Why aren't we raising hell about this?

[cloudy]

I just stumbled across this, and I'm surprised that I haven't heard even a whisper of this anywhere. Not only that, I'm really disappointed that the whole country isn't raising hell about it. Have we all become meek, compliant, little sheep?

Commuting By Bus In Denver? Papers, please.

DEB DAVIS LIKES to commute to work by public bus. She uses the time to read, crochet or pay bills. It's her quiet time. What with the high price of gas, she saves money, too: a week's worth of gas money gets her a month's worth of bus rides.

On her first day commuting to work by bus, the bus stopped at the gates of the Denver Federal Center. A security guard got on and demanded that all of the passengers on this public bus produce ID. She was surprised by the demand of the man in uniform, but she complied: it would have meant a walk of several miles if she hadn't. Her ID was not taken and compared to any "no-ride" list. The guard barely glanced at it.

When she got home, what had happened on the bus began to bother her. 'This is not a police state or communist Russia', she thought. From her 8th grade Civics class she knew there is no law requiring her, as an American citizen, to carry ID or any papers, much less show them to anyone on a public bus.

She decided she would no longer show her ID on the bus.

The Compliance Test

On Monday, September 26th 2005, Deb Davis headed off to work on the route 100 bus. When the bus got to the gates of the Denver Federal Center, a guard got on and asked her if she had an ID. She answered in the affirmative. He asked if he could see it. She said no.

When the guard asked why she wouldn't show her ID, Deb told him that she didn't have to do so. The guard then ordered her off the bus. Deb refused, stating she was riding a public bus and just trying to get to work.

The guard then went to call his supervisor, and returned shortly with a federal policeman. The federal cop then demanded her ID. Deb politely explained once again that she would not show her ID, and she was simply commuting to work. He left, returning shortly thereafter with a second policeman in tow.

The Second Compliance Test

This second cop asked the same question and got the same answer: no showing of ID, no getting off the bus.

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.

The second cop said everyone had to show ID any time they were asked by the police, adding that if she were in a Wal-Mart and was asked by the police for ID, that she would have to show it there, too.

She explained that she didn't have to show him or any other policeman my ID on a public bus or in a Wal-Mart. She told him she was simply trying to go to work.

The Arrest

Suddenly, the second policeman shouted "Grab her!" and he grabbed the cell phone from her and threw it to the back of the bus. With each of the policemen wrenching one of her arms behind her back, she was jerked out of her seat, the contents of her purse and book bag flying everywhere. The cops shoved her out of the bus, handcuffed her, threw her into the back seat of a police cruiser, and drove her to a police station inside the confines of the Denver Federal Center.

Once inside, she was taken down a hall and told to sit in a chair, still handcuffed, while one of the policemen went through her purse, now retrieved from the bus.

The two policemen sat in front of their computers, typing and conferring, trying to figure out what they should charge her with. Eventually, they wrote up several tickets, took her outside and removed the handcuffs, returned her belongings, and pointed her toward the bus stop. She was told that if she ever entered the Denver Federal Center again, she would go to jail.

She hasn't commuted by public bus since that day.

* * * * * * * * * *​

There's a website up and running to gather support for this woman as she takes on the government. Give it a look: linkage

 

[SeaCat]

Cloudy,

This is something I haven't heard either. I'll have to look into it more. Thanks.

Cat

 

[Wildcard Ky]

My first question would be purely legal. Are you required by law to show ID if someone in law enforcement tells you to?

 

[cloudy]

My first question would be purely legal. Are you required by law to show ID if someone in law enforcement tells you to?

No, and that's why she decided not to comply.

From the website:

Some Americans think that 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear'. Were the Founding Fathers criminals trying to protect themselves when they inserted the 4th and 5th amendments into the Bill of Rights? After all, nobody who hasn't done anything wrong needs to worry about being searched or being forced to testify against himself.

Over the years, Americans have become accustomed to showing ID in any number of circumstances. Few have asked the question, 'Why?'.

The Department of Homeland Security has attempted to institute programs predicated on the use of ID to improve security. The fact of the matter is that demands for ID do nothing for security while making honest Americans less free.

 

[Guest]

Same here. I'm going to check further.

I honestly don't know what to think. Shocked, disgusted, horrified.

 

[SeaCat]

Interesting,

I just did a quick search on this and did indeed find several articles about it, including one in the Denver Post. I do have a couple of questions which these articles do not comment on.

While one of the quotes said this was done for secuity reasons, the few pictures they have do not show any gates or fences. How secure is that? Is there a notice posted at the gate, (if there is a gate) stating that entry is only permitted with a valid I.D.? And of course, what in the hell is a public transportation bus doing going through a supposedly secured site? (Basic questions for anyone who has even thought of doing security.)

Cat

 

[Colleen Thomas]

My first question would be purely legal. Are you required by law to show ID if someone in law enforcement tells you to?

There was a court case, not very long ago, where the judge upheld law enforcement's contention you DO have to show id when requested. I never thought that was the case, but apparently the question is one that is being heard.

 

[cantdog]

There was a court case, not very long ago, where the judge upheld law enforcement's contention you DO have to show id when requested. I never thought that was the case, but apparently the question is one that is being heard.

This goes state by state. In New Hampshire, you distinctly need probable cause to legitimately demand ID, unless you are Border Patrol or a Game Warden.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

This goes state by state. In New Hampshire, you distinctly need probable cause to legitimately demand ID, unless you are Border Patrol or a Game Warden.

I seem to remember in Mississippi Game wardens enjoy a great deal of authority not granted to regular law enforcement officals. I believe this case was in Pennsylvania, but I really can't be sure. Getting old I guess.

 

[zeb1094]

In most states the police think they have the right to demand an ID from someone, anyone, at anytime. After all they are the police and are there to protect and serve. Now I do agree there are certain times that the police have the right, the duty to ask for and receive ID's, but being a passenger on a bus on a public road shouldn't be one of them except as mentioned by SeaCat.

I have the same questions. Was the the bus still on the city street when this took place? Was it on U.S. Government property? When entering Government facilities there is alway a sign about showing proper ID upon request. There is also usually a phrase about no tresspassing, etc. Seems to me the cops took the wrong approach.

 

[cantdog]

The place is turning into a police state more and more all the fuckin time lately. After all, they are police. A whole lot of them are petty criminals.

 

[cloudy]

The place is turning into a police state more and more all the fuckin time lately. After all, they are police. A whole lot of them are petty criminals.

No shit. Try dealing with these bubbas that dress up as cops we have here.

 

[zeb1094]

No shit. Try dealing with these bubbas that dress up as cops we have here.

Bubbas. *LOL* Bubbas. *LOL*

 

[cloudy]

Bubbas. *LOL* Bubbas. *LOL*

Oh, that's right...you weren't around when I got arrested for a $20 check that bounced FIVE YEARS AGO. The cop was in plainclothes, and didn't identify himself before he grabbed my arm.

Did I mention that he weighed around 280 lbs or so, probably 6' 3" tall?

He said I "hurt his back" when I objected rather vigorously (and physically) to being grabbed by some gorilla with a bad case of done-lap disease. Oh, yes. I got charged with felony resisting arrest.

 

[cantdog]

Remind me to tell you about my blind friend who was spreadeagled and screamed at, held down and bound in cuffs, for 'raising his stick in a threatening manner.' The lawyer made mincemeat of them. They had'nt noticed he was blind. So they stalked him for seven months for some revenge.

 

[shereads]

This is the ugly but inevitable result when society turns its back on the denial of civil rights to people we fear or hold in contempt: it doesn't stop there. What we allow to be done to other people for the alleged good of society will eventually be done to all of us.

Every time a right is removed or an exception is made, we're told it's for our own good; if the victims are people we think deserve no better, it's too easy to believe that law-abiding people have nothing to worry about.

When the Patriot Act stripped us of the right to privacy and due process; and most recently, when Congress negated a court ruling by passing a law that sets aside habeus corpus in certain cases, some people did raise a ruckus. They were outnumbered by the ones who said, "If I'm not doing anything wrong, why should I care?" In the last couple of years, we've seen peaceful demonstrations subjected to all kinds of harrassment, from arrests for "loitering" to monitoring of the crowd by federal agents so that the names of protesters can be added to terrorist watch-lists. Since most of us don't participate in protests, most of us didn't notice.

It didn't begin with the War on Terror. Decades ago, the War on Drugs was the excuse to chip away at our constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizeure. The understandable wish to protect ourselves from drunk drivers and drug pushers made us look the other way when state highway patrols began conducting random traffic stops. There were minor ruckuses raised then, too. But again, the majority believed that random traffic stops were harmless; an annoyance we accepted for the greater good. This bus incident seems like a natural extension of the same practice, but without the excuse that someone might be driving under the influence. The excuse might not be necessary anymore. Eventually, we'll stop demanding one.

Personally, I think we opened a door that could never be closed again, the first time an American company was allowed to demand a cup of someone's urine as a condition of applying for work. I've never had to face that ethical hurdle; I've sworn I wouldn't - I hope I wouldn't - because I think the "drug-free workplace" culture is an unconscionably intrusive, depersonalizing, and hypocritical example of Big Brother in the private sector. The CEO's 3-martini business lunches are exempt from the threat of a blood-alcohol test, while the junior salesman could lose his job because he smoked a joint over the weekend. More important is the fact that a person against whom there is no evidence of any wrongdoing can be ordered to share the contents of his bladder with strangers. "But he shouldn't mind, if he's not doing anything wrong..."

The woman in cloudy's article wasn't doing anything wrong, either. It doesn't matter anymore. That's how police states get their start: for our own good.

 

[SummerMorning]

The woman in cloudy's article wasn't doing anything wrong, either. It doesn't matter anymore. That's how police states get their start: for our own good.

Every police state starts when the government and police decide they know best how people should run their lives. The follow-up argument is always, "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide."

What they never say out loud is, "We decide if what you've done is wrong."

And pretty soon it turns into, "If you've done nothing wrong, and you have nothing to hide, then *why* didn't you tell us what your neighbors were doing wrong?"

Basically, what it comes down to is: "You're always wrong if you're not with us, which is why we have to watch you. All the time."

 

[dr_mabeuse]

My first question would be purely legal. Are you required by law to show ID if someone in law enforcement tells you to?

(Oops. Should have read the rest of the posts before I answered.)


As I recall, the answer is yes.

I seem to remember a case before the Supreme Court a year or two ago involving a motorist who refused to show a cop any identification when we was stopped as part of a routine safety inspection (I think). They arrested the guy on something, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court. They found that yes, you were obligated to produce identification when required to do so by a law enforcement officer.

The case was tied up with another law which made fleeing from a police officer a crime. This is not the same as resisting arrest, which only happens when they're seeking to arrest you. It was about whether when a cop says, "Hey you! Come here!" you have to obey or are free to turn and walk away. I believe they found that you had to stop and obey.

I remember discussing this finding here on the AH, and the number of people who said, "If you've done nothing wrong, then why shouldn't you obey?"

I wonder if so many people still feel the same way?

 

[lucky-E-leven]

I remember discussing this finding here on the AH, and the number of people who said, "If you've done nothing wrong, then why shouldn't you obey?"

I hate this way of thinking. Here's why people resist: It's a fucking nuisance! I remember, as a teenager, being constantly harrassed by law enforcement because my best friend had a fondness for strange haircuts, loud hair color, piercings, and punk music. Never once did we behave outside the laws and yet it never failed that when my friend and I were in public, the cops needed to speak to us.

I think I'd be more inclined to give them my time if they could give me at least 3 good reasons supporting their probable cause for requesting my cooperation.

~lucky

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The problem is, it's very logical. If you aren't doing anything wrong, then you don't have anything to hide. Not having anything to hide, is not, however, the same as not having anything to protect. Of course most people don't see that these decisions errode or threaten their civil rights.

In the end, if you have no right to privacy, then you really don't have many rights at all.

 

[rgraham666]

"First they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew and so I did not speak out.

And so on until,

"And then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out."

The problem is, as so often the case, a lack of empathy and imagination. Many people simply cannot imagine themselves in the other person's shoes. And since they can't imagine, they can't make an informed decision.

Shrugs. As long as most of us get to keep our nice stuff, and our lives aren't interfered with, most of us don't care.

 

[rgraham666]

Just had an amusing thought.

I wonder how quiet the reaction would be if the government suddenly became 'left wing' and the police started harassing people in chauffeured limousines?

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Just had an amusing thought.

I wonder how quiet the reaction would be if the government suddenly became 'left wing' and the police started harassing people in chauffeured limousines?

Anarchy!!!!

 

[amicus]

This is the ugly but inevitable result when society turns its back on the denial of civil rights to people we fear or hold in contempt: it doesn't stop there. What we allow to be done to other people for the alleged good of society will eventually be done to all of us.

Every time a right is removed or an exception is made, we're told it's for our own good; if the victims are people we think deserve no better, it's too easy to believe that law-abiding people have nothing to worry about.

When the Patriot Act stripped us of the right to privacy and due process; and most recently, when Congress negated a court ruling by passing a law that sets aside habeus corpus in certain cases, some people did raise a ruckus. They were outnumbered by the ones who said, "If I'm not doing anything wrong, why should I care?" In the last couple of years, we've seen peaceful demonstrations subjected to all kinds of harrassment, from arrests for "loitering" to monitoring of the crowd by federal agents so that the names of protesters can be added to terrorist watch-lists. Since most of us don't participate in protests, most of us didn't notice.

It didn't begin with the War on Terror. Decades ago, the War on Drugs was the excuse to chip away at our constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizeure. The understandable wish to protect ourselves from drunk drivers and drug pushers made us look the other way when state highway patrols began conducting random traffic stops. There were minor ruckuses raised then, too. But again, the majority believed that random traffic stops were harmless; an annoyance we accepted for the greater good. This bus incident seems like a natural extension of the same practice, but without the excuse that someone might be driving under the influence. The excuse might not be necessary anymore. Eventually, we'll stop demanding one.

Personally, I think we opened a door that could never be closed again, the first time an American company was allowed to demand a cup of someone's urine as a condition of applying for work. I've never had to face that ethical hurdle; I've sworn I wouldn't - I hope I wouldn't - because I think the "drug-free workplace" culture is an unconscionably intrusive, depersonalizing, and hypocritical example of Big Brother in the private sector. The CEO's 3-martini business lunches are exempt from the threat of a blood-alcohol test, while the junior salesman could lose his job because he smoked a joint over the weekend. More important is the fact that a person against whom there is no evidence of any wrongdoing can be ordered to share the contents of his bladder with strangers. "But he shouldn't mind, if he's not doing anything wrong..."

The woman in cloudy's article wasn't doing anything wrong, either. It doesn't matter anymore. That's how police states get their start: for our own good.

Excellent post my friend, excellent!

And I offer no justifications, apologies or rationalizations. I feel quite the same way about the war on drugs and the right of authorities to demand identification. I have personally refused several times and in some instances, paid the price.

I wish the ACLU would get off the left wing hobby horse and address some of these basic constitutional issues with as much energy as the exert on the gay rights issue. Perhaps we need another organization?

amicus...

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Welcome to 1984... the millennium version...