djtestudo

I do think that either he misunderstood what was being asked, or that he was just being argumentitive, to that point. However, if you read what he said, and the posts he was responding to, they had nothing to do with the specific incident that was the topic of the thread.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

roachboy

i will admit that this article was in the back of my mind when i wrote this morning:

source: http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earl...lita.html#more

i am still working out what i think about this.
but the blurring of the line that seperates police from military functions, and which results in direct military interference with domestic politics (under the guise of the "war on terror" obviously) seems to me an a priori bad thing.

as for the article, i dont think the writer's tone adds much to the presentation of the information.

speaking of tone....perhaps the above article (and that i have been thinking about it) accounts for my-----um-------highly-----o what's the word?------directed reading of ustwo's posts from earlier.
mea culpa.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Elphaba

Roachboy, I used that very same article to start a new thread about the proper role of the Dod. Your concern about a show of force at the state or federal level was my inspiration.

Redlemon

So, what happens when you don't show your ID? This happens.

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

Ustwo

You know I was pretty horrifed with this, and then something hit me.

Whats the difference between an aircraft and a bus, besides the obvious?

What makes aircraft special that they require ID's and buses not?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

dksuddeth

again, if people do not want to deal with this, don't take the public transportation. drive yourself. when enough people stop supporting the system like that, it will stop.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

samcol

If you drive yourself the terrorists have won. Seriously though, this will only stop when people start refusing to show ID. Then the person behind them doesn't show ID, and then the next person.

Haven't we lost already if you have alter your daily schedule so you don't have to be confronted by the "Paper's Please" police?

dksuddeth

how have the terrorists won? if police want to check ID's on public transportation, especially upon entering federal property, that is completely within their purview. now, if they should be doing random checkpoints on private vehicles asking for ID, then we have a problem.

As far as altering daily schedules.......it's all about privacy rights, correct? So what expectation of privacy do you think you are entitled to on government funded transportation as opposed to private transportation?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

9/11 for one. I may not agree with it, but I certianally see the logic.

samcol

The terrorists hate us for our freedom, so why do we have to give up more of our liberty and freedom than ever before to fight the terrorists? I just can't see the logic there. Why do we have to show ID domestically when we have thousands of undocumented immigrants, illegals, aliens, terrorists, workers or whatever you want to call them coming across the borders everyday? Btw they have been doing random car searches since 9/11 and with DUI checkpoints before then.

I have every expectation of privacy from the government in public as well as private places as outlined in the 4th amendment.
They have no reason to check your papers unless they have probable cause that you are breaking the law. Throughout history governments abusing its own citizens has been a much greater threat than terrorists ever have or will be.

Chilek9

There has never been a requirement for "probable cause" to require identification. That requires only mere suspicion. Police can then use the identification process to refine their suspicion to a higher level (this from cases dating back to the sixties and seventies). There is NOTHING new here, cops have been doing it for thirty and more years. I had it done to me in 1983 for the crime of walking down the sidewalk by a city policeman while walking to work. I completely understood then. The law requiring identification is very old and has been challenged many times. Your information is grossly incorrect and you have an expectation for privacy in public (think about that phrase, privacy in public, it's a myth) that does NOT exist and hasn't for a few decades.

samcol

You're correct that you don't have the right of privacy in public, but as I said you have the right to privacy FROM the government in public. The fourth amendment is a restriction on policing power and has no regard whether it's public or private property. Being in public does not waive your right to be secure in your person and papers.

What did you completely understand when that cop asked you for your ID back in 1983? That he had no real reason to do so and was violating the fourth amendment? Where's this law that says you have to show your ID anyway?

There are reasons words like "Police-state" and "paper's please" have such negative connotations in the United States. Past governments that did these kind of things were the most abusive in history, and these kinds of anti-terrorism policies need to be stopped dead in their tracks.

Mojo_PeiPei

Samcol there have been precedents set as close as 2004 that in public you may not be secure in your person and papers. Such as the Illonois(sp) case where a man was pulled over and searched externally by a cop dog, and found to have illegal "narcotics" in his possession. The search was upheld by the Supreme Court. I think there might have been a similar Nevada filing surrounding the providing of legal documents in the case of approach.

It has nothing to do with terrorism or past civilizations, it is fairly relevant in our own context.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Chilek9

First, every state in the Union has a requirement that someone identify themselves on request, failure to do so (the criminal charge is "Failure to identify" in New Mexico) can have criminal repercussions. If you don't have ID, then you can't provide it. But the reason behind it is crystal clear. First, an encounter in public, under certain circumstances, can be consensual, you have the option to walk away. In 1983, I was walking to work, where the dress requirement was dark clothing, about an hour before dawn in my neighborhood. The officer was doing a "Field Interview" to identify people that might be connected to criminal activity later on. This requires "mere suspicion" which is basically a minor to moderate deviation from normal contact conditions. During that contact, the officer is permitted to do a "pat down" for weapons (Terry v. Ohio) or the "Terry frisk."

What a LOT of folks know is that the Constitution restricts government activity, but they forget that it is not a suicide pact. You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, that is an exception to preserve the public safety. Police have, not just the authority, but the responsibility, in the interest of public safety, to identify people that are suspicious that they encounter. 99 times out of 100, there is no record made because it turns out that their suspicions weren't warranted (as in my case in '83, the officer made no contact card or record) and nothing is ever heard or done about after that. Remember, that with all rights come responsibilities.

By stopping someone on the street, the officer is conducting a Fourth Amendment "seizure" by "seizing" your person. The courts have all viewed this, under prescribed circumstances, to be reasonable. His request for identification is a REASONABLE search, under the Fourth Amendment, or at least so says the Supreme Court. There isn't ONE SINGLE country where this isn't the case. At least in the U.S., if you don't have an ID or a passport, they'll take your word for it, not take you to jail because POSSESSING ID in most other countries is required, but not in the U.S.

ubertuber

Ustwo, the obvious answer to your question is that what they do with the information is different. At the airport, an agent uses ID to verify that you are who you claim to be, and that identity is checked against a watchlist database. I'm sure you aren't suggesting that a security guard on a bus was doing the same thing. In fact, every time I have to show ID to get into an event or building I wonder how this prevents crime or terrorism. We are aware that terrorists don't have driver's licenses that identify them as such.

You've got some interesting information - thanks for posting. I still think there is a difference between "suspicion" (even as slight as you describe) and blanket searches. Unless there is a reason to suspect every person on a specific bus or flight, I'd have thought that random ID checks are not an exercise of 4th Amendment seizure as there is no reason to do the check. Am I wrong in thinking there is a distinction between the two things?

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Chilek9

I still think there is a difference between "suspicion" (even as slight as you describe) and blanket searches.
There is a difference. Blanket or random searches require no suspicion. Suspicion means that you are depending on facts that you can clearly articulate to justify a Fourth Amendment seizure of someone (a detention) and to require them to identify themselves. The articulable facts can include suspicious behavior, manner of dress, not matching the environment you are in ("that guy just doesn't look like he lives in this area"), and so on. A seizure of a person can require that the officer, if something develops later on like a complaint or an arrest of the seized person, that he justify his actions in seizing the person to identify that person. If a random or blanket contact is used, there is some kind of justification or authority that is far above the individual officer to make such a stop and would be articulated in documents.

I'd have thought that random ID checks are not an exercise of 4th Amendment seizure as there is no reason to do the check.
Okay, whenever a government agent, with authority to do so, stops someone, it is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. They are using their government authority to seize your person. If there is justification for the "seizure," then it is not "unreasonable" as stated in the Constitution. There has to be a lawful, empowering regulation or law to allow the seizure, immigration checkpoints, for instance. When there is a reasonable expectation that public safety is jeopardized, the random or blanket contact can be used to identify individuals, during that contact the officer/agent of the government is allowed to develop MORE suspicion that would allow an enforced detention to investigate criminal activity as long as the detention stays REASONABLE within the facts that he can articulate that justify the detention. There are court cases that give police strong guidelines to follow under these circumstances. So, to answer the question, depending on the risk to public safety and the possibility of an attack, a blanket or random contact system is justifiable. On the bus, after McVeigh and the two WTC attacks ('93 and 9/11) and the attack on the Pentagon in 9/11, government buildings are a high risk target and blanket and/or random searches are permitted as being REASONABLE by the courts because of the higher, inherent risk.

So, the two ideas of throwing out the drift net and seeing what we catch and a Fourth Amendment seizure of a person kind of closely interact if not overlap. The blanket search is still a Fourth Amendment seizure of a person when the demand for identification is made. But just chatting about who you are might be construed, by the courts, as a consensual encounter that you are free to walk away from, even if it gets around to a REQUEST to see your ID during that consensual encounter, and, therefore NOT a Fourth Amendment seizure of your person.