Think of the thousands of people who work in the park
> that would be inconvenienced.

I’ll go further and say that it is desirable that there be service to the facility. There is a measurable public benefit to having the service.

> Nobody is requiring anyone to travel into (or through, if you
> want to continue to split those hairs that you think are so
> important) the DFC. However, those who chose that route because
> it is the most convenient must also agree to the rules of the
> private property oweners who grant the bus (and therefore the
> passengers) the right of way onto their propery.

So long as those rules are reasonable. If the rules are reasonable, the city shouldn’t make those a condition of riding the bus.

I’ll agree that the DFC has the right to ask for ID when passengers travel through the facility. I think it would be reasonable for the city and the Feds to work out an arrangement that allows passengers to travel through without requiring ID. I don’t think the city should expect riders to be required to provide ID to ride that route unless there is a reasonable alternative.
Steve

Nov 30, 2005

Now come the edits:

Nothing is wrong with having a bus route go through private property, except this property owner grants the bus a right of way for those who choose to submit to an ID check.

Also,

If the rules are UNreasonable, the city shouldnâ€™t make those a condition of riding the bus.

It’s getting late….
Joe

Dec 01, 2005

Fatboy said If you read the ruling, you know the court stated that it did not have jurisdiction to make a decision on the portion of the complaint regarding ID checks.

Actually, I read the entire ruling, and read it a bit more carefully than you did. You’re close with your statement, but still slightly confused. Remember what you said earlier about the ‘law is a very technical thing’? Well, it looks like the Gilmore ruling was a little too technical for you to ‘parse’ correctly. Let me help you.

In Gilmore, the courts said they couldn’t pass judgment about the RULE requiring ID checks to board an airline, since no such rule could be produced. Plus, even if there were such a rule, they said they didn’t have jurisdiction (you remember our lessons on jurisdiction, yes?) to give a ruling on the rule itself.

However, in Gilmore, the court decided that they would proceed as if such a rule existed and in turn, rule on the legality of the ID check PROCESS itself. Do you get the difference? In other words, they DID make a judgment about the interaction of the airline staff and Gilmore, as he attempted to board the plane. When the airline requested that Gilmore present ID and then refused Gilmore entry to the flight, the court DID make a ruling on whether his rights were violated or not during THAT process. And of course, his rights were not violated. He exercised his legal choice to refuse to participate in the consensual exchange. Since he was free to go AFTER he refused to consent, the airlines didn’t break any laws enforcing a rule that may or may not exist and may or may not be legal.

So, where does that leave us with Davis? We’ve already seen from Gilmore that the court CAN make a ruling on the ID check PROCESS itself, regardless of the validity of RULE that an ID check is required. In Davis, since the entire case is under fed jurisdiction, we may get a ruling on the RULE itself.

The case is actually getting even more bizarre. Based on what I’ve read elsewhere, it seems that the Feds are going to say that they can’t produce the ID check rule to show the court, since it is part of a larger document on federal security guidelines, the entirety of which is considered secret under the Patriot Act! Now, you’ve seen that I’ve adamantly supported the legality of the actions of the cops at the DFC (note that I said I support the legality of their actions), but this might be where even I have get off this wacky ride. If they have a rule, then I think they should be required to show it, even if they have to black out a ton of other ‘secret’ stuff.
chorting

Dec 01, 2005

There are a lot of pros and cons to the ID check, but there is a simple fact – the Denver Federal Center is made up of multiple agencies that, despite the conspiracy theories, are made up of civilian and government personnel earnestly interested in protecting their fellow citizens.

By most definitions, I am a liberal: I believe in personal rights so far as they do not infringe upon others. I believe that the Federal government does not have the right to seek out and persecute citizens without just cause. However, I also work closely with the guards in question. I know many of them personally and professionally, and the slant of this article is insulting.

For all those who criticize Bush and his underlings for using “inflammatory” remarks (and make no mistake, I have no love lost for the current administration), what is the purpose in presenting articles such as this without all of the facts, and thereby misleading readers to the facts of the actual event? Why was the fact that Deborah Davis had taken this route through the Denver Federal Center MANY times in the past (all the while showing her identification) “omitted”, among other details?

The shortcoming here is with the transportation system, not with the guards following their mandate to check IDs for all people coming onto the premise. When was it decided that the use of common sense be replaced by law? We have a group of people that have volunteered to protect a rather high profile target within the Denver area, and rather than respecting a simple request, it is somehow a better decision to decline for no other reason than it doesn’t suit you?

Again, my bias is obvious – these officers are friends that I respect deeply for their work. They ask little more than to receive some small measure of the respect they deserve. There is no call to target their actions and start crying foul for their performing a duty so few would ever volunteer for.
Michael Hampton

Dec 01, 2005

The fact that Davis had ridden that route before and shown her ID on those occasions isn’t particularly relevant. The issue remains valid whether she had never shown her ID, or ridden through there for years.

You’ll notice that the questions I asked were about why the Denver RTD chose to route a bus through the DFC compound, without offering some other reasonable option.

Several buses stop on the other side of the compound; it’s a pretty good sized transfer point. And if you’re on the route 100 bus, that’s just about the only reasonable way to get to that transfer point.
chorting

Dec 01, 2005

If those are irrelevant points, we should also be looking to remove comments such as “the policemen wrenching one of her arms behind her back, she was jerked out of her seat, the contents of her purse and book bag flying everywhere. The cops shoved her out of the bus…threw her into the back seat of a police cruiser.”

The point was to bring attention that the truth was omitted in some places and stretched in others.

The routes, however, we are entirely in agreement on – a point the FPS guards themselves have raised repeatedly.
Michael Hampton

Dec 02, 2005

Remove comments? The cure for bad speech is more speech.
Joe

Dec 02, 2005

Davis can say anything she likes on her site, but as I’ve heard so often, “don’t believe everything you read.” It’s fortunate for us that their are sites like this where BOTH sides of the debate can be voiced.
Dec 08, 2005

Charges dropped against Denver bus rider asked to show ID - Homeland Security or Homeland Stupidity
Joe

Dec 08, 2005

Well, here’s an interesting turn of events:

[I]Common Sense Prevails
DENVER, 7 December 2005. Deborah Davis will not be prosecuted on charges related to her refusal to show ID on a public bus.

Deb’s lawyer, ACLU volunteer attorney Gail Johnson, was informed shortly before noon today by the office of the US attorney in Denver of their decision not to prosecute.

A rally scheduled for this Friday morning in support of Deb’s stand in favor of the Freedom to Travel will go ahead as planned. A victory ride on the route 100 RTD bus by Deb and some of her supporters will take place shortly thereafter. [/I]

I had read in an article earlier in the week that the government might not press charges. Looks like they decided to go that route. Too bad, as I would like to have seen how it all played out in court.

I wonder if the DFC will drop the ID requirement for people on the bus now?
Michael Hampton

Dec 08, 2005

Joe, didn’t you see the update I posted today?

To that end, I’ve closed comments; if you want to leave a comment, please do so on the update posting.
Mar 24, 2006

Buses to skip Denver Federal Center - Homeland Security or Homeland Stupidity
Apr 06, 2006

Why I’m not a journalist, and how I’m biased - Homeland Security or Homeland Stupidity
Anonymous

Jan 05, 2010

your are right about goverment property,to a point.But it doesnt sound like a military base.It isnt restricted the same as a military base would be. As the public throughfare going through government property you would be asked for I. D. only if your getting off the vehicle.Since Davis is at the mercy of public transportation she has no control where it takes her… If it had been her own vehicle, I would be the first one to say yes, show me some I.D. In your own vehicle you have the choice of going through or going around… I.m sorry, but I would have to side with Davis on this. After all the last time I checked this was the United States, not Russia or some other communistic country. But if it continues as it is going,We might be before long. Viva la Davis…
Anonymous

Jan 05, 2010

I forgot something. And I know yoy will say something about it. bus bombs or some such thing. I was in the military and part of our traing was to always be alert to our surroundings. Now I realize that might be an inconvenience to some people, but you must ask yourself are you a souverign individual or are you a sheep,or put another way, Is to ask, are you responsible for yourself or do you want someone else to be responsible for you. I myself neither want nor do I need someone else telling me when to get up or lay down. A wise man once said Those who would give up their freedom for security deserve neither. We must all be responsible for who we are…
Anonymous

Jan 05, 2010

OOps., One more thing, Davis was told she was free to go? Was that according to her own agenda, or according to the agenda of the DFC? She chose to do her thing, and that riled the authority figures. How dare she do such a thing, WE ARE THE AUTHORITY WE ARE RIGHT TO DO THIS. IF YOU DONT BELEIVE US, JUST ASK US.I will agree that it would have been easier to just aquiess to their demands,But sometimes the easy isnt the proper way.I am not trying to be coy, but I have had opportunities to become aquainted to some individuals who believe that very idea..Im good, just ask me. Almost like the saying Instant asshole, just add alcohol only the drug isnt alcohol, its adrenelin and ego.I know shut up, I just think the end, (DOESNOT) justify the means.

Latest News

Internet Pioneers Berners-Lee, Cerf, Strickling ask: “What Kind of Net Do You Want?”

May 20, 2011

The world-wide adoption of a decentralized network that connects everything creates continuous technical, social and policy challenges that no one could have foreseen in 1969. Even as we take the Net for granted, the way we do the air that we breathe, decisions are being made by policy-makers, technologists and end-users that shape its future.

The Nanny State Can’t Last

April 11, 2011

Instead of the left agreeing to cut social spending and the right agreeing to cut military spending, the right agrees to more welfare and the left agrees to more warfare. How long will it be before foreigners stop buying our debt, and hyperinflation arrives?

› Albany’s Historic Student Ghetto: Kegs N Eggs Mark the Spot

› Gaming the Game: Baba, Elvis, and the NBA Betting Scandal

› No-Fly Won’t Fly Constitutionally

› Buying Friends Creates More Enemies