"I'm just a regular, normal, everyday person."

Nick Gillespie | November 28, 2005

So says Denverite Deborah Davis, a 50-year-old woman with a son fighting in Iraq. And who got pulled off a public bus for failing to show I.D. to a guard who boarded the bus outside the Denver Federal Center. From an account by Denver Post columnist David Harsanyi:

"I'm just a regular, normal, everyday person," Davis says. "There is nothing really far out about me. I have been laid off. I pay my taxes. I have my problems. I am no different than anyone else. It just didn't seem right."

Ah, but here she's wrong.

She's not like anyone else. So let's hope more Americans act like Deb Davis, not another partisan hack acting the victim, but an average American who questions government intrusion into our private and public lives for freedom's sake.

Davis, who will be arraigned in December, faces two misdemeanor federal charges and up to 60 days in jail. She's being represented by the ACLU. Whole thing here.

Tip o' the pixel to reader Sean Verlain.

D'oh! Update: Jacob Sullum blogged Deborah Davis' case last week here.

Comments

|11.28.05 @ 10:40AM|#

this woman deserves a presidential medal of freedom - the real kind, not the kind you get for screwing up

Shannon Love|11.28.05 @ 11:12AM|#

So does anyone know why they were checking for IDs? It seems we're only getting one side of the story. The presumption seems to be that no valid reason existed for asking for the IDs yet no evidence is given either way.

None of the news reports seem to have even asked the question.

|11.28.05 @ 11:18AM|#

Shannon, given that the bus was simply crossing the federal property to get from point A to point B, and she wasn't getting off on federal property, it hurts my brain to think about what legitimate end might be served by checking her ID, especially since they weren't checking them against any list or anything like that. Even if they had said, "We can't disclose why we're checking ID's," I might be appeased - but from what I've read, it appears to be an instance of exercising power for the purpose of exercising power.

|11.28.05 @ 11:45AM|#

It's nice to see someone questioning the government's policies because they're dumb, and not because they like them but they were made by someone from the opposing team. Especially nice to see someone demur from the spotlight so that a columnist has to go find her, rather than hiring political PR reps. Cindy Sheehan is so odious I find myself rooting against her, which isn't pleasant.

Shannon Love|11.28.05 @ 11:47AM|#

Adam,

The courts will decide the case based on the degree of specificity of the search. If the Feds were looking for somebody specific, or had a specific reason to believe that somebody unknown but on a city bus presented a threat of some kind, then the court will uphold the request for ID. If the Feds were just randomly trolling then they probably won't.

The devil is in the details and those details are missing from the reporting on this story. It seems that journalist could just ask the bus drivers if every bus got checked every day, just one bus got checked on one day. all busses got checked on a particular day etc. What is the pattern, if any?

For that matter, have the Feds said what they were doing? Has anyone asked? As near as I can tell, all the information on the story comes from the ACLU. Using one side in lawsuit as your sole source of information isn't a good idea.

|11.28.05 @ 12:09PM|#

Wasn't there a SCOTUS decision just last year that the police could not demand your "papers" and arrest you for failing to comply unless there was the suspicion of a crime occuring that you might reasonably be involved-in?

Having a policeman demand, "papers", must be one of the most ugliest acts to occur on U.S.-soil....irregardless of his wearing a black leather trenchcoat, or not.

|11.28.05 @ 12:34PM|#

I wish there were 100s of folks riding that same bus, and refusing to show ID in solidarity with this woman. They should fill the courts with these cases. I would be interested myself, but I live nowhere near there.

|11.28.05 @ 12:37PM|#

How long before someone pulls a Bernie Getz on these thugs?

�Sure, I have an ID for each one of you��

If a cop�s only claim to authority is that he has a gun and you don�t, then in my mind he is a thug.

|11.28.05 @ 12:47PM|#

Ted B-As I recall, the SCOTUS decision was precisely the opposite; as long as there is a law requiring citizens to produce ID on demand, then police can ask for ID and arrest those who fail to produce it. Since I'm going from memory here, I could be wrong.
I must say, though, that this woman is hardly Rosa Parks. This is, at best, a minor issue.

|11.28.05 @ 1:03PM|#

To further demonstrate the utter pointlessness of it, I read that when they ask people for IDs, if you just say "Sorry, I don;t have one" they'll leave you alone. Which suggests that the ID check was being done for its own sake, as an exercise in authority, not to solve an actual security dilemma.

|11.28.05 @ 1:14PM|#

I doubt the lady facing 2 federal charges and 60 days in jail considers it "minor".

|11.28.05 @ 1:31PM|#

Shannon Love: Mr. Harsanyi writes that he tried to get a comment from the Dept. of Homeland Security and failed. As for as asking "the bus drivers," how does one do that? Have you polled the bus drivers in a major city recently? If it's easy, why don't you do it and post the results here? Thanks.

As for me, I think our civil liberties have been trampled on in the last four years. One need look no further than the National Lawyers Guild report "The Assault on Free Speech,
Public Assembly,
and Dissent." One can download it from www.nlg.org/resources/DissentBookWeb.pdf .

|11.28.05 @ 1:51PM|#

bill- I don't doubt that she sees it as significant. But any any context broader than her life, this is a minor issue.

|11.28.05 @ 2:16PM|#

But any any context broader than her life, this is a minor issue.

I must disagree--this could set a very bad precedent indeed. Maybe I'm just saying this because I live in the Northeast (I don't know where you are, #6)--ID checks if you want to ride the trains in Boston. Bag searches if you want to get on the New York subway or the trans leadnig into the city. Mucho seatbelt and drunk checkpoints. For the past--I dunno, 18 months or so?--I have found myself incapable of going more than five or six weeks without being subjected to a warrantless search with no probable cause whatsoever.

R C Dean|11.28.05 @ 2:59PM|#

Number 6 - so you think demands by officials to see your papers in order for you to travel on formerly public conveyances is trivial? Even though said demands serve no purpose whatsoever other than as a demonstration of authority?

Man, are you ever trolling the wrong blog.

|11.28.05 @ 3:15PM|#

Ted B., I think you may be thinking of Hiibel, which got some comment thread discussion when Jacob originally brought this matter up. Here's what I said back then (I repeat out of laziness and because my original lawyerly droning included a cite to the case):

The majority opinion in Hiibel may be distinguishable from this case, because the Hiibel court relied heavily on the fact that the Nevada statute only required Hiibel to state his name, not actually produce papers. Not to mention, the statute was fairly narrow and not a broad grant of authority to the police:

1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

. . . . .

3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.

I'm not sure how this case will shake out, but it's not a foregone conclusion that the courts will find for the government. If the government relies on the we-can-do-anything-on-federal-property argument, they'll probably get their hands slapped. Hiibel and previous decisions do tend to suggest that compelling anything beyond identification could implicate Fourth and Fifth Amendment concerns. In any event, we'll see how this plays out.

For anyone interested, see Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, 542 US 177 (2004) and EPIC's page on Hiibel.

|11.28.05 @ 3:33PM|#

I don't think it's particularly minor. Part of being free is the freedom to be left the hell alone, and not required to produce "papers" for no reason.

|11.28.05 @ 4:30PM|#

Number 6 - so you think demands by officials to see your papers in order for you to travel on formerly public conveyances is trivial? Even though said demands serve no purpose whatsoever other than as a demonstration of authority?
Man, are you ever trolling the wrong blog.

When it's an ID check on a federal installation, yes, I think it's a minor concern. I don't like it, but it's not worth hyperventilating about.

As for trolling-I've been around here for quite a while, RC, and think I've shown myself to be anything other than a troll. If disagreement equates to trolling in your world, then there's really nothing I can do about that.

|11.28.05 @ 4:47PM|#

As I understand it, several states have laws that say you must produce ID when asked. I don't know whether Colorado is one of those states, and good for Davis either way, but this is hardly a new issue.

Although the after effects of 9/11 have thrown our dwindling civil liberties into sharp relief, the truth is that the demanding of papers by police officers has enjoyed a long tradition in this country. It would be wonderful if this case, or any like it, led to public outcry over these sorts of actions or further, the odious de facto National ID.

Unfortunately, I don't believe that will happen. Even on this board, where the majority would agree that having to show your papers is a direct violation of individual liberty, we have those who would minimize it. "What's the big deal? Just show your ID and shut the hell up." Getting kicked off the bus is one thing. Being thrown in jail for 60 days is about as serious as it gets.

|11.28.05 @ 4:55PM|#

Ok-As I said before, I don't like the ID demand. Having said that, I'll ask-in what tangible way is someone's liberty affected by having to show an ID upon entering a federal installation?

|11.28.05 @ 5:25PM|#

Ok-As I said before, I don't like the ID demand. Having said that, I'll ask-in what tangible way is someone's liberty affected by having to show an ID upon entering a federal installation?

Because she was thrown in jail for refusing to comply. How is that not affecting her liberty? And she wasn't entering a federal installation. She was on a public bus that simply had to pass by a federal installation. Even if she was actually entering the building, refusal of entry should be the limit. Hell, even the police taking her off the bus and escorting her to the end of federal property is significantly different than slapping on the 'cuffs and taking her to jail.

|11.28.05 @ 5:29PM|#

Stretch-Fair enough. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that she was merely escorted off the property. Would that still pose a problem?

|11.28.05 @ 5:47PM|#

Stretch-Fair enough. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that she was merely escorted off the property. Would that still pose a problem?

Admittedly, it gets fuzzy here. I still think it's wrong in this case as the bus simply passes by (it would make more sense for the police to simply ride the bus with her until it reached the limit of the property), but ultimately the federal government can set the rules for use of federal property. In other words, though I dislike it, it does not pose the same problem as arresting a person.

The problem is not so much the demanding of ID, but the arbitrary demanding of ID with the threat of force behind it. Again, there was no real security concern here. It was a random stop with a jail sentance for non-compliance. Even on the NYC subway, you can refuse to have your bag searched (in theory anyway) but then are not allowed on the train. You're not automatically thrown in jail for it.

|11.28.05 @ 6:00PM|#

"To further demonstrate the utter pointlessness of it, I read that when they ask people for IDs, if you just say 'Sorry, I don;t have one' they'll leave you alone."

Unless they have probable cause to believe you're lying, in which case they can arrest you for violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1001 (the False Statements Act), carrying a penalty of up to 5 years in the joint (and under which Martha Stewart was convicted and Scooter Libbey has been indicted). (Of course, if during the search incident to arrest, they find out you really *didn't* have any ID on you (which I guess is possible, just as it's possible for monkeys to fly out my butt), then I guess they have to let you go.)

SteveInClearwater|11.28.05 @ 8:14PM|#

JENNIFER has it right.

Unless I'm driving or need it for financial transactions, I don't have an ID on me.

Figuratively.

I do carry my ID most places, but if anyone other than a traffic cop asks me for it while I'm a driver, I say, "Sorry, don't have it on me. My name is Stephen Heath. How can I help you?"

I am not aware of any jurisdiction which mandates you display an ID upon demand.

|11.28.05 @ 8:41PM|#

I live in a good "walking" neighborhood, and whenever I go to various stores or other spots in the area I make it a point to not carry any form of ID. (And I usually take a shortcut through the downtown Police Plaza, too.)

So far the police have never bothered me during my walks, though, I'll admit. It's driving or getting on public transport that's the problem.

|11.29.05 @ 12:13AM|#

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176958,00.html

(AP)MIAMI - Miami police announced Monday they will stage random shows of force at hotels, banks and other public places to keep terrorists guessing and remind people to be vigilant.

Deputy Police Chief Frank Fernandez said officers might, for example, surround a bank building, check the IDs of everyone going in and out and hand out leaflets about terror threats. ... "People are definitely going to notice it," Fernandez said. "We want that shock. We want that awe. But at the same time, we don't want people to feel their rights are being threatened. We need them to be our eyes and ears." ...

..." Police Chief John Timoney said there was no specific, credible threat of an imminent terror attack in Miami. ..."

"Your papers, bitte"

|11.29.05 @ 8:18AM|#

Ted B.-

But at least they're doing something!

:)

Chris Wage|11.29.05 @ 9:54PM|#

No worries about the dupe post. This case needs as much publicity as possible.