Thank you so much for the clear, calm, and concise manner in which you present your observations. At this point it’s nearly impossible to understand how anyone could interpret this as anything but harrassment!
Another poster had a good point – does it matter what type of ID you show them? Could it be a work ID? A library card? It raises another question: would it make a difference if you showed them, say, your KKK membership card? Would identifying yourself as a member of a radical group such as Greenpeace or one of those other destructive ecology groups put you under more intense scrutiny than any other person on the bus?
Well, I would like to thank **The King of Soup ** for the additional information - I was under the impression that the bus actually entered a gated area - and I’m not seeing where the guards had any “reasonably suspicion” for the ID check - and I also think it is a good point about the type of ID needed.
This may not be illegal (and I’m beginning to think that it should be) but it definitely seems at the very least pointless and clearly headed for harassment, so why should be be continued?
The bus route does run inside the area called Federal Center. Let’s see… cite that the bus route involved was RTD #100:http://www.aclu-co.org/news/pressrelease/release_photoid112305.htm . Map of that route: http://www.rtd-denver.com/ (For some reason, I can’t link directly to the map I want. From the main page, type in “100” for the route # and then click on “route map.”
This doesn’t change the fact that the inside of a public conveyence on a city street near Federal offices is more than a couple of steps removed from access to those offices, but it’s a half-step closer than I originally thought, and I wouldn’t want to mislead anyone.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I should point out that the rules that mandate your identifying yourself when detained by a police officer do NOT require that you carry ID. It’s sufficient to simply supply your name. You cannot legally LIE about your name, of course, but neither do you have to carry ID.
QUOTE]
There is a caveat:absent verification, the cops may choose to hold you while they run your prints to make sure that they don’t risk appearing in tomorrow’s headline:
“Cops stop and release wanted felon; believe false assertion of phony name”
Their decision to call the close ones against letting you go may or may not be lawful, but five hourse later, when the FBI faxes them the all clear, and they let you out, you will wish you carried ID.
an “arrest” requires probable cause, clearly absent in the hypothetical.
However, “detention” pending verification of identity is widely practiced (whether countenanced by the constitution or not.)
As to how they would get your prints, I suppose they will ask you for them voluntarily. Should you refuse, they will tell you no problem. We’ll send your picture to washington and wait until someone has time to go through 65,000,000 mug shots and make sure you’re not in the album.
If by “cite” you mean can I point to a written description of such an event, I cannot. I do know more than a few people who have had such difficulties when they were stopped without ID.
If by “cite” you mean a legal citation supporting the practice, there probably is none. It’s not really legal, but in practical terms that is the risk you run.
Actually, while Bricker has made clear that there is no bright-line limit to how long the police may detain you without an arrest, he has also pointed out that the time-frame must be reasonable. The scenario that you posit is clearly outside what is permissible under current law.
I work for a parole agency and have encountered plenty of parolees who were fingerprinted after not showing ID to a police officer. In every case however, the person was being accused of a minor crime ( such as entering the subway system without paying the fare) which the police can handle with either a summons or a arrest . You have ID, you get a summons. No ID, you get printed. After the prints come back, you may be given a summons or you may be put through the process and held for arraignment. It’s legal- the ID just plays a part in determining how a situation where there is probable cause gets handled. What might not be legal is a situation where the is no probable cause at all, the police detain a person for fingerprinting solely due to a lack of ID ,and when the fingerprints come back the person is released without so much as a ticket. Never heard of that happening- and believe me, I would have been told (parolees told me all of their complaints about the police).
in point of fact, as I recollect with more precision, at least ne of the examples I had in mind occurred in the subway, and I think the individual in question had in fact littered in full view of a transit cop (disrespectful…).
That was, howevet pre 9/11, when you still had to do SOMETHING
in point of fact, as I recollect with more precision, at least ne of the examples I had in mind occurred in the subway, and I think the individual in question had in fact littered in full view of a transit cop (disrespectful…).
That was, howevet pre 9/11, when you still had to do SOMETHING to draw attention to yourself.
Now, with sweeps like thos in Miami in contemplation, who knows.
My basic point is that you can spend a fair amount of time “in the system” as a reward for your hardass attitude.
The problem I have with increasingly intrusive government surveillance is not that I worry about what an ideal and dispassionate government might do with information about a lawful citizen, but rather that:
The government is made up of average people, many of whom are less than ideal public servants. The more infomation and micro-management power the government has over its citizenry, the greater the chance for abuse. A corrupt official can harass/blackmail people with a paper trail of their unpopular but legal activites. A bigoted cop can selectively enforce intrusive security measures.
It’s inconvenient and demeaning to be constantly searched/questioned/etc. A lot of people don’t see a slippery slope here, but in my experience, this doesn’t just happen at airports and agencies anymore…
<story>*Two weeks ago, I visited the Liberty Bell with some friends from out of town. To get in to see this big hunk of metal, I had to pass through a security checkpoint. The beeper went off, and the guard berated me for not going through properly (apparently proper = with my hands folded across my chest) and made me try it two more times before forcing me to take off my outer shirt, extend my arms and get wanded down. (For the curious, my Landsend’ mocs had some metal in the soles.) I found the whole experience incredibly demeaning, especially because I wasn’t dressed in such a way that I wanted people seeing me in my skimpy inner shirt, and yet there was no way to argue with the guard’s directives without making myself more of a target for abuse. The end effect is that I won’t be visiting many national landmarks anymore. I find it ironic and pathetic that we have caged the “Liberty” Bell in such draconian security. The rest of the visit was similarly uncomfortable as cops herded us through security fences and told us that if we stepped outside them, we wouldn’t be allowed to return. *</story>
It’s counter-productive. Imagine if the terrorists had attacked and we had simply rebuilt and moved on with our lives. No sweeping legislation, no surge of jingoism, nothing (with the possible exception of a limited Afghan engagement to bring the guilty to justice). We’d be a stronger country today and probably safer as well.
It’s even worse than that. It is perfectly apparent that these clowns have done nothing of any serious effect that would put so much as a road bump in the way of any terrorist with the imagination of a 15 year old gamer…
The much vaunted FOUR YEARS WITH NO ATTACK ON THE FATHE…HOMELAND
is because 'sama got what he came for. It took him lots of pokes with the stick, and I bet he was going nuts after the Kohl when chickenshit George rides into town( like a new sherrif Mel Brooks style) and sits there with his thumb up his ass…
c
Bricker, I have a further legal question that has come up from reading this thread. Someone mentioned DUI checkpoints in Canada, but I believe they perform them in the states as well. How do these hold up to the prtoections afforded in Brown. Without probably cause, or even a reasonable suspicion, how can they ask for your ID? Or, perhaps I am mistaken and they just take a look at you. Then, obvious intoxication provides reasonable suspicion and they move on with the search, while no obvious intoxication means they have to let you go.
Michigan State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990), is the seminal case on the DUI checkpoint issue.
In the scheme approved in Sitz, police would briefly stop every driver at the checkpoint to look for signs of intoxication. A driver not exhibiting any signs of intoxication is free then to continue; a driver showing some symptoms of intoxication is directed to pull to the side, and there the police would check the license, registration, and, if necessary, conduct further sobriety tests.
Note that this is permitted ONLY to check for sobriety. A similar checkpoint, designed to intercept illegal narcotics, failed constitutional muster in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000). The drug interdiction, the Court said, was simply an exercise of general crime control, while the sobriety checkpoint was targetted at cars and drivers to combat the safety problem of drunken drivers.
Thanks. So, as I understand it, they cannot search or require ID unless there are obvious signs of drunkeness (or they see the kilo of coke in the passenger seat).