Interesting...how do you feel about the transborder flight ID checks done before boarding at YYZ? After all, I've gone through US Immigration, and they've certainly ID'd me before letting me through - so if I'm in the transborder sterile area already, why do I need to show my ID to the GA before I board the flight?

More foolishness from Transport Canada?

Does the DOE regulate all hazmat vehicles, or just hazardous/radioactive waste generated at DOE facilities?

Every fake ID that the TSA takes from a college kid means one less chance of Buffy ending up on a Girls Gone Wild DVD.

Think Of The Children™!

I am.... OMG! This tyranny must stop now. Eliminate all ID requirements now!

N.B.: No < 18 shenanigans here: they don't need IDs to fly. Man, it's sad that I feel obligated to say that.

Maybe. A state can pass a law requiring you to identify yourself. See, e.g. Hiibel v. Sixth District Judicial Court, 542 U.S. 177 (2004). The rights are pretty limited, though - the officer has to have reasonable suspicion to stop you under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). The Hiibel Court did not directly address the issue of presenting identification as opposed to identifying yourself. I can't quickly find a case where a suspect refused to present identification but stated his name. That's what I personally would do unless there's a law directly to the contrary. For example, there is a law to the contrary when you're driving. I think all states require the presentation of a license upon the request of a law enforcement officer.

That is an interesting one. I handed a TSO my boarding pass and passport at RDU. She looked at it, then at me, and said, "Are you over eighteen?" I responded with my age and birthdate, then stated that it was as printed on the passport I had presented to her. When I asked why, she said, "If you was under 18, I wouldn't have to check your ID." This, of course, confused me because she had just checked my ID!

Hiibel permits States to enact laws that require oral identification of oneself under certain circumstances. Physical evidence (such as a drivers license or passport) is not required except under very limited circumstances such as operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway. And that limited circumstance is because driving is a privilege and not a right.

That's what I thought too, but the officer in Hiibel asked the suspect to produce identification and the suspect refused. I couldn't find a quote that said something along the lines of, "He would have complied with the law had he stated his name, even though the officer demanded identification."

Well?
 

I'm still wondering what the argument is for the efficacy of it (regardless of if it is legal or not).

Few of the 9/11 hijackers made any attempt to disguise their names on flight and credit card records. A bunch had official Virginia IDs from the local DMV. All were flying on valid IDs that matched their valid boarding passes. So what is the ID check supposed to establish or prevent? What are the other instances where verifying IDs matched BPs prevented or could have prevented a terrorist attempt by a passenger against an airliner?

Anybody?

I don't see the point in arguing about whether it is legal or not if it can't even be established that it somehow helps increase security.

peace,
~Ben~

And the same is true for flying in the opinion of many of the "little tyrants" who grace this board. :rolleyes:

TSA's footsoldiers (like myself) aren't given any explanations for the agency's policies and procedures, but my personal guess is that eventually the airlines will implement barcoded boarding passes which have to be matched up to a valid I.D. This would ensure that people on the no-fly list, or who are designated SSSS, can't dodge the system (or at least not as easily as they could now).

The barcoding will take time, equipment and $$$ to implement, but the I.D. checks could be done immediately with existing staff and inexpensive equipment, so my guess is that they decided to forge ahead with this component, and get the bugs worked out of the system now. Remember we're talking about an agency with tens of thousands of screeners with varying abilities ... it makes more sense to implement new policies gradually when it's possible to do so, rather than asking the workforce to turn on a dime.

I predict eventually we'll also have some sort of "trusted traveler" program whereby people designated low-risk will qualify for some sort of expedited screening. I.D. verification is essential order for a program like this to work.

Remember these are just my opinions/guesses, and I could be totally wrong! :)

Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in Hiibel noted, "[a]s we understand it, the statute does not require a suspect to give the officer a driver's license or any other document. Provided that the suspect either states his name or communicates it to the officer by other means -- a choice, we assume, that the suspect may make -- the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs."

Under Nevada Revised Statute § 171.123(3), the LEO has to find circumstances reasonably indicating that person has committed a crime before he can asked for identification.

Is this true? If an officer asks you to do something that one, by law, does not have to do, the officer can arrest you for not doing something similar that would be legal to demand? :confused:

Officer: Show me your ID.
Joe: I don't have to do that.
Officer: You're under arrest for not telling me your name.

Something's missing here.

Same way people are arrested and only charged with... resisting arrest.

Solution for gate ID checks
 

It'll probably piss off some people but then again, that's what this is about - a little social disobedience in the public's eye.

Click your heels together, snap a sharp Nazi salute to the TSO, loudly announce "Sich Heil!" and quickly hand them your papers.

Upon TSO's satisfaction, retrieve papers, click heels again, nod and loudly announce "Fur die Vaterland...", snap a final salute and set off down the jetbridge.

Again, YMMV but I'm sure you'll have a few folks around you looking away at witnessing such an un-American activity...of checking ID to travel domestically.

Enjoy! :D
Brandon

We already have such a program (Clear/Registered Traveler). The agency hates it so much that they have not expedited the screening - it's a cut-in-line card. The agency STILL requires presentation of a picture ID and boarding pass, even after the person in question has gone through biometric ID.

I think that there is little real chance of a TT program unless things change top-to-bottom at the agency.

I saw a disgusting site at LAX yesterday. AA gate agent apparently called TSA on a woman who was initially upset over a flight issue. She left the desk and was on her cellphone. Two TSA smurfs arrived with clipboard in hand. They observed the woman. About 5 minutes later 4 cops arrived, spoke to the TSA types and the GA, then went over to where the woman was and started demanding ID and other stuff - and a passport was "not good enough" - she handed over several things and was interrogating her pretty hard.... she was in tears by the time I boarded my flight (next gate over). Given that flights were messed up (even the Admiral's Club folks were remarking on what a bad day it was), I can fully understand if she misconnected and was upset. That said, I heard NO yelling, and NO threats, at all. The woman had no appearance of being a threat at all, and wasn't even belligerent with the "officials". I suspect another total overreaction by all the "authorities" involved.