Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Coloradan faces jail for refusal to show ID
The Washington Times ^ | 11-30-05 | Valerie Richardson

Posted on 12/05/2005 12:57:58 PM PST by JOAT

DENVER -- Deborah Davis' refusal to show her identification to federal police at a bus stop has turned her into a cause celebre among privacy-rights advocates.

Mrs. Davis, a 50-year-old Arvada, Colo., grandmother of five, was handcuffed, placed in a police car and ticketed for two petty offenses by Federal Protective Services officers who were checking passengers' identification Sept. 26 aboard a Regional Transportation District (RTD) bus at the Federal Center stop.

..< SNIP >..Several things bothered her about the ID checks. She wasn't entering a federal building or even leaving the bus. The officers barely glanced at the passengers' ID cards and didn't check them against a master list. The whole exercise struck her as "just Big Brother watching you," she said.

(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Miscellaneous; US: Colorado
KEYWORDS: yourpapersplease
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-153 next last
What say you?
1 posted on 12/05/2005 12:58:00 PM PST by JOAT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JOAT

Maybe you should ask her "media consultant".


2 posted on 12/05/2005 1:00:57 PM PST by L98Fiero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOAT

GO, GRANNY, GO!......


3 posted on 12/05/2005 1:01:30 PM PST by Red Badger (Dan rather didn't say "Courage", he said "Couric"..................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOAT

Attitude.


4 posted on 12/05/2005 1:02:02 PM PST by billhilly (John Murtha, ex Marine. Leading the charge of the Demoquits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: JOAT

I think she's got a bigger pair of stones than our current Republican "leadership."


6 posted on 12/05/2005 1:02:48 PM PST by Prime Choice (We are RepubliCANs, not RepubliCAN'Ts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOAT

Wasn't there a supreme court case on this issue just a few years ago?


7 posted on 12/05/2005 1:03:35 PM PST by floydibanezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOAT
Posted a week ago when it was news.

So9

8 posted on 12/05/2005 1:03:36 PM PST by Servant of the 9 (Trust Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOAT

I agree with her. Perhaps she is the Rosa Parks of this period in time.


9 posted on 12/05/2005 1:03:43 PM PST by Millie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOAT
A legally-valid search requires probable cause. Or at least, that's what following stare decisis would require.
10 posted on 12/05/2005 1:04:32 PM PST by sourcery (Either the Constitution trumps stare decisis, or else the Constitution is a dead letter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOAT
I am with Granny on this one. Maybe if she was going to the Federal Center I could understand the need for a check but she wasn't. Maybe they need to rethink the procedure and only ID people getting off the bus.
11 posted on 12/05/2005 1:04:47 PM PST by Gator101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOAT

Ook?


12 posted on 12/05/2005 1:06:36 PM PST by Uriah_lost (We aren't pro-war, we're PRO-VICTORY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coloradan

LOL, just read the title and instantly thought it was you.


13 posted on 12/05/2005 1:08:25 PM PST by RabidBartender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: floydibanezer
In that case (Nevada), the SCOTUS ruled the police had probable cause.

This doesn't seem to meet that test.

14 posted on 12/05/2005 1:09:12 PM PST by pierrem15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Millie

"I agree with her. Perhaps she is the Rosa Parks of this period in time."

LOL!! Sorry, that was just funny. You and the folks over at DU. Because it happened on a bus, naturally the most base thinkers come up with "Rosa Parks". Excellent job of trivializing Mrs. Parks contribution to this nation.

Don't want to show your ID? Don't take a bus through a secure area. Despise the government that much? Stay off their property. See? It's not difficult.

I thought FR was not in favor of staged street theater by left-wingers. Guess not.


15 posted on 12/05/2005 1:11:23 PM PST by L98Fiero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sourcery

Or no cause needed when accessing a restricted facility. Not saying that's the case here. Contrast this to Russia where documents can be demanded anytime, anywhere for any reason.. I was there 12/2001 and with a dark-haired Russian girl who could have been mistaken for a chechyen, together we looked a bit out of place and when we went out, no more than 100 feet from our building the militsya surrounded us to peruse our documents. No cause needed other than the way we looked. So, this isn't the end of the world, nor the beginning of the end...


16 posted on 12/05/2005 1:12:32 PM PST by InsureAmerica (Evil? I have many words for it. We are as dust, to them. - v v putin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JOAT

If you can't be IDed on a bus, then you can't be bag-searched getting on the subway, either. Both cases have a public conveyance, the right to travel, and no probable cause. Ironically, profiling could cause these to meet the probable cause requirement.


17 posted on 12/05/2005 1:13:55 PM PST by thoughtomator (What'ya mean you formatted the cat!?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: L98Fiero

Da, Comrade! The State must be secure! All loyal subjects must support this!


18 posted on 12/05/2005 1:15:06 PM PST by thoughtomator (What'ya mean you formatted the cat!?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9
Posted a week ago when it was news.

So9

Not under this title.

(But I'm sure you already know this since your type fervently hopes to make people look stupid by linking smart-ass 'already posted' comments at every opportunity.)

Thanks anyway for your 'insightful' comment, Post Police.

19 posted on 12/05/2005 1:16:21 PM PST by JOAT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JOAT
We should not have to carry papers. If there is no cause for police attention an ID should not be required for presentation.

What New York is doing makes a lot more sense. This sound like someone promoted Eric Cartman to security chief.

20 posted on 12/05/2005 1:17:23 PM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOAT

At least he didn't ask for your ID.


21 posted on 12/05/2005 1:18:22 PM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator

""If you can't be IDed on a bus, then you can't be bag-searched getting on the subway, either""

You can be both, depending on specifics of the situation.

If a captured terrorist claims an accomplice is readying to board the metro with an explosive device, the authorities are placed at all entrances and exits to check bags, this is not allowed? Under what premise? Are there bag checks for folks who tour the whitehouse? No backpacks allowed at 4th of july celebration on the Mall?

The list is endless. The point is there is no violation of rights because there is no requirement to tour the whitehouse, etc. Andrews AFB airshow is another example. Everything checked to get in. If I don't like it, I don't go. I certainly don't sue someone about it...


22 posted on 12/05/2005 1:20:07 PM PST by InsureAmerica (Evil? I have many words for it. We are as dust, to them. - v v putin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

I believe the consitutionality of traffic stops has been upheld because I would imagine in balance the benefit outweighs the cost. There is no probable cause there. Where is the line drawn at having to provide evidence (documents)of who you are, in some cases??


23 posted on 12/05/2005 1:24:20 PM PST by InsureAmerica (Evil? I have many words for it. We are as dust, to them. - v v putin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: JOAT
I remember a time when we used to criticize the former Soviet Union for such practices as "internal passports" and aggressive Gestapo-like police with chips on their shoulders that could harass little old ladies or anyone they didn't like the looks of.

What on earth is happening to the America I used to know?

24 posted on 12/05/2005 1:29:22 PM PST by Bon mots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bon mots

"What on earth is happening to the America I used to know?"

The indoctrination strategy of homosexuals, marxists, socialists, islamic fundamentalism, the lust for power at the cost of the needs of the citizenry, just to name a few.

Freedom does have its price.


25 posted on 12/05/2005 1:33:34 PM PST by InsureAmerica (Evil? I have many words for it. We are as dust, to them. - v v putin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: JOAT

Hmm. Touchy subject. I'm really not sure what the point is of checking the ID of everyone on the bus even if they aren't getting off. I wonder if they are concerned about where the bus will pass near on that property. It sounds like the bus is on federal property. If that's the case it's unlikely that the officer's requirement of her showing identification is unlawful.

If the order isn't unlawful, she doesn't have the right to ignore it just because she feels it is intrusive. It seems like she could have picked a better way to try and get this proceedure changed.

I think that the prosecutor is going to have to charge her even if they decide to change the proceedure. She lied to the officers on several occasions before finally refusing to comply. If they don't charge her it could undermine their ability to demand identification of people comming onto federal property.

However, I'm curious why they were checking IDs of people who weren't getting off the bus. I don't see how that addresses any threat that person on the bus might pose unless the bus travels by something on the way out that it didn't go by on the way in.

Either I'm missing something significant or this is a stupid proceedure. However, disobeying lawful orders of law enforcement officials isn't the right way to fight stupid prodeedures, and I doubt that the courts are going to find the proceedure to be unlawful.

The prosecutor may decide not to prosecute, but if the prosecution goes forward, I'm guessing she's gonna lose.


26 posted on 12/05/2005 1:34:49 PM PST by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InsureAmerica
I believe the consitutionality of traffic stops has been upheld because I would imagine in balance the benefit outweighs the cost.

That's true.

Where is the line drawn at having to provide evidence (documents)of who you are . . .

A grandmother minding her own business on a city bus seems like a pretty good one.

27 posted on 12/05/2005 1:37:13 PM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

If you're traveling through a federal center, I don't have a problem with a requirement for ID.


28 posted on 12/05/2005 1:37:30 PM PST by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

""A grandmother minding her own business on a city bus seems like a pretty good one.""

She is 50 years old, yes? (hope i'm correct on that) A 50 year old can kill people. It's convenient to keep using the euphamism "grandma", and in a sterile world I would agree with you. A grandma minding her own business. I just don't think for a second this incident is that simple. Seems to be some missing info. Oversimplifications for the sake of arguing a point can easily lead down the road of logical fallacy....


29 posted on 12/05/2005 1:40:34 PM PST by InsureAmerica (Evil? I have many words for it. We are as dust, to them. - v v putin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jess35
If you're traveling through a federal center, I don't have a problem with a requirement for ID.

Why would ID be required for traveling through a federal center?

30 posted on 12/05/2005 1:41:42 PM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

Ask the people in Oklahoma city.


31 posted on 12/05/2005 1:43:24 PM PST by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: InsureAmerica
The line is when you enter Federal land, they can set up a perimeter and check ID before letting anyone enter. No different from a military base. She was trying to enter onto Federal land and if she did not want to show ID she should have taking one of the bus routs that do no enter a Federal Facility.
32 posted on 12/05/2005 1:43:43 PM PST by On the Road to Serfdom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: InsureAmerica
Seems to be some missing info.

And if the story is basically complete?

Oversimplifications for the sake of arguing a point can easily lead down the road of logical fallacy . . .A 50 year old can kill people.

You think?

33 posted on 12/05/2005 1:43:52 PM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Bon mots
What on earth is happening to the America I used to know?

The America you used to know must be destroyed for the good of the State.

34 posted on 12/05/2005 1:47:51 PM PST by zeugma (Warning: Self-referential object does not reference itself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
Why would ID be required for traveling through a federal center?

Please tell me your kidding. You serioulsly can't think of a reason entering a federal facility might be restricted?

35 posted on 12/05/2005 1:49:25 PM PST by On the Road to Serfdom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jess35
Why would ID be required for traveling through a federal center? . . .Ask the people in Oklahoma city.

Let's see. Granny drives up in a rental truck. Granny rides the bus. Nah, no different in threat potential. Granny can sure pack a lot of fertilizer in her purse.

36 posted on 12/05/2005 1:50:02 PM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

I am sure I can come up with a list of 50 year olds who have killed people if this is what you are asking..and even some who are grandmothers with grandchildren....

If not, then yes, "I think"


What about Tookie Williams? He is a nobel laureate? (I may be mistaken on this but you get the point). So if you refer to him as a prize winning author, sounds real good. If you refer to him as a fiend who slaughtered 4 people, sounds a bit different.


37 posted on 12/05/2005 1:51:27 PM PST by InsureAmerica (Evil? I have many words for it. We are as dust, to them. - v v putin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: JOAT

July 7, 2005, London.

I say that I wish that it could be arranged, that the victims of the next terrorist attacks in the U.S., could be limited to the people that fear "Big Brother" more than they fear terrorists.

38 posted on 12/05/2005 1:52:01 PM PST by Daaave ("If you print that, I will deny it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: On the Road to Serfdom
Please tell me your kidding. You serioulsly can't think of a reason entering a federal facility might be restricted?

Entering the facility? Did she get off the bus? But OK, why should a federal facility be restricted?

39 posted on 12/05/2005 1:53:38 PM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

"Okay you old biddies... WHERE ARE YOUR PAPERS?!"

40 posted on 12/05/2005 1:54:37 PM PST by Bon mots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: InsureAmerica
A 50 year old can kill people. . .Oversimplifications for the sake of arguing a point can easily lead down the road of logical fallacy

Does make the point clearer?

41 posted on 12/05/2005 1:54:58 PM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
Let's see...Granny feigns illness and demands to be let off the bus after the security checkpoint.

Some of you guys really crack me up. You demand a wall around the USA so Jose Illegal can't get a job cleaning toilets...but free and unfettered access to federal properties.

42 posted on 12/05/2005 1:55:14 PM PST by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

So your solution is to do nothing, because everything can't be done? Sounds like the anti-war left complaining that all the money being spent in Iraq should be spent here instead. Well, was it spent here before the war, and if so what good has it done? Doesn't work that way.

We try to deter granny with every means possible whether a rental truck or a bus. Doesn't mean it's 100%. Doesn't have to be 100%.


43 posted on 12/05/2005 1:56:35 PM PST by InsureAmerica (Evil? I have many words for it. We are as dust, to them. - v v putin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Comment #44 Removed by Moderator

To: Tribune7

No


45 posted on 12/05/2005 1:59:21 PM PST by InsureAmerica (Evil? I have many words for it. We are as dust, to them. - v v putin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: votemallout
And if you don't give them your ID, the I think they should have the right...no the honor of killing you.

Overreact much? You're pretty emotional about this. Folks over at DU get you all stirred up?

46 posted on 12/05/2005 2:00:07 PM PST by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

Comment #47 Removed by Moderator

To: Tribune7

>>Did she get off the bus?

It does not matter. They own the land. They set up a perimiter and check everyone entering the land. Imagine a military base with several buildings, with a checkpoint at the entrance. Once she is in they would not know if she got off the bus or not. It makes more sense to have a perimiter. Checking ID for half the bus, then trying to run after the bus and watch who gets off, and try to remeber if they were the ones who showed ID or not, would be silly.

By the way, according to another tread, she purposefully took this bus knowing the situation when she could have taken other busses to her destination that did not enter the Federal facility area.


48 posted on 12/05/2005 2:02:41 PM PST by On the Road to Serfdom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: InsureAmerica

The right to travel is a long-established and inalienable right, and rightly so since without it we have no liberty, we are simply prisoners. By establishing public transportation services, the right to travel on them is not excluded.

The Fourth Amendment says that the people should be secure in their persons, houses, etc. from unreasonable search and seizure - that is, searches without probable cause.

So therefore it follows that a person traveling on public transport retains his/her Fourth Amendment rights; and therefore without probable cause no person can be legally searched while getting on a subway or traveling by bus.

If the means of transportation were privately-owned then those private owners would have the right to make searches a condition of using the transportation. But since it is the government which owns the transportation, it is limited in what it may do by the same rules that pertain to all other acts of government.


49 posted on 12/05/2005 2:04:06 PM PST by thoughtomator (What'ya mean you formatted the cat!?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jess35
Let's see...Granny feigns illness and demands to be let off the bus after the security checkpoint.

Couldn't they ask for her her ID then? Reality check: she didn't feign illness and demand to be let off the bus after the security checkpoint.

You demand a wall around the USA so Jose Illegal can't get a job cleaning toilets...but free and unfettered access to federal properties.

Well, actually I'm probably in the cut-Jose-some-slack minority here but the unpatrolled parts of our southern border and the 10 million or so undocumented foreigners here strike me as being a far more legitmate security concern than granny.

50 posted on 12/05/2005 2:04:29 PM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-153 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson