PapersPlease.org -- Arrested for not showing ID

[Darren Dirt]

PapersPlease.org -- Arrested for not showing ID

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.

On the 9th of December 2005, Deborah Davis will be arraigned in U.S. District Court in a case that will determine whether Deb and the rest of us live in a free society, or in a country where we must show "papers" whenever a cop demands them.

1 www.papersplease.org/davis/

2 www.papersplease.org/davis/facts.html

3 www.papersplease.org/davis/case.html

4 www.papersplease.org/davis/id.html




That site has a couple of other "papers please" cases:
www.papersplease.org/

[NonEntity]

"... in a case that will determine whether Deb and the rest of us live in a free society..." I'm waiting with bated breath! I'm sure glad someone is going to tell me what my reality is. This is really important because I'm way too stoopid to figure it out for myself and I'm SO pleased that my owners are going to let me know if I'm owned or not. If it turns out that my owners DO own me, then am I required to believe what they tell me, or can I petition them to be allowed to make my own decisions on my beliefs?

- NonE

[lazerwood]

As long as you pay your "ownership fee" for the privilege of being owned, you will be allowed to make some decisions...(as long as they are the correct ones) ;D

[Azure Ray]

What questions should Deborah Davis ask when in court?

One question that comes to mind: "Is there evidence of a complaining party?"

What would you do in her shoes?


The following is from <http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/cda/article_print/0,1983,DRMN_15_4274023_ARTICLE-DETAIL-PRINT,00.html>:

Some supporters have called Davis "the Rosa Parks of the Patriot Act generation," a reference to the African-American woman who became a civil rights heroine after she refused to give up her seat on a public bus to a white man, Scannell said.

Davis said she showed her ID when a Federal Center guard asked to see it for the first couple of days she rode the RTD bus through the center. But it bothered her.

"It's wrong," she said Monday. "It's not even security. It's just a lesson in compliance - the big guys pushing the little guys around."

[lazerwood]

"It's wrong," she said Monday. "It's not even security. It's just a lesson in compliance - the big guys pushing the little guys around."

AMEN.

[Darren Dirt]

Nevada decision (Hiibel) resulted in blogger "Sunni" asking "what time does the 'Claire Wolfe' clock read?"

www.sunnimaravillosa.com/stories/solongfmn.html


Have a gander at some news stories covering this pretty-much-ignored-by-the-MSM issue...


huge list of linked articles


e.g.
www.csmonitor.com/2004/0322/p02s01-usju.htm

Analysts say the law creates a legal irony. If the police officer possessed enough evidence to place the suspect under arrest, the suspect would be given a Miranda warning that he or she had the right to remain silent. But if the police officer possessed only reasonable suspicion - not the higher standard of probable cause needed to justify an arrest - a suspect could be arrested and convicted merely for refusing to identify himself.

"Why should a criminal have more rights than an innocent person?" asks Harriet Cummings, a Nevada public defender who is part of the team challenging the law.

You know, come to think of it, even if you "give your name" to a cop, you have not previously contracted (a la Martha Stewart) with said cop to "not bear false witness", now have you?


- - -

Slate.com has a surprisingly balanced (although logic-ally clueless) take on it:
www.slate.com/id/2096560/


And something in the CNN article made me realize where Larry went wrong: www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/21/scotus.police.id/
"... Larry "Dudley" Hiibel, the Nevada rancher at the center of the case ... believed he was standing up for his constitutional rights. He was arrested after he told a deputy that he didn't have to reveal his name or show an ID during an encounter on a rural road in 2000. Hiibel was prosecuted, based on his silence and fined $250."

^ The problem I see here, of course, is Larry took a position; why not just say "Who are you and why are you speaking to me; Are you detaining me; Am I free to go; Can anything I now say be used against me; I am unable to proceed without the assistance of legal counsel." ;D

* Hiibels arrest video and transcript etc <-- at least it was a slim 5-4 "majority" decision ... and lots of "Amicus briefs" filed by CATO etc.

[Darren Dirt]

Memory Lane Walk: action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=30

The Senate passed the REAL ID Act on May 10th [2005]. This new law requires Americans for the first time in our history to carry national ID cards. Internal passports. Congress has imposed this on you and now thinks you will forget about it.

...hard to believe it's almost a year ago ain't it? So what happened to the loud voices of dissent last May, last June? :-\

[NonEntity]

What, you didn't hear me scream?

- NonE

[Blade]

I'm not carrying one.

[NonEntity]

Go BLADE!

- NonE

[Blade]

Thank You.

[Darren Dirt]

Getting on a plane without ID -- a first-person real-life story:

cryptome.org/no-id-fly.htm

When I got to the entry, the person there was not TSA, she was a rental cop. Pretty fuscia jacket and all. Handed her my boarding pass and an FAA flyer from the site.

She looked at me and asked for ID.

I asked her why. She was dumbfounded.

Took her awhile to say, I need to know who you are.

Let me introduce myself. I am called Brad. How else can I help you?

I need to see your driver's license.

Do I need to have a license to drive in order to board an aircraft? I ask. Silence.

You have to show me identification.

I would be pleased to show you identification as soon as you show me the statutory or regulatory requirement to do so.

...

It is not about refusing to show ID.

It is about contracting to show the ID after they provide the requirement.

I wonder if any of the TSA read their flyers.

;D ;D

( the ending reminds me of something: "It is not about refusing to [plead], It is about contracting to [plead guilty] after they provide [the simple answers to reason-able questions re. the nature and cause of the proceedings and charges against me]." )






Also see a long article "HOW TO DEFEND YOUR FREEDOM" by Frederick Mann, some interesting suggestions (not "advice", I am sure )

[Darren Dirt]

on the subject of the "REAL ID ACT", here's a disturbing walk through memory lane...


1. "Before passing"
Some fear law would create national ID card...
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 26, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Congress is poised to pass a law that would make sweeping changes to the nation's system for issuing driver's licenses by imposing stringent requirements on states to verify the authenticity of birth certificates, Social Security cards, legal residency visas, and bank and utility records used to obtain a license.

- - -

Visit the link above and read the last few paragraphs -- ya gotta love how this was attached to a "no way it would be rejected Defense Bill"



2. "About to be passed"
The first major flaw is that the bill does not stop at requiring that licenses have "physical security features," a digital photograph and other basic data to be valid for federal purposes. It also requires that states see proof that the applicant is legally in the United States. This is unjustified...



3. "After passing"
States would be required to demand proof of the person's Social Security number and confirm that number with the Social Security Administration. They would also have to scan in documents showing the person's date of birth and immigration status...
So apparently you now actually *need* a SSN to get a driver's license, is that correct? I thought the SSN is essentially "proof that you have accepted the terms of the agreement to receive funds later as you invest now" or something -- what if you don't wanna participate. :-\



I just thought about something: I recall reading some paytriot site that referred to a fellow's difficulty in getting a driver's license (which the "judge" had ordered him to do, in some "traffic violation" case). The fellow had filled in "unknown" for birthdate since what he was told was really just "heresay", etc. I wonder if this past 12 months of the "REAL ID" program (i.e. system of increasing centralized control) has resulted in a lot more borderline paytriots simply refusing to comply with the more "stringent" proof requirements, and using that as an excuse to "drive without a valid operator's license" etc.

[Darren Dirt]

prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/050506_b_Beer.htm

Beer buyers, get your IDs ready

TOM HUMPHREY / Knox News | May 5 2006

NASHVILLE - The Senate unanimously approved legislation Thursday that will require anyone buying beer in Tennessee to present identification while reducing penalties for some vendors who sell to underage youths.

The bill, which now goes to the House, sparked about two hours of intense debate, with some lawmakers questioning whether it undercuts the authority of local beer boards and Sen. Steve Cohen, D-Memphis, declaring the whole idea "ludicrous."

Universal carding of all beer purchasers, Haynes said, is the only sure way to eliminate discretion by clerks that leads to sales to people under age 21.

"If you give people discretion, they'll abuse it, they'll violate it, and you'll have beer sold to teenagers," he said.

Cohen, on the other hand, argued that the bill was reminiscent of Nazi Germany or "big brother" in mandating that everyone, even senior citizens clearly over age 21, be required to show identification.

He held his driver's license aloft, contending that the thinking behind the bill could lead to a requirement that senators show identification to be able to speak on the Senate floor.

So the solution to poor "enforcement" of a current law prohibiting a free businessperson's card-free selling of a product to someone "underage"... is to prohibit card-free selling to ANYONE? :jawdrop:

[marc stevens]

I was at the store yesterday and the guy in front of me was buying chewing tobacco. He was asked to show ID. When he left I asked the clerk, "My gosh, you have to be 60 or older to buy that stuff now?"

She smiled and said they have to card everyone regardless of how old they looked. I pointed out his grandchildren are probably old enough to buy tobacco.

Thank goodness we are being protected from having grandparents buying tobacco without being carded.