I was sent this link and thought to myself, “Those can’t be all the facts” and did a little more looking here.
My initial gut feeling was that this is wrong. I though about it some more and it still seems wrong. It has made me aware that I don’t really know when I am obligated to show identification, because I could also see saying, “I’m on a public bus, I’m not getting off at your facility, I don’t have to show you anything” since as far as I can tell, there was no notification that identification would be required to ride that particularly bus. I guess they didn’t have to let her in the facility but I don’t think she should have been arrested or ticketed.
And I have to agree with the first website’s author: the description of the procedure doesn’t seem to really add any security, some guards looking at ID and giving it back to a person without checking it. If she was actually walking or driving to the facility, checking ID seems a little more reasonable. But because it has a public bus stop there? Did they really check *everyone’s * ID? What if a kid or teenager was on the bus?
The point is the bus crossed a federal facility as a short cut. They have every right to ask anyone on a federal facility for identification. The bus line is at fault for not telling passengers that it went through a federal facility’s land as a short cut. The individual was wrong in that the security officers did have the right to insist on an identification.
Bullshit. Looking at someone’s ID versus doing something with it are two different things. She’s right. It’s all about Big Brother pushing the little guy around. Fuck that. Someone needs to take a stand and reclaim our rights. She’s been on that bus a number of times. If they were really DOING anything with it, they wouldn’t even need to request her ID every time. It’s government harrassment at best, and ineffective toward protecting anyone, at worst.
It is a disturbing infringement on her rights, especially since she is doing nothing other than ride the bus. If she were getting off at the stop, then it would be justified, but to ID everyone on the bus whether they get off or not reeks of a police state. It’s not even “round up the usual suspects”; it’s “round up everyone and see if we get lucky.” I’d be very surprised if this passed constitutional muster.
Does the government have the power to request ID from everyone entering a federal facility, even if they do nothing with that ID?
Several posts above mention indignantly that the government doesn’t do anything with the ID. My question: does that fact change the legal significance of the rule requiring people to present ID?
I’m sure it’s legal under the “New Rules Established to Pacify Everyone” clause, but it shouldn’t be. The point is, it’s pointless to look at someone’s ID if you’re not comparing it to a list, or patting everyone down in search of bombs, or even making note of the fact that there are regular riders who use that bus to get to work every freekin’ day of their lives. It serves no purpose other than to intimidate.
The only thing it might uncover is an illegal alien, now that states are moving towards requiring proof of legal residency before issuing IDs. But the odds of that are small.
What I’m saying is that I don’t see the legal problems with it.
I would say your right to privacy is being invaded. I looked through the Cornell University site on the Constitution and couldn’t find anything directly addressing forced production of identification, but I’m sure a case could be made nonetheless. It just pisses me off that some people actually buy the government’s line of crap that it’s ‘for our own good’.
See, my first thought is yes, the government has the power to request but not require - if someone refuses to produce said ID, don’t let them enter. But require? The government needs to demonstrate to me some benefit to the people greater than a right to privacy. Again, could it literally be everyone? Just those over eighteen? Does this apply to all federal facilities? Would the Smithsonian start demanding to see IDs?
I never carry ID. I don’t drive and I don’t write checks except for bills.
Mom says I need ID in case of an accident, but I figure if I’m so out of it I can’t talk that somebody will give me emergency treatment without ID.
You might want to take a look at Hiibel v. Nevada, a Supreme Court case last year that affirmed the power of police to demand ID without infringing on the Fourth or Fifth Amendment. Also INS v. Delgado, which held that police could approach people without probable cause and ask for ID.
Although she’s on public transit, she has no particular right to enter a government facility without showing ID. She has no right to have public transit lines NOT enter government facilities merely for her convenience. She cannot demand that public bus lines avoid travelling through the federal facility.
She does, of course, have the right to refuse to show ID, but then the government has the power to deny her entry to the federal property. That’s what happened here: she was given a choice of getting off the bus or showing ID.
I think the government’s policy in this case is unwise, and even foolish. But “unwise” and “foolish” are not prohibited by the Constitution.
That’s what happened here - the woman was given the choice of leaving the bus and not entering the facility. She refused to do so.
Now, when you say, “The government needs to demonstrate to me some benefit to the people greater than a right to privacy…” are you saying that this is a legal requirement, or just your view of what the government would be wise to do?
I keep harping on this point because I think these discussions often lead to confusion about what the Constitution says and does. As long as the discussion is focused on, “This is an unwise, or foolish, rule, and I think the following rule would be wiser or less foolish,” then we’re on firm ground. But if you start claimng that the government MUST do thus-and-so, as a matter of Constitutional dimension, that’s when we get out on thin ice.
Bricker, if I may pick your brain for a moment, what about situations that do not involve a bus entering a federal facility? For example, I posted a link to a news story above that suggested that the Miami police may surround a bank and check the IDs of everyone coming and going. Let’s say that someone in that situation either 1. Does not have ID, or 2. Refuses to show it. What legal actions may the police take at that point?
Thanks.
Also - does anyone know what the women on the bus in the article linked to in OP was cited for?
This is not intended to be legal advice. I’m not your lawyer, and you’re not my client. I’m not licensed to practice in Florida. For legal advice, consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
That said, as a general commentary on the matter, the Supreme Court has held in Hiibel that a person briefly detained for reasonable suspicion may be required to identify himself.
In INS v. Delgado, they held that it was permissible for police to approach people voluntarily and ask for ID.
As long as the encounter is consensual, a person may refuse to answer and go about his business. Once the police seize him, then he must identify himself. (Or, more accurately, it’s not a violation of the federal constitution to require that he identify himself). The police may not seize someone without a reasonable, articulable suspicion that there is criminal activity afoot.
So in this example, I’d say the police are on safe ground approaching people entering or leaving the bank without any particularized elements of suspicion, as long as the people are free to disregard the inquiry and go about their business. If the police seize someone, they must be able to point to something that gave rise to suspicion of criminal activity. At that point, they may require identification.
Two federal misdemeanors: violation of 41 CFR 102-74.375(c), which requires identification upon entry into a federal facility, and 41 CFR 102-74.385, which requires persons on a federal facility to obey all lawful signs and directives.
Legal aliens in this country are required to carry their ‘green card’ at all times, according to the INS/BCIS/DHS counsellor who changed my status in this country. I usually don’t bother.