Refusing to show ID on a public bus

[jeff]

For comments (and, what is ID on a bus or train intended to prevent?)

"On the 9th of December 2005, a Denver woman is scheduled to be arraigned in U.S. District Court. Her crime: refusing to show ID on a public bus. At stake is nothing less than the right of Americans to travel freely in their own country.

The woman who is fighting the good fight is named Deborah Davis. She's a 50 year-old mother of four who lives and works in Denver, Colorado. Her kids are all grown-up: her middle son is a soldier fighting in Iraq.

One morning in late September 2005, Deb was riding the public bus to work. She was minding her own business, reading a book and planning for work, when a security guard got on this public bus and demanded that every passenger show their ID. Deb, having done nothing wrong, declined. The guard called in federal cops, and she was arrested and charged with federal criminal misdemeanors after refusing to show ID on demand.

She hasn't commuted by public bus since that day.

For further information, please visit:

http://www.papersplease.org/davis/ "

[jessicasimpson]

This woman is in obvious violation of the patriot act, she should be locked up without access to a lawyer, no phone calls, no trial, indefinatly. If she had testicals, they should be electricly shocked.

[L.O.A.S.]

Before more hysteria and outrage sets in, picture the following:
She rides the bus to work. She works on a military(federal) installation. The military(federal) installation requires ID checks for all persons entering (something to do with bad people trying to do bad things). She’s having a bad day, decides to be belligerent, and refuses. She breaks some federal law. She is arrested. Why is this a story?

Now I have no idea the specifics of her case, but I’m pretty sure of the following:
1) Her being a 50 year old mother of 4 with a son in Iraq is irrelevant
2) Security guards don’t pop out of nowhere to do random checks of public transportation (even in this militaristic dictatorship that President Bush has created), unless there is cause (e.g. on federal land, where access to a facility requires asecurity check).

[keith]

Before more hysteria and outrage sets in, picture the following:
She rides the bus to work. She works on a military(federal) installation. The military(federal) installation requires ID checks for all persons entering (something to do with bad people trying to do bad things). She’s having a bad day, decides to be belligerent, and refuses. She breaks some federal law. She is arrested. Why is this a story?

Question if I were to walk past the US congress would I have to produce ID on demand? Sounds a bit like France now I come to think of it ....

Now I have no idea the specifics of her case, but I’m pretty sure of the following:
1) Her being a 50 year old mother of 4 with a son in Iraq is irrelevant

true but it adds colour.

2) Security guards don’t pop out of nowhere to do random checks of public transportation (even in this militaristic dictatorship that President Bush has created), unless there is cause (e.g. on federal land, where access to a facility requires asecurity check).

'fraid to say they do. It is a requirement of riding public transport (amtrak, planes, buses etc) that you be able to provide photo ID. They tend not to bother of course.

edit: actually having just come back from a culture infusion in NYC I can say that the randomness of security is quite bizarre apparently in order of 'at risk' (from highest to lowest) we have; the metropolitan museum, the natural history museum, the guggenheim (the shake and squeeze school of bomb detection) and both the city and met opera are obviously at no risk - is Osama an opera lover perhaps?

... and while I was asked for photo ID on my way to NYC I was not asked for any on my way out.

[CvilleFencer]

This should be a very interesting case indeed. The right to travel has never been attacked directly, but with many roads and major freeways not allowing pedestrians/cyclist and the governments stance that driving is a privilege, it does effectively contain your travel unless you can ride with someone. Of course hitchhiking is illegal also, so in effect, unless you can afford to hire someone (classist/elitist) to transport you everywhere you want/need to go, your ability to travel is effectively curtailed. I had not heard about this case, thanks for bringing it to my attention.

[esskreemr]

Before more hysteria and outrage sets in, picture the following:
She rides the bus to work. She works on a military(federal) installation. The military(federal) installation requires ID checks for all persons entering (something to do with bad people trying to do bad things). She’s having a bad day, decides to be belligerent, and refuses. She breaks some federal law. She is arrested. Why is this a story?

Because that is, apparantly now what happened.

The bus she rides crosses the property of the Denver Federal Center, a collection of government offices such as the Veterans Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey, and part of the National Archives.

Not a military base, not a high security area.

Now I have no idea the specifics of her case, but I’m pretty sure of the following:
1) Her being a 50 year old mother of 4 with a son in Iraq is irrelevant

It was mostly likely used to assure the reader that she is an average Joe, not the third cousin of Osama bin Laden.

2) Security guards don’t pop out of nowhere to do random checks of public transportation (even in this militaristic dictatorship that President Bush has created), unless there is cause (e.g. on federal land, where access to a facility requires asecurity check).

I'm quoting the article. It doesn't mention if the Denver Federal Center is a secure area. The picture of the sign in the article says Visitors Welcome, Gate 4, so I'm assuming there is a check before entering. She was on a public bus not getting off at the facility, though.

[L.O.A.S.]

Not a military base, not a high security area.

Granted, although the fact that it has fences all around (guess on my part) means it is a controlled area. Someone is still responsible (lets call him the security manager) for security procedures at that federal facility. The security manager must have instituted ID checks for all persons entering the Denver Federal Center. Enter the poor security guard, whos job it is to ask people to take out their wallet or purse and show some form of ID before being allowed entry. Just doing his job. That request is not illegal. Is it unresonable? Not to the average law abiding citizen, I think. I suppose he could have made an exception, just this once, but what if she was the first person he came to? Now he has to say "please, but only if you feel like it".
A place does not have to be a military base to make it a target, remember that federal building that used to be in Oklahoma City? On a personal note, the other week I was stopped by the base gate guard, while returning from a workout during my dinner break. After showing him my ID card, I was told to put on my shirt before I could enter. At first, I thought he was joking, but he reassured me that he was not ( I guess it must be base policy to have all personnel appropriately dressed while on the premises). Anyway, I donned my shirt, and in parting, asked if he would have made a similar request had I been a attractive young lady. Of course, he lied to me in response. There are people out there who take security seriously. Be thankful, maybe even courteous.

It was mostly likely used to assure the reader that she is an average Joe, not the third cousin of Osama bin Laden.

I doubt that Osama would have put up with her sass either, even if she was related. For the record, I was going for funny, not beligerance.

She was on a public bus not getting off at the facility, though.

I'm sure she was afforded the opportunity to get off.

[jeff]

I wonder what particular security value is added by asking people to produce ID. They never write it down, so there's no particular record. What are they really looking for? An Iraqi passport? What would they do - kick the person off the bus if they got on the bus without a picture ID?

[Epee_Pox]

[I wonder what particular security value is added by asking people to produce ID. ]

It serves multiple purposes:

(1) It makes bad guys nervous. Part of the way law enforcement and security types profile bad guys is based on the way they behave in a certain situation. In the situation where an authority figure is going person-by-person asking for ID (or some other innocuous but vaguely official thing, like a security check at the airport), bad guys very often start acting obviously nervous. They fidget. Try to hide objects in bags. Try to distance themselves from bags ("Is this your bag?" "No." "Then you won't mind if I look in it." "Not my bag." "Looky here, three kilos and a gun"). Or do something else that will raise a trained officer's suspicions. A wonderful way of identifying potential criminals or threats (at the very least as someone to keep an eye on), without causing undue harm to the rest of the people there or improperly infringing on their rights.

(2) It can give law enforcement a hand in identifying bad guys, because they frequently carry no ID, or carry ID so fake it's obvious. In NYC, for example, they catch any number of wanted fugitives just from asking turnstile jumpers for ID: anyone else would just get a ticket, but the no-ID people get locked up and fingerprinted, and an amazing number of them turn out to have outstanding warrants.

(3) It serves the purpose of visible security. You may have outstanding security measures in place, but the best ones tend to be invisible or not obvious. But if people don't realize there is security, they might try something. So you institute a meaningless but very visible measure, to show the relevant population that you actually are doing stuff. This makes it less likely that you'll need to use the real security resources from the basic deterrent effect.

Other purposes, I am sure, are obvious.

I think, in this case, we're dealing with (1) and maybe a little (3).

[Amadeus]

okay, in reality, i don't really think this signifies the beginning of the destruction of our freedom.

and yet...

in every movie i've seen about nazis and/or communists, there's always someone yelling "PAPAZ!" [papers] at the citizens trying to go about their daily lives.

[Inquartata]

Hmm. So if you don't even have ID you can't ride public transit? Sounds like a two-part tariff to me, ie a part of the cost of riding. Is being challenged for not paying the fare a violation of some civil right? No.

The provider sets the terms of use. Meet them or find another provider.

[esskreemr]

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

'They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.'

What's next? Scanning all mandated RFID photo ids into a giant database to keep track of everyone's movements at all time?

Suspension of Habeus Corpus?

Granting police summary execution powers so they don't have to deal with the red tape of bringing a 'terrorist' to trial?

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Before more hysteria and outrage sets in, picture the following:
She rides the bus to work. She works on a military(federal) installation. The military(federal) installation requires ID checks for all persons entering (something to do with bad people trying to do bad things)

I'm not sure it's quite as cut and dried as that.

1. The bus she was on merely passes through the facility...it's part of the RTD bus route. She actually works several miles away from the Federal Center. The Center is not a military base...in fact, it has very little presence in the area. Having lived in the neighborhood for many years, I'd call it more a loose collection of office park buildings. You can drive right through it in a car.

2. Other more lawerly types can comment on this, but I suspect that a contract security guard has far less authority to demand your ID than does a police officer.

3. If showing an ID is mandatory for entering the grounds, then shouldn't the public transit system make this known to its riders, or re-route the bus pathway to avoid the Federal property?

[Teme]

Does freedom come without responsibility? What's the big deal with being able to prove one's identity when asked? How does it impair one's ability to travel free?

The cheapest way to commute (besides bicycle) in my opressive, policestate hometown is by "personal travel card" of public transportation. The card has <cripes!> my picture and name in it (that's the "personal" part, I guess). And I do have to show it to the personnel should they want to see it -- or pay penalty fee.

I guess my real question is: since when liberty has been synonymous to anonymity?

[Style]

Although America gives the facade of freedom, it certainly doesn't have it.

But that's besides the point (haha fencing pun). Being asked to produce I.D. isn't such a big deal. She should've just popped out her I.D. and got on with her life; I agree with the person who said that she was just trying to be difficult.

[Philistine]

Does freedom come without responsibility? What's the big deal with being able to prove one's identity when asked? How does it impair one's ability to travel free?{snip}

Because some people may not have ID, to be able to prove it.

In this case, the woman apparently was carrying ID. What if her answer had been--"I'm sorry, I left my ID at home today"?

Should she still have been arrested? If not--what's the difference.

The article is unclear on what she was actually arrested for--and what the tickets actually said. This seems to be an arrest for the ever-popular offense, "contempt of cop." Not the best idea to piss off a cop, I'll grant you--but still not illegal.

--Philistine

[Gav]

[I wonder what particular security value is added by asking people to produce ID. ]
It serves multiple purposes:

It makes bad guys nervous.

Any Bad Guy (tm) worth their salt will take the question of "papers" into consideration when planning a 'job'. So it doesn't really affect them. It's a possibility for those who are not worth their salt but then, in that case, they are not the ones you should be worried about.

It can give law enforcement a hand in identifying bad guys, because they frequently carry no ID, or carry ID so fake it's obvious. I

See my answer to the first one. There is a big difference between someone who is a bad guy because they are not carrying ID and someone who is planning Bad Things (tm).

It serves the purpose of visible security.

And here you hit it on the head. It serves the purpose of allowing people [typically the 'scared/frightened/credulous/stupid members of the public'] to think that there is tight security. I will refer you to answers 1 and 2. Anyone who is going to prefessionally do Bad Things (tm) will make sure that they have the right "papers". Anyone who thinks that Bad Guys (tm) are not able to counterfeit "papers" well ... their naievety shines through.

Other purposes, I am sure, are obvious.

Not to me - care to elaborate?

I think, in this case, we're dealing with (1) and maybe a little (3).

I have no opinion on this particular case. If she knew she might be rquired to produce ID to travel to this place, and didn't have it on her, then her naivety shines through. If she has upset the rent-a-cop then she has paid the price - again a bit of naivety shines through, but who hasn't been a little narky when held up for no good reason? Her inability to produce her "papers" says nothing about whether she is a Bad Person (tm). It speaks volumes for her ability to produce "papers".

[pigeonmeister]

Sounds more like a case of stubborness than a defense of civil liberties. I D cards will never be the answer to much unless they can be proved un forgable. Still if anyone wants to see my id they can, it doesn't seem much of a chore for me to have to get my university card out of my wallet. Even to keep some fool in a dodgy uniform, and wishes he was a real cop, happy.

Try going to France!

[Gav]

Sounds more like a case of stubborness than a defense of civil liberties. I D cards will never be the answer to much unless they can be proved un forgable. Still if anyone wants to see my id they can, it doesn't seem much of a chore for me to have to get my university card out of my wallet. Even to keep some fool in a dodgy uniform, and wishes he was a real cop, happy.

Try going to France!

So are you of the opinion "If you haven't got anything to hide.."?

[pigeonmeister]

So are you of the opinion "If you haven't got anything to hide.."?

Basically yes. I also think that if she had id and wouldn't show it then she is a belligerent and deliberately obstructive busy body.