Skip to main content

View Diary: Don't Show Your ID on the Bus - Go to Jail (148 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The ACLU disagrees with you (4.00)
    given that they have taken up her case.
    •  Yeah I know... (none)
      Usually I am a hundred percent behind what the ACLU does, to the point that I have donated to them through the Combined Federal Campaign, back when they participated in it.  I wish they would target more urgent concerns, such as the Padilla case and the de facto suspension of Habeus Corpus, rather than challenging a rule that says that you have to show ID to enter federal property, even if you are just passing through on public transport.  Seems like a misallocation of resources.  I think their case would be much stronger if the bus were just randomly stopped at a checkpoint and everyone aboard were asked for ID.  That would be more like the "papers, please" scenario that everyone would be upset at.

      Republicans - For Saddam until they were against him.

      by calipygian on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 03:00:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sounds like a law school hypothetical. (none)
        Its clearly not black and white, depends on how the existing case laws interprets the grey.

        Clearly federal installations have the right to request ID from those entering a federal facility. But this wasn't the woman's intent and the facility may have waived the right to check ID by permitting a public bus to ride through. I mean what do they do with 17 year olds with no ID? Eject them from a city bus b/c of the route?

        I'm not a lawyer and there may be precedents that make this very clear. But it would seem that this would grant the executive powers never intended. I mean what if the Dept of Homeland Security were to buy a 5 foot wide cordon of land all the way around Manhatten? Would that give them the right to stop and identify every single person entering and exiting the island?

        Seems if the installation wants to raise security it needs to ban bus routes from through passage. But again if things were so clear lawyers wouldn't have jobs.

        To lodge all power in one party and keep it there is to insure bad government and the sure and gradual deterioration of the public morals. - Mark Twain

        by Windowdog on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 03:27:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's just what they may do (none)
          Ban public busses from transiting the facility.  How would that inconvenience the public?  Im sure they are just being as acommodating as possible.

          Republicans - For Saddam until they were against him.

          by calipygian on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 03:34:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Then they need to tell each rider as they board (none)
            I'd like to know what happens if you just answer 'no, I don't have ID.'  Will they just ask your name, move on, drag you off to their security station?  

            I'd like to see them run that experiment and determine if this was a question of ID or the fact that she refused to follow their directions.

            From the legal documents, the latter is a key part of it.

            If you look at the rest of the site, there is a 'papers request' that went to the SCOTUS in 2004.  U.S. vs Hiibel  Apparently, Hiibel lost that case. I'm not a lawyer, so would love a professional analysis of the differences in the two cases and why Hiibel lost.

            To me, it seemed his lawyer argued that you don't have to even give your name, when the summary on the web site was about how being forced to give papers is a violation of the 4th Amendment.  Also, the police had been told that a domestic battery had occurred, tied to the occupants of the truck, which gives a stronger probably cause than in Davis' case.  The Justices seemed to spend a lot of time tying his defense attorney into verbal knots.

            Davis' case seems to be different because the fact that she refused to show ID was considered the probable cause to force her to show ID.  It is a circular argument.  The SCOTUS have a point, IMO, that if an officer sees someone loitering or acting 'suspicious' that they could ask who they are, and they request ID in order to place the person if it shows that their suspicious behavior did in fact have some consequences.

            However, Davis was on a bus that happened to cross into a Federal Reserve.  I used to work on classified installations and public transpo NEVER came onto the property. They would stop outside the perimeter and staff would walk a ways up to the guard gate.  At installations where the operations buildings were a fair distance, there would be a shuttle van or a bus that ran from the gate to the buildings.

            Do some Air Force bases allow public buses onto the facility?  How do the MPs handle it?  Here, the bus comes as far as the main gate, lets everyone off, then turns around.

            It seems to me the only reason you would have to search a bus is if someone was getting off or your facility is a terrorist target and you're worried about bombings -- in the latter case, it would be flat-out stupid to let public transpo wander in and out of the base.  Any terrorist worth his/her salt is going to have fake ID anyway.

            •  Right. It is a target or it isn't. (none)
              Any terrorist worth his/her salt is going to have fake ID anyway.

              Or real ID. The point is that checking people's ID is not really going to prevent an attack. If there is a real threat, they should not let public buses through, and I believe that would be obvious to a jury after a few moments' thought. After all, a bus could be wired with explosives; or passengers could have guns, or bombs, or grenades, or radioactive substances. Bring in an expert to talk about those threats. Make clear the outlines of the appeal if they disallow that.

              Ask about the specific vulnerability. Then the gov't will probably clam up and say it's all classified. Then ask for dismissal. If the judge looks at classified material and says there is a real risk, appeal based on effectively cancelling the 4th Amendment for all practical purposes.

              Good chance the gov't will cave rather than go up the courts on this one. It's just a little too obvious.

            •  When I was stationed at Fort Meade (none)
              Maryland in the early and late 90's, the base was completely open, no ID required to enter the base.  That changed after 911.  And, oh yeah, Fort Meade is host to the National Security Agency.

              Republicans - For Saddam until they were against him.

              by calipygian on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 09:15:45 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  The obvious solution is to check IDs, (none)
              if you must, only of people who leave the bus (it doesn't go inside any buildings, as the federal center is a typical sprawl situation), and only after giving clear notice before the bus inevitably will stop at a check point that the checkpoint is coming up.

              "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

              by ohwilleke on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 10:57:04 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Camp Pendleton (none)
              Camp Pendleton has buses going through all the time. Basically what happens is that the guard gets on the bus and asks everyone passing through their destination if they are non-military. If all the non-military people are just riding through, he gets off and the driver makes stops through the base as usual.
        •  The fact that has been key in similar cases (none)
          like airport cases and court house cases and border cross cases has been clear notice in advance that you will be subject to suspicionless questioning.  This isn't the case at the entrance to the federal center.  As a result, the feds loose.  

          This is basically what they call in New York, at least, a "Terry Stop", and while it doesn't require full fledged probable cause, it does require reasonable suspicion.  The federal police didn't have a reasonable suspicion.  They didn't have clear notice of a search.  And so, they lose.

          "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

          by ohwilleke on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 10:53:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I went to the ACLU web site and did a search and (none)
        I got 60 hits for "Padilla" and 138 for "habeas corpus"
      •  Couldn't disagree more! (none)
        I want the money I donate to the ACLU to fight this form of intimidation.  It would appear to be that in your book, the authorities have the right to demand your "papers" at all times.

        No, this is a step in the road to fascism that has to be fought.  I appluad the ACLU if they are indeed fighting for this woman.  That act, makes me proud to be a dues paying, card carrying member.

        •  agreed! (none)
          As a card-carrying member of the ACLU - I too hope they are fighting for this woman tooth and nail.  This is the kind of fight that gets me to renew my membership year after year.

          She could be any one of us.  

          Just going to work.  Stood up to the man.  Went to jail.

          Where's the "freedom" in that?

      •  I'm glad and should probably donate to them (none)
        again.  Suspicionless searches and ID requests are bad and should be as narrow as possible.  They affect a great many people, even though not intensely.

        "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

        by ohwilleke on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 11:00:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site