Papers, Please! [Δαφνη Ευτυχια Αρθουρος]

"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. On the 9th of December 2005, Deborah Davis will be arraigned in U.S. District Court in a case that will determine whether Deb and the rest of us live in a free society, or in a country where we must show 'papers' whenever a cop demands them."

I think I remember ther being court cases where it was ruled that one must produce ID whenever asked to by a police officer, but I don't recall at what level, or whether it varies from state to state.

I do know that the situation described above makes me extremely uncomfortable.

Is the correct response to being asked for identification on a public bus, "Do you have a warrant?"? (The conclusion that what Deb Davis got in trouble for was not being subservient enough rather than running afoul of bona fide security concerns, is supported by the fact that she was not hassled ordetained on the days when she claimed not to have any ID, only on the day when she said she had it but would not produce it.) I hope the state loses badly on this one.

Just like a whole lot of other people, my first reaction to reading thiswas, "What?! This is America, dammit!"

January

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
1 1	2 1	3 1	4 1	5 1	6 1	7 1
8 1	9 1	10 1	11 1	12 1	13 1	14 1
15 1	16 1	17 1	18 1	19 1	20 1	21 1
22 1	23 1	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Uhm. Well I live in Germany and carrying (and showing) your ID is no big deal over here. Not that you get asked that often. Mostly when they're doing car searches. I'm pretty certain though that it's NOT a criminal offense not to show it over here. A minor midemeanour maybe...

[link] [reply]

in Canada (I was reading about this today, coincidentally), if you're asked to identify yourself by a police officer, you're under no legal duress to do so; however, if they believe you've committed a crime, they can take you into custody for up to 48 hours until they've identified you.

However, if they take someone into custody for that, who is later released as not being the person they're looking for (and they need to have a name and crime, not just taking you in on suspicions based on things like refusing to identify yourself), they'll be liable for any damages resulting from taking the person into custody. So they need to have a good idea that they've got the suspect.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I think that's a sound strategy. It gives both sides motivation for beeing cooperative without forcing anybody into something.

My first reaction to this is: what's the other side of the story? The site you linked is not a news site. It's the personal site of the person involved, and is (naturally) putting the worst possible spin on the events.

There's more going on here than we know.

Denver post story: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3253063
"While I was unable to reach anyone at the Department of Homeland Security on Friday to comment on Davis' case, the offense/incident report corroborates her basic story."

Your link isn't working in my browser for some reason. Evidently, the Denver Post's web site is allergic to Opera.

I'll reserve judgement until I read the article, but since there's obviously no one from the Feds giving their side of things, I'm betting that it's completely one-sided.

The *incident report* states the Feds' side.....

Actually, the courts have consistently ruled that the police (and the security guard isn't even that) can not do random checks of identification. Likewise, they can't randomly pull over drivers and check registration or BACs.

S/R

I checked the larger explanation of the facts given in Davis' website. It appears that she was on Federal property when this occurred and that she was also asked by federal police officers in addition to the security guard. This may change the legal analysis, especially in these days of the "war on terror", so called.

We-ell... she got on a bus before it went on Federal property; her destination was on the other side; she didn't attempt to exit the bus on Federal property -- she should have to take a different bus?

Besides, if the Feds don't want random people crossing their property, why don't they make the bus go around?

And isn't Federal property *her* property anyway? And mine, and all other citizens. Where's the compelling government interest?

I basically agree. I was just pointing out that the requirements for producing ID may be different on federal property than from state property. For example, in Maryland, where I practice, it is not illegal to lie to a police officer so long as you are not trying to cause an investigation to occur. It is, however, illegal to not identify yourself if asked by a police officer, and giving a false ID is a crime. Under federal statutes, it is illegal to lit to an FBI agent. Quite a difference.

She got on a public bus that visited federal property.

If boarding the bus is sufficient reason to get one charged with tresspassing, it would necessarily follow that the bus driver should be charged with a related crime (accessory, aiding and abetting, etc).

In fact, I don't know how you can ascribe criminal intent to her. How can anyone prove it was her intent to wind up in that location? If they didn't want her on Federal Property, someone should have asked for her I.D. at the door to the compound. Presumably nobody else got carded before they got to the security checkpoint.

A public bus, on it's normal route, took her some place she had no desire to go to, and her presence at that location was presumably illegal. Assuming she has no right to be there, she's the last person you can blame for her winding up in that location.

The issue here is whether, under federal law, a person has to produce identification when requested by a federal police officer. She was arrested when she refused to produce ID by an officer, not the security guard. The guard called the federal police, who then asked her for the ID, and she refused. I don't know what laws may govern in that situation. The issue is not trespass, for many of the reasons you stated. It is whether she violated federal law in refusing to produce ID when she said she had it but would not show it to a federal police officer, not the security guard.

Then it's real interesting. There is probably no precedent on that law that favors the government position.

And unless there is a law requiring one to carry an ID at all, it's downright unenforceable.

Eric Alterman, who has a blog called Altercation on the MSNBC website, has been running a series of entries about Padilla and the violations of the Constitution which are occurring under this "conservative" administration. It is a sad time when a U.S. citizen can be held indefinitely without a court hearing, at the whim of the President and his minions, and when people can be harassed in the manner of Ms. Davis. It is outrageous that our administration is supporting and defends torture. I never thought I would see the U.S. government descend to the level of our enemies, thus destroying our "moral" advantage in setting an example for the rest of the world to follow. This is a great and precious resource that the "conservative" President and his minions have squandered. Color me disgusted.

Warrents are for searches of private property. They have to be VERY, VERY specific. You can't get one that reads "search property of John Doe."

In fact, if the police get one [from a judge, proving that they have just cause for a search] for example, to search a specific car and they don't include specifically the trunk, then they can't search it.

I don't think a warrent can be used on a person for anything other than arrest. "Search and seizure" of evidence relating to a specific crime is what search warrents are intended to accomplish.

Tricky legal ground ... especially seeing as the law enforcement official was not that, merely a security guard.

For example, if you do not drive (or are not driving at the time) there is absolutely no legal reason to have an ID with you at all time. Usually even to have one in the first place.

There are probably also concerns in showing such a private document to someone who is not trained in how to handle it. Many transgender people do not have an 'official' ID that matches both their gender and name. How do I know a security guard would not take one look at my ID, start laughing, then share that information with people who could do me harm?

It's not incidents like these that disturb me as much as the non-reaction by the public. I'm pretty sure the average American simply doesn't care that our rights are being continuously eroded. It's OK for the police to demand ID, because only guilty people would refuse.

Δαφνη Ευτυχια Αρθουρος

Papers, Please!

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

U.S Constitution, R.I.P

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

Links

January