DCA Lawyer responds: You must show ID

Old Mar 28, 2007, 10:03 am
  #31  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,704
Originally Posted by Wally Bird
CVIN/NCIC check. The Supreme Court has ruled (Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 701 (1981) et al.), that this is permissible during the course of a Terry stop. But, a Terry stop itself requires a "reasonable and articulable" suspicion on the part of the officer. Since no applicable law* has been cited in this incident, OP provided oral identification and no evidence was provided of any other kind of suspicious activity (except in the minds of the TSA), the justification for the Terry stop itself would seem debatable.

Worth "fighting" ? Yes.
Worth spending money to do so ? Probably not. Sigh. YMMV

*And a precedent in Gilmore which would seem to support the legality of OP's action
Could not the limited consent search implied by a checkpoint not be expanded to include the ID?
law dawg is offline  
Old Mar 28, 2007, 11:37 am
  #32  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 33
A physical pat down of every passenger would make us all safer. I think this is going a bit far, but I do believe that physical searches help security.

The fact that TSA red teams were able to sneak weapons past TSA checkpoints in New Jersey last year only cements the fact that TSA is not able to find every weapon....

Whereas, asking for my ID doesn't make me safer - it's just a violation of my rights.

Of course, with the current security protocols at airports, SSSS passengers are often bumped to the front of the security line - so that opting for the pat down can get me through security faster...

Am I willing to get groped in order to avoid waiting in line for 10 minutes? Probably

Chris



Originally Posted by MikeMpls
So you'd rather be searched & groped in lieu of showing ID?

Makes no sense to me.
genome4hire is offline  
Old Mar 28, 2007, 11:52 am
  #33  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
Originally Posted by law dawg
Could not the limited consent search implied by a checkpoint not be expanded to include the ID?
Depends on interpretation of the "scope clause" implicit in a TSA search.

We've had discussions here about what it should be (to some), what it shouldn't be and what it actually seems to be. My view is that the TSA ought to be empowered to search only for those items which are a threat to aviation security, specifically weapons and explosives. An ID, real or fake, is not a threat - it's a piece of paper !

Others argue for the "plain view" doctrine which has led to TSA fingering drugs, large amounts of cash etc. and err... detaining the perp for a LEO.

The Gilmore opinion which AFAIK still stands, seems clear on opting not to show ID to the TSA on penalty of being searched more rigorously.

Last edited by Wally Bird; Mar 28, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Wally Bird is offline  
Old Mar 28, 2007, 11:53 am
  #34  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: AUS
Programs: DL Gold
Posts: 290
Originally Posted by Travellin' Fool
It's not that big a deal to show ID. Is it needed for security? Not really. But who cares. Just cut the complaining and show your ID. This argument is so old and so pointless that I can't believe it's still being argued.
Similarly, I am so sick and tired of people like you who whine and complain when others won't shut up and fall in line.

In your own post, you mention the problem when someone has lost their card... immediately they would be suspect.

In your own post, you mention how it adds absolutely nothing to security.

In your own post, you imply that you understand that this isn't even a true regulation.

I'm so sick and tired of people like you realizing all of this and then not caring. But then you take it even a step further and complain about people who do.

Ridiculous, my friend.
mwarden is offline  
Old Mar 28, 2007, 3:06 pm
  #35  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 430
Originally Posted by mwarden
...Ridiculous, my friend.
No, YOU'RE ridiculous! Sorry I've been dying to use that!

Back to the point.... give me one reason that I should care. I don't consider refusing to show ID some great American Liberty. I show ID when I use a credit card, getting into clubs, bars, picking up tickets at will-call, the list goes on. It's obviously not some sort of great "right" that i'm throwing away by showing ID so I honestly don't care. That is why I consider it ridiculous(tm) to complain about having to show it.
Travellin' Fool is offline  
Old Mar 28, 2007, 3:11 pm
  #36  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 56,898
Originally Posted by ND Sol
The courts will have a difficult time enforcing a requirement of ID production when the government says the requirement does not exist. That is the case we are discussing here.
By regulation, somebody (either TSA or the airlines' agents) can demand the ID for entry into the secure area, and again, at their discretion, inside the secure area. Am I right about that?

If so, then a LEO could request one of these somebodies to demand your ID. Is there a flaw in that?
dhuey is offline  
Old Mar 28, 2007, 3:14 pm
  #37  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: AUS
Programs: DL Gold
Posts: 290
Originally Posted by Travellin' Fool
Back to the point.... give me one reason that I should care
I don't really care if you care, to be honest. It's annoying that people don't, but I've lived in America long enough not to expect such things.

But I do wish people would stop criticizing guys like Chris who are taking one for the team and standing up for BS that affects all of us. The replies saying things like "Why would you want to do this? It will take longer for you to get through security!!!" are exactly what's wrong with this country.

What will this do for me right now?! Who cares about anything else, right?
mwarden is offline  
Old Mar 28, 2007, 3:16 pm
  #38  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: AUS
Programs: DL Gold
Posts: 290
Originally Posted by dhuey
By regulation, somebody (either TSA or the airlines' agents) can demand the ID for entry into the secure area, and again, at their discretion, inside the secure area. Am I right about that?
No, this is incorrect according to testimony. You may fly without an ID, but you are subject to additional screening.

This is all in theory. Chris is trying to test whether this is the case, and, if so, point out how useless the no-fly list is.
mwarden is offline  
Old Apr 2, 2007, 5:23 pm
  #39  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12
Originally Posted by Travellin' Fool
Back to the point.... give me one reason that I should care. I don't consider refusing to show ID some great American Liberty. I show ID when I use a credit card, getting into clubs, bars, picking up tickets at will-call, the list goes on. It's obviously not some sort of great "right" that i'm throwing away by showing ID so I honestly don't care. That is why I consider it ridiculous(tm) to complain about having to show it.
It's people like genome4hire that allow you to not care. Throughout history, they have kept the system honest by setting precedents and preserving the full range of everyone's rights. Even if you choose not to exercise your rights, you should be grateful for having them. You should be thanking genome4hire rather than attacking him.
lhong is offline  
Old Apr 2, 2007, 5:38 pm
  #40  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: DTW, but drive to/from YYZ/ORD
Programs: Chase Ultimate Rewards 2MM, Diner Club points
Posts: 31,743
there is a nice benefit to not producing ID and having to go through SSSS: you get to skip the long line. even if you dont mind showing ID, keep this in your backpocket in case you're a risk of missing the flight. or you just want everyone else to look at you like "... how did he get to go through before all 100 of us" (a la T3 ORD)
rufflesinc is offline  
Old Apr 2, 2007, 7:20 pm
  #41  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 15,788
Originally Posted by lhong
It's people like genome4hire that allow you to not care. Throughout history, they have kept the system honest by setting precedents and preserving the full range of everyone's rights. Even if you choose not to exercise your rights, you should be grateful for having them. You should be thanking genome4hire rather than attacking him.
^ Well said.
birdstrike is offline  
Old Apr 2, 2007, 7:29 pm
  #42  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: YYC - soon to be 東京
Programs: AC Prestige, Marriott Silver, Hyatt Gold, Hertz #1 Gold, Radisson Gold Elite, HHonors
Posts: 1,830
Wink

Just ask yourselves...

Why are the TSA'ers subjecting themselves to this horrid scene of groping and what not when doing the SSSS procedure? What will be of the TSA officers when they finally retire from the job itself? TSA Syndrome, you ask, just like the Vietnam war veterans are suffering a syndrome? Well its possible, do not count that out at all! Do I smell a massive lawsuit coming on to the TSA? You bet it will come soon.

Sanosuke!
Sanosuke is offline  
Old Apr 3, 2007, 4:10 am
  #43  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: LAX, PSP
Programs: SPG & CO Plat.
Posts: 3,143
The scary part of the letter is when the argument is made that because it is unusual to exert a right, those who exert that right are immediately suspect such that they are no longer entitled to that right.

In other words, you have the right until you try to exercise it, at which time you surrender the right.

Simply amazing.
FatManInNYC is offline  
Old Apr 3, 2007, 4:43 am
  #44  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 398
Originally Posted by FatManInNYC
The scary part of the letter is when the argument is made that because it is unusual to exert a right, those who exert that right are immediately suspect such that they are no longer entitled to that right.

In other words, you have the right until you try to exercise it, at which time you surrender the right.

Simply amazing.
Well put!
sailman is offline  
Old Apr 3, 2007, 5:16 am
  #45  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,441
Originally Posted by lhong
It's people like genome4hire that allow you to not care. Throughout history, they have kept the system honest by setting precedents and preserving the full range of everyone's rights. Even if you choose not to exercise your rights, you should be grateful for having them. You should be thanking genome4hire rather than attacking him.
Excellent post - thank you.
red456 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.