DCA Lawyer responds: You must show ID
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 33
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".
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".
#3
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 42,165
Sounds like their staff attorney skipped their much needed CE credits...they better audit some classes at Georgetown U Law School.
#4
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
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.
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.
#5
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Programs: BA GGL, AA 1MM LT GLD, SPG PLAT, National Exec Selc, Hilton Diamond, Hyatt Plat, Marriott Silver
Posts: 8,278
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".
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".
#7
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
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?
#8
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 430
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.
#9
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
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.
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.
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.
#10
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 503
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".
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".
#12
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
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.
#13
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 13mi@ORD
Programs: AA Gold
Posts: 376
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?
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?
#14
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
(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.
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.
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.
#15
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 398
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".
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".
Does anyone really know what Code Orange is? And if one is color blind does it apply?
Last edited by sailman; Mar 27, 2007 at 8:00 pm Reason: spelling