As I understand it, the real requirement isn't that the ID be one of the listed ones, but rather that it meet all of the following criteria:
(1) Issued by a government agency.
(2) Have a picture.
(3) Contain name, gender, and date of birth.
(4) Have an expiration date.
(5) Have a fraud-prevention feature.
A DHS ID should meet all of the above.
Actually there are eight. You missed the date of issue. (Your #3 includes 3.)
__________________
Livingston's observation of complex systems: The purpose of a system is what it does.
Yes and no. The discussion is on pages 22-24. The court is saying that it's not going to rule on something not before it because nobody has actually been detained for this purpose, but, in my opinion, it's sending a very strong signal that if a case came before it where somebody was detained in such a circumstance for other than the very briefest of times, it would rule that such was "unreasonable".
I really hope you're right. However, words like "unreasonable" don't have a clear legal definition, so there is a lot of latitude, and I don't see the court setting a firm time limit of, say, 30 minutes.
Of course an overnight detention would be unreasonable, but beyond that type of extreme situation, I'm not sure they will intervene.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardKenner
Also, I disagree that "showing ID is the only way of explicitly proving legal presence" for two reasons. First, showing ID does not prove legal presence, but merely creates a presumption of legal presence. Secondly, the statement that a presumption exists does not imply the converse: there's no presumption that a person not presenting ID is not legally in the state.
That is true, but the text of the law only mentions one method to create a presumption of legal presence, and that is by showing ID. If one is unable to do so, then the officer is permitted to make a "reasonable attempt" to determine status, including a (thus far unlimited in duration) detention.
In other words, while there is no explicit requirement to carry or show ID, anyone not doing so could potentially face a lot of hassle without having done anything wrong. This is the first time that such a situation has been created in the United States.
As I understand it, the real requirement isn't that the ID be one of the listed ones, but rather that it meet all of the following criteria:
(1) Issued by a government agency.
(2) Have a picture.
(3) Contain name, gender, and date of birth.
(4) Have an expiration date.
(5) Have a fraud-prevention feature.
A DHS ID should meet all of the above.
Indeed it does. However, I was heading out to SE Asia on SQ25. I also noticed there were two additional TSOs standing in line before reaching TDC merely looking at documents for some reason. I'll guess it's to make sure the pax isn't the selected one or at the wrong checkpoint (the other going to B gates). Regardless, it's a complete waste of two TSOs if you asked me.
Programs: UA Prem Plat, DL Plat, AA Plat (aka Gold), SPG Plat, Marriott Plat, HH Gold
Posts: 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott523
Indeed it does. However, I was heading out to SE Asia on SQ25. I also noticed there were two additional TSOs standing in line before reaching TDC merely looking at documents for some reason. I'll guess it's to make sure the pax isn't the selected one or at the wrong checkpoint (the other going to B gates). Regardless, it's a complete waste of two TSOs if you asked me.
But we already know that the TSA is merely a make-work program, don't we? There are always tons of TSOs standing around even while the lines are crazy-- instead of opening up new lanes they just chit chat. Methinks there needs to be some performance metrics put in place...
I present it since 2009, and it has never been refused at airports. By the way, I present it for both domestic and international travel, and so far no problems.
The same exact TSO at SJU who somehow still has a job is the only person to refuse it. I'm at the point now that if I see her, I just walk to a different concourse.
arguing with a TSO over some ID to look cool and have a moment of self-importance. Unreal....
Actually, I do it for a moment of self-respect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loops
I have heard that TSO's receive bonuses for any "finds" of criminal behavior they might run across at the checkpoint. Can this be confirmed? If this is true, it would explain a lot of the over-reaching behaviors of the screeners... inspecting papers, wallet contents, etal... Even if their ~primary~ tasks are to prevent IED's and threats from getting into the sterile area, if there is a financial motivation for finding more than IED's and other actual threats, more will be sought, likely to the detriment of the primary purpose of TSA's presence.
Can't recall the case, but there was definitely one where the fact that the TSO received bonuses was one reason that a TSO searched through an envelope, she admitted in testimony that she didn't think there were WEI in the envelope, and that the bonuses were the reason she did the search... I think that was the case that ended the formal referral bonus program. I'll see if I can find the ref and update this post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ysitincoach
My guess is that you'd have to present ID to CBP solely as a law enforcement officer, just as you would if the police asked to view ID (even as a driver, you could lawfully hold up your operator's license to the closed window of a car and be in compliance with that one), but I too find nothing that states that you must present a passport to CBP, and especially TSA.
Texas is not a stop-and-identify state. In general, a police officer can't force you to show ID without arresting you here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saulblum
I submitted the following question on TSA.gov.
Quote:
When flying internationally, can a TSO demand that you show your passport as ID instead of, say, a driver's license? Or would a driver's license suffice when presenting boarding pass and ID, even if flying internationally?
The reply --
Quote:
It is not a requirement that one has to present a U.S. Passport when traveling internationally, however there is nothing to say that a TSO can't request to see another form of ID such as a Passport either. Generally, the Passport is the most often used form of ID by those traveling internationally.
Having said that, please be aware that airlines are responsible for verifying that a passenger carries a valid Passport for international travel and most airlines will either verify prior to issuing a boarding pass, or when presenting the boarding pass at the boarding gate.
I don't know why this infuriates me more than so many other things that TSA does. I guess because it's such a blatant and public attempt to mislead. "There is nothing to say a TSO can't request to see another form of ID" is to me a form of intimidation to prevent you from standing up to a TSO, and a form of doublespeak to conceal the truth that there are limits to the TSA's power. I wish you could have responded, "Well, there's nothing to stop a TSO from requesting to see me stand on one leg and bark like a dog... I was trying to ask if I have any legal obligation to show a passport to a TSO when they request it in lieu of the valid ID I presented."
I really hope you're right. However, words like "unreasonable" don't have a clear legal definition, so there is a lot of latitude, and I don't see the court setting a firm time limit of, say, 30 minutes.
Nor do I. The way I read that decision, there would be cases where 30 minutes is unreasonably long and others where the standard would be much longer. I'd argue that the threshold is likely to be determined as a percentage of the necessary detention for its original purpose. In other words, if a detention, but for this provision, would only have lasted five minutes, extending it another five might well be viewed as unreasonable. But if the detention would have been six hours, extending it for another hour might not be viewed as unreasonable.
Quote:
That is true, but the text of the law only mentions one method to create a presumption of legal presence, and that is by showing ID. If one is unable to do so, then the officer is permitted to make a "reasonable attempt" to determine status, including a (thus far unlimited in duration) detention.
Yes, but see the above. I don't believe the Supreme Court is likely to give Arizona much leeway here given their language.
Quote:
In other words, while there is no explicit requirement to carry or show ID, anyone not doing so could potentially face a lot of hassle without having done anything wrong. This is the first time that such a situation has been created in the United States.
I don't think that's the case. Isn't the situation at inland CBP checkpoints similar?
Wrong. Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard. It must be based on "specific and articulable facts taken together with rational inferences from those facts," (US v Terry)...
Nor do I. The way I read that decision, there would be cases where 30 minutes is unreasonably long and others where the standard would be much longer. I'd argue that the threshold is likely to be determined as a percentage of the necessary detention for its original purpose. In other words, if a detention, but for this provision, would only have lasted five minutes, extending it another five might well be viewed as unreasonable. But if the detention would have been six hours, extending it for another hour might not be viewed as unreasonable.
That's fine if the person has been detained for another reason. As noted above, however, this applies to anyone the police have lawful contact with. The real question for lower courts to sort out will be how long of a detention is reasonable for someone who is not being arrested or detained for anything else. In this case, they will need to set a time limit in order for the word "reasonable" to mean anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardKenner
Yes, but see the above. I don't believe the Supreme Court is likely to give Arizona much leeway here given their language.
I guess you just have more faith in the Supreme Court than I do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardKenner
I don't think that's the case. Isn't the situation at inland CBP checkpoints similar?
My experience has been that only drivers are asked for their licenses, at least at San Clemente. Are there reports on FT of passengers being detained at these checkpoints for lack of ID?
That's fine if the person has been detained for another reason. As noted above, however, this applies to anyone the police have lawful contact with.
My use of the word "detained" was meant to include things such as Terry stops.
Quote:
The real question for lower courts to sort out will be how long of a detention is reasonable for someone who is not being arrested or detained for anything else. In this case, they will need to set a time limit in order for the word "reasonable" to mean anything.
I still believe the limit will be in terms of the length of the stop. The way the opinion was worded reads that way to me. So if a stop would have lasted five minutes, increasing it to ten would be unreasonable.
