DCA Lawyer responds: You must show ID
 

Hi all,

I started this thread a little while back after a police officer compelled me to show ID when I flew out of DCA. While I didn't agree with her, I went along with her order and wrote a letter afterwards.

DCA's legal office wrote me back a letter, which I've scanned and put up online: page 1 and page 2

The most interesting highlight from the letter is: Telling an officer my name, under their reading of Hiibel, is not enough. I can be forced to show ID in order to "identify myself".

Not good enough. Ask her to cite which law you were "reasonably" suspected of violating.

Sounds like their staff attorney skipped their much needed CE credits...they better audit some classes at Georgetown U Law School.

Talk about passing the buck. The TSA calls over the LEO, who then requires the ID, who then gives it to the TSA and she says it is the TSA requirement about ID under Gilmore and not the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority. Talk about maximizing the use of two different agencies to ensure that what one can't get directly, the other can give indirectly.

As noted above, what is the reasonable suspicion since the Federal Government has stated in court that identification is not required to travel? That makes her statement "It is extraordinary for someone to refuse to show identification when seeking to board an airplane" incredulous. While it may not be ordinary, the assertion of one's rights does not, by itself, give rise to the reasonable suspicion required.

Also, remember that Hiibel (and the county ordinance cited) only requires that one orally identify himself (and only after reasonable suspicion) and does not require the presentation of ID. So she is off-base in relying on that to defend the LEO's demand for written identification.

Lastly, I find it negligent that the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority has no specific procedure to deal with this situation.

The real question here is: why do you not want to show ID?

Why would you want to?

Because there is no requirement to do so? Perhaps that is one reason. And if you disagree, then you won't mind if we come over to your home without a warrant and search through it, would you? After all, you don't have anything to hide, do you?

That gets the most ridiculous response ever award. ;) Analogy doesn't fit. The only reason half the people on this forum complain about showing ID is either because they are anarchist types, or because they just have nothing better to do. There's no actual reason for an honest traveller to not want to show ID. (besides it being lost... stolen, whatever)

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.

I would first like to thank all the little people who have made this award possible. :D

Then the honest traveller shouldn't ever mind consenting to having their car searched. The "honest traveler" is a trite expression and is just a pseudonym for "only those that have something to hide would refuse a request." And let's face it, the request to present ID is just that -- a request.

"It's not that a big a deal" can be extended to the next level and each time it happens we head down that slippery slope.

And what is so interesting about your statement is you do admit that ID is not really needed for security. So it appears that your logic is it doesn't help security and is not really necessary, but we should still go ahead and comply with a non-existent regulation since it isn't all that inconvenient.

Maybe you want to delete your address from that first page...

Maybe so, but the FBI already knows his address as they have raided there before in the middle of the night.

(emphasis added)

I think you will find that the definition of "extraordinary" to be "that which is not ordinary". Therefore, her statement was accurate-- it is not ordinary for a passenger to decline to provide identification in an airport checkpoint. ;)

That said, it is (1) sad that people asserting their rights is extraordinary and (2) sad that some consider the extraordinary instance of an individual asserting his right(s) to be a cuase for suspicion.

This carefully-worded letter is a perfect example of the propensity of lawyers to obfuscate when it suits their purposes. I guess the only response is to forward the letter to the ACLU. Presumably they are quite skilled at dissecting this sort of thing, "explaining" the relevant law to the other lawyer, and "requesting clarification".

In theory, one does not need ID to travel. Bringing this principle to consummation would cause a reasonable person to believe that a crime is being committed?

I don't disagree with your statement at all, though I prefer using "extraordinary" to mean highly unusual. My preference is to use "out of the ordinary" for the situation being discussed. The attorney did not (or so it seems to me).

In any case, I agree with you that extraordinary has nothing to do with reasonable suspicion when a person is just exercising his rights. It is sad when an attorney states, in essence, that a reasonable suspicion exists when a person invokes his constitutional rights.

Armed with your ID, what investigation was Sgt Westerbrook able to undertake as referenced in the response you received from the Associate Legal Counsel.

Does anyone really know what Code Orange is? And if one is color blind does it apply?