NEWS: Bus commuter vs. Big Brother. Papers, please!

A woman commuting to work in a public bus was arrested after declining to show her ID. The bus stopped at the gates of the Denver Federal Center, which is not a high security facility unlike Area 51, a security guard boarded the bus and demanded that all the bus passengers show their identifications. Deborah Davis persisted that there are no laws requiring her to carry ID or any papers, so the cops shoved her out of the bus, handcuffed her, and she was charged with federal criminal misdemeanors.



"This is not America. When honest, law-abiding citizens can't commute to work on a city bus without a demand for their 'papers', something is very, very wrong" said Deborah.

Deborah Davis will be arraigned in U.S. District Court, on December 9, 2005 in a case that will determine whether she and American citizens live in a free society, or in a country where we must show "papers" whenever a cop demands them.

I agree with this string 100%, but the problem is, they will make us do it. We do not live in a free society anymore. We live in a society where everyone will be labeled as a terrorist if they don't show their papers labeled a terrorist if you stand your ground against something that's unfair from the government.

Remember, they are tracking us everywhere we go, keeping track of our expenditures via credit card purchases, tapping your home phone through the FBI since 9/11 took off all the restrictions on that type of thing. They can tap your phone, just because they want to now, with no warrant whatsoever, because you might be a "terrorist".

So, Deb Davis, I hope you've got your affairs in order, you're probably going to go to jail for a very long time, & if you don't, you will be lucky, but they will still be watching your every movement after this trial goes public, because they will make an example of you, especially after you try to turn around & write a book about it, & go live on Jay Leno.

I probably missed where it said what day and time it was when she was arrested, but I believe she's in the right for the most part on the first charge of Admission to Property. In here it states when gov't property is closed to the public, they require you to show ID, however with the Visitors' Welcom signs, that's not really closed if you want to get all semantic about it.

Link to Admission to Property law

The Conformity of Official Signs and Directions violation I think she's kinda screwed on though...Click me

It would appear that the police state is indeed beginning to be in full swing...

i wonder what exactly the charge is? any lawyers or law students here? where is there a law which says you have to present ID when its requested by an officer ( when not being arrested)?

Good find!

A 50 year-old white woman busted in the USA for not showing her papers.

Now we will find out how black Americans feel.

...What's that line about protecting everyones' freedoms because the next target might be you?

And oh yeah, about the Patriot Act becoming permanent....

Not to make light of this situation, but if anyone would like to test this, just REFUSE to show your ID the next time you get pulled over for a traffic stop.

Somehow, I think refusing to show ID, pre- or post-911 can get yo u in trouble.

I'd really like to know the legalites here, and if it is something local ordinances control vs state or federeal.

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Not to make light of this situation, but if anyone would like to test this, just REFUSE to show your ID the next time you get pulled over for a traffic stop.

Ummm... if you get pulled over for a traffic stop the cops can demand to see a valid drivers licence.

As for any other situation, and as far as I know, there is no requirement that someone carries ID with them at all times unless they intend to do something that requires proof of age (like buying alcohol). She should have simply told them she didn't carry ID rather than refuse to produce it. Not having ID on you is not a refusal but an inability to comply.

I mean, could you be arrested for leaving your ID at home?

edit: I just read the entire article (I should remember to do that first ) . Very well presented! This should be an open & shut case IMO.
.

[edit on 11/26/2005 by Gools]

The cop was also annoyed with the fact that she was on the phone with a friend and didn't feel like hanging up, even when he 'ordered' her to do so.

I wonder what else she did to annoy them. I mean, why not just refuse her entry to the Denver Federal Center?

For the next two weeks she said had no ID. The guards would then ask her if she was getting off on Denver Federal Center property. When she told them 'no', they would let her alone: not once was she ever asked to get off the bus.

They only got mad when she said, "No", not when she said she didn't have her id on her. Maybe she just got some jerk on shift that day.

Some of you are getting carried away over this for unfounded reasons.

She was on federal property therefore she has to comply with the rules while on their property.

The rules for this facility are (note I am only posting the relevant parts)

Safe & Secure
In order to make this facility safe for you and those who work here, we request that you comply with the following guidelines:

Please be prepared to present a valid drivers license and current vehicle registration at the gate.

Vehicles may be subject to inspection upon entrance.

Please drive in a careful and safe manner at all times and comply with signals and directions of the Federal Protective Officers.
Source

Then look at the source article, and note it is the official web site of the individual concerned therefore biased rather then objective towards the story.

www.papersplease.org...
This is the official website of Deborah Davis

I would venture to say the lawyer that took on this case will be rather sorry given the fact they have laws on the books as posted by Shaker above that cleary show she did not comply with at least one of them.

Originally posted by shots
Some of you are getting carried away over this for unfounded reasons.

I disagree with that characterisation. This is as important as habeus corpus in the Padilla case.

She was on federal property therefore she has to comply with the rules while on their property.

She was on public property (the bus) transiting on federal land. BTW, when did "federal land" become "private" vis-a-vis a taxpaying US citizen (other than for state secret reasons like area-51)?

Safe & Secure
In order to make this facility safe for you and those who work here, we request that you comply with the following guidelines: [why focus on the word "comply"? They are making a "request" because they can't force you against the constitution]

Please be prepared to present a valid drivers license and current vehicle registration at the gate. [does not apply to the bus passengers]

Vehicles may be subject to inspection upon entrance. [not people]

Please drive in a careful and safe manner at all times [again, does not apply to passengers] and comply [remember: "we request"] with signals and directions of the Federal Protective Officers.

Then look at the source article, and note it is the official web site of the individual concerned therefore biased rather then objective towards the story.

Objective towards the story? What is the objective story you are measuring this "bias" against? Please fill us in.

I'm curious.

If you were on the jury in this case, would you automatically look at everything that the defense produces as "biased" but accept the "authoritative" version presented by the prosecuting "official"?

You don't seem like the type shots
.

Unpopular as it is, this type of gestapo law was narrowly upheld by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada.
Göring would be proud.

www.epic.org...
www.supremecourtus.gov...

[edit on 26-11-2005 by Vajrayana]

Originally posted by Gools
[As for any other situation, and as far as I know, there is no requirement that someone carries ID with them at all times unless they intend to do something that requires proof of age (like buying alcohol). She should have simply told them she didn't carry ID rather than refuse to produce it. Not having ID on you is not a refusal but an inability to comply.

I mean, could you be arrested for leaving your ID at home?

The short answer is yes. We disussed this a little in defcon5's thread; PA Announcements about carrying your Identification at Retail Shops. I think most states have a law requiring citizens to be able (at any time/location) to prove their identity. I know that this is the case where i live in Florida. If i'm stopped for, whatever reason, i need to be able to show proof of identity or i can be detained/arrested until such time as my identity can be verified...for obvious reasons. I think if the state ("johnny law") has good reason (very subjective i think, and where the real issue is imo) or "need to know" your identity and you don't/can't comply you can and most likely will be arrested.

I posted this on the 2nd page of that thread i linked you to.

www.epic.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.epic.org...

Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Arrest for Refusal to Identify. In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court has narrowly upheld a Nevada law allowing law enforcement to arrest an individual when he refuses to identify himself, and reasonable suspicion--though not probable cause--exists that he has committed a crime. (June 21, 2004)

Notice "reasonable suspicion-though not probable cause..." It's law in most states so far as i'm aware and has been the rule/practice for quite some time. So long as the officer has "reasonable suspicion" which, imo, could mean just about anything.

Originally posted by ufia
A woman commuting to work in a public bus was arrested after declining to show her ID... (to a) ... a security guard .

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.

In most states you are required to show identification to a Law Enforcement Officer upon dempand, a Security Guard is NOT a Law Enforcement Officer. Security Guards are miminmum wage flunkies who are supposed to be the eyes and ears of the people that hire them. If I were her, I would file an immediate lawsuit against the Guard and his company.

Originally posted by 2stepsfromtop


In most states you are required to show identification to a Law Enforcement Officer upon dempand, a Security Guard is NOT a Law Enforcement Officer. Security Guards are miminmum wage flunkies who are supposed to be the eyes and ears of the people that hire them. If I were her, I would file an immediate lawsuit against the Guard and his company.

That's a good point. I definately don;t agree with what happened to this lady, and it does seem like a rent-a-cop just being a jerk cause he thinks he has the power to do so....you're right he/she doesn't.

If ID is required to enter Denver Federal Center property that is fine. But these guys should have been waiting outside of the bus and checking ID's of only those who were going to the Denver Federal Center. She wasn't and therefore i don't see the "reasonable cause" that i talked about in my last post.

Her local chapter of the ACLU has taken on her case, and i imagine any lawyer worth their salt will get this thrown out rather easily. I do believe though that cops were called and they did ask for her ID, not just the security officers. But still i don't see any reasonable cause to ask her....but what exactly constitutes "reasonable"?

Originally posted by Gools

She was on federal property therefore she has to comply with the rules while on their property.

She was on public property (the bus) transiting on federal land. BTW, when did "federal land" become "private" vis-a-vis a taxpaying US citizen (other than for state secret reasons like area-51)?

It makes no difference the bus was on federal property therefore those on the bus are required to follow their laws, in this case federal laws.


I have had two occasions to visit where I have gone to our federal court house (no I did not do anything wrong) to pick up some material and on both I was asked to provide ID and I thought nothing of it.

I realize that this incident occurred in the US, but my understanding is that in Canada, a law enforcement officer can actually stop and demand to see ID from you at any time. Of course, in practice, they don't just go around demanding to see your IDs, unless they are doing motor vehicle stops or something like that. I don't know if the same thing is true in the US, not being familiar enough with american law.

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne
I realize that this incident occurred in the US, but my understanding is that in Canada, a law enforcement officer can actually stop and demand to see ID from you at any time. Of course, in practice, they don't just go around demanding to see your IDs, unless they are doing motor vehicle stops or something like that. I don't know if the same thing is true in the US, not being familiar enough with american law.

Yeah it's the same here, but as i posted previously they need "reasonable cause". Which goes to your comment; " in practice, they don't just go around demanding to see your IDs", they don't do that here (U.S.) either..but the point is that they can.

In this case the reason given to Mrs. Davis to show her ID was that anyone entering the Denver Federal Center is required to do so. She wasn't intending to get off of the public bus and further i don't know that a security officer has the right to require you to do so, else you'll be arrested. They could refuse her entry but that's about it so far as i'm aware. And i don't think shots' point that; "the bus was on federal property" is sensible or "reasonable" imho, she had no intention of entering the property and has no control of the route that the public bus takes.

Like i said if these security officers were waiting outside of the bus doors to check the ID of departing passengers, then i don't see a problem. But, imho, this women was clearly harrased and her civil rights were violated...and for no good "reason".

Ok my translation is probably bad but I believe it would be something like this...

"geben sie mir ihre papieren"

There just seems to be too many similarities. You will be required to carry government issued ID at all times and you will need permission to travel. We are rapidly headed that direction.

To enter federal property on a public transport, pre or post 9/11 you have to show a valid id or work pass. And it can't just be a drivers license, it has to be a federally issued id card. You have to have a reason for being there, and if you don't show your id, then you aren't going to be allowed to enter the property. I have a valid base sticker to get onto any military base, but I haven't been allowed on without an escort for years, since I don't have a military issued id card. At random times prior to 9/11 the same thing happened. Before entering the base, the bus has to stop at the back gate, the guard comes on and checks everyones id card, anyone without one is asked to leave the bus unless they have an escort.

Originally posted by Indy
We are rapidly headed that direction.

In my view, we are already there.