The United States vs. Deborah Davis

**Mediocrates** · 12-01-2005, 10:47 AM

http://www.papersplease.org/davis/index.html

Meet Deborah Davis. She's a 50 year-old mother of four who lives and works in Denver, Colorado. Her kids are all grown-up: her middle son is a soldier fighting in Iraq. She leads an ordinary, middle class life. You probably never would have heard of Deb Davis if it weren't for her belief in the U.S. Constitution.

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.

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.

The bus she rides crosses the property of the Denver Federal Center, a collection of government offices such as the Veterans Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey, and part of the National Archives. The Denver Federal Center is not a high security area: it's not Area 51 or NORAD.

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.

------

Read the rest and sleep tight.

Ariksan · 12-01-2005, 11:24 AM

Whats the problem with showing your ID. That's what an ID is there for. It's not like she was asked to strip on the bus. If the US is serious about preventing terrorism then this is one of many meassures that neede to be taken.

Shock horror! You must show your ID to a police officer! lol...

minusthejihad · 12-01-2005, 11:41 AM

Funny, when I was moving to America's most Liberal State, California, my first experience was to be stopped at a checkpoint and have the contents of my entire moving truck searched for foreign fruits, plants, and animals (nice names for Illegal Aliens) and this was before 9/11. I'm 30 and I still get carded for alcohol. I would think that when using public transport such as planes, subways, and now buses, sometimes you give up your privacy (or ID) for the benefit of society. I don't like it, but thats the way it is.

genghis_tom · 12-01-2005, 11:55 AM

I will gladly begrudge myself of a few seconds to reach into my pocket and pull out ID if it means I and America can be that much more secure...
On the other hand, does anyone think that this will turn into McCarthyism? "Are you now, have ever, or will refuse to show your ID?"

minusthejihad · 12-01-2005, 12:01 PM

No, its turning into an ACLU thing. Take an abstract stand, no matter how idealistic and inpractical, and don't budge, making yourself into a true American Patriot Martyr because you know your rights, but only if they are concerned specifically with you.

At the same time I respect her selfishness, as I am a firm believer in the Virtue of Selfishness!

**Mediocrates** · 12-01-2005, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by minusthejihad

Funny, when I was moving to America's most Liberal State, California, my first experience was to be stopped at a checkpoint and have the contents of my entire moving truck searched for foreign fruits, plants, and animals (nice names for Illegal Aliens) and this was before 9/11. I'm 30 and I still get carded for alcohol. I would think that when using public transport such as planes, subways, and now buses, sometimes you give up your privacy (or ID) for the benefit of society. I don't like it, but thats the way it is.

I was stopped at the California border in 1970 long before illegals was an issue. It's always been an agriculture issue. Same thing as entering the US or Canada.

You were carded for an active motive. You were attempting to purchase something be it alcohol tobacco or firearms. Is an id check because you walk past the liquor store a reasonable act?

Riding a bus is not an active motive. The rider has no control over the bus route and it was done because the bus line happens to go through Federal property where the government can supercede your civil rights at will. Would you like to submit to a urine sample as well?

The government has to demonstrate that a lack of privacy actually is a public safety issue. That's more or less implied in Supreme court cases such as Griswold.

**Mediocrates** · 12-01-2005, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by Ariksan

Whats the problem with showing your ID. That's what an ID is there for. It's not like she was asked to strip on the bus.

But legally there would be no prohibition from doing so either.

minusthejihad · 12-01-2005, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Mediocrates

I was stopped at the California border in 1970 long before illegals was an issue. It's always been an agriculture issue. Same thing as entering the US or Canada.

You were carded for an active motive. You were attempting to purchase something be it alcohol tobacco or firearms. Is an id check because you walk past the liquor store a reasonable act?

Riding a bus is not an active motive. The rider has no control over the bus route and it was done because the bus line happens to go through Federal property where the government can supercede your civil rights at will. Would you like to submit to a urine sample as well?

The government has to demonstrate that a lack of privacy actually is a public safety issue. That's more or less implied in Supreme court cases such as Griswold.

Piss test? Only if I have the Original Whizinator on me at the time!

**Mediocrates** · 12-01-2005, 01:01 PM

See in my mind what we've lost is any rational sense of the balance between public policy and private rights. I wear a card key, I understand the necessity of these things. I probably wrote some of the more restrictive rules your ISP uses to enforce security. I am in short, the 'NO' guy. But those things have clear boundaries.

The people who say "What's a little inconvenience?" I say "Why are we even talking about whether this is even an issue?" At what point are we willing to stop and have a public forum about who's interest is being served?

genghis_tom · 12-01-2005, 01:04 PM

Who's interest is being served?
(I think this was what I am supposed to do now...)

**Mediocrates** · 12-01-2005, 01:52 PM

But that's just it. Who's interest, if anyone's is actually being served? We submit to governance under the belief that government will enforce the law with only sufficient force to do its job and no more and the 4th ammendment (and by implication the power of the state is limited under the 3rd ammendment as well) actually stand for something, not merely for something convenient. If it is convenient and therefore defacto legal to search people on Federal property because it's convenient (which under Federal law only restricts access specifically with notification not generally) then it's easily extensible to search people on any property at any time for any reason. In other words if the law does not restrict the government because it's just easy to do whatever proscriptions are in the law then the 4th ammendment really doesn't mean anything. The Federal government is supposed to have the burden to demonstrate that some public interest is served by this exception.

For example is there a difference between asking for that information and doing something with it? Can the government punch your SSN into a handheld device on the bus and record where you were and when? Can it check for bench warrants and supercede the local law enforcement powers? Can it simply use this as an intimidation on its face with the assumption that simple intimidation is itself a public good? These are fundamental questions that define the limits of liberty.

genghis_tom · 12-01-2005, 01:56 PM

And then what's stopping a ballooning of identity theft? Well said.
Also, government could use the wonderful Necessary and Proper clause (1.8.18), and who knows where it would go from there...

Leon · 12-01-2005, 04:40 PM

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.

I dont have a problem with this. We are living in a time of war where certain war time regulations and procedures need to be in place. Perfectly normal for a civilised society. As US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson famously remarked: "The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact. In times of exigent peril, liberty must often be defended by less than liberal means."

Its simple - if your doing nothing wrong, than you have nothing to fear

**Mediocrates** · 12-01-2005, 06:42 PM

So where is the cross over point? All we ever hear is a vague justification because we're 'at war'. Of course it's an undefined undeclared war against an unknown enemy in an unknown location for unknown period of time and no way to ascertain whether we've won, lost, retreated or just quit. It's essentially a licence to declare permanent war and an openended curtailment of many civil liberties for an open ended period of time.

1.5 million · 12-01-2005, 07:03 PM

Wow - Mediocrities - I can see why you posted this...and I am truly shocked by the predominance of opinon here - that this is not a problem - to have to present ID - and why worry if you have doen nothing wrong (??? - what is wrong with this picture? As decendents of people so victimised by State power you should know better...). Well my friends - IMO - with these attitudes - with this acceptance - I believe the terrorists have won. I must say I see lame brain knee jerk security measures all of the time and perhaps like many I just blindly comply...but evey once in a while I stop to think - what good is this really doing? WHo or what will this really stop? And often I cannot even concieve of an answer...yet here we are easily accepting and jutifying such a thing - most sad - as IMO - it violates one of the prime tenants of what this nation stands for - and that so many would so easily make the choice that we can give up (our basic rights such as) the supremacy of the individual and that we are not required to justify ourselves to the state - well this is most troubling. I think I've made my point though I could say much more on this issue...