Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Practical Travel Safety and Security Issues
Reload this Page >

ID checker asking questions - name, destination etc.

ID checker asking questions - name, destination etc.

Old Jul 4, 2011, 7:08 am
  #46  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: NYC, USA
Programs: AA EXP 3MM, Lifetime Platinum, Marriott Titanium, HH Gold
Posts: 10,966
Originally Posted by RichardKenner
Be careful: only testamentary speech is protected by the 5th Amendment, not evidentiary speech. The Supreme Court has held (in Hiibel) that one's name is evidentiary and hence a requirement to disclose it is not in violation of the 5th Amendment.

Okay, so "disclosing" my name can be required. But what does "disclosing" mean? Can I be compelled to disclose it verbally? Or can I disclose it by simply showing a govt-issued ID that displays the name?
ESpen36 is offline  
Old Jul 4, 2011, 7:41 am
  #47  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,153
Originally Posted by ESpen36
Okay, so "disclosing" my name can be required. But what does "disclosing" mean? Can I be compelled to disclose it verbally? Or can I disclose it by simply showing a govt-issued ID that displays the name?
I know that a lot of states are "stop and identify" states. All you have to do is to orally state your name if detained. As far as I know, there is no requirement to carry identification in the United States of America in order to be able to leave your property.
FliesWay2Much is offline  
Old Jul 4, 2011, 7:49 am
  #48  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by ESpen36
Okay, so "disclosing" my name can be required. But what does "disclosing" mean? Can I be compelled to disclose it verbally? Or can I disclose it by simply showing a govt-issued ID that displays the name?
Hiibel holds that it's unconstitutional for a state to require physical identification be shown on request to an LEO because any such law would, by necessity, be vague as to what would be required since there's no requirement for anybody to have identification. But it also states that a requirement to "identify oneself" does not violate the 5th Amendment and specifically anticipates such an answer being given verbally.

The situation here, where physical ID is shown but a verbal identity is being demanded, is not reached in Hiibel. An interesting comment in that case is that they say there might conceivably be a case in which stating one's identification might be testamentary and incriminatory and in such a case might rule differently.

There is a tricky situation here. Let's suppose that a person was presenting a false ID. Clearly, in such a situation, a person cannot be compelled to answer because either a true or false answer would be incriminatory. But now let's suppose that what they presented was not a fake. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the 5th Amendment privilege doesn't only apply to those who are guilty of some crime, but to those who are innocent as well. However, a person must have some reasonable believe that giving a truthful answer would put them at risk of being charged with some crime. Here's that's not the case.

On the other hand, if you have a situation where somebody is permitted to invoke the privilege only if they present a fake ID, then one can derive the falsity of the ID from an assertion of privilege, which is not permissible.

So I'm going to change my response to say that, although in general, a request to state one's name is not a violation of the 5th Amendment, the request to do so after showing physical ID is too tricky for me to assess with my knowlege of 5th Amendment law and I'll defer to somebody who knows more about it than I do.
RichardKenner is offline  
Old Jul 4, 2011, 8:12 am
  #49  
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 361
Originally Posted by BadgerBoi
With Often1's attitude to the situation, s/he is far less likely to be required to do that than someone who refuses to respond to the initial demand...
Oh so wrong! Throughout history, those who acquiesce to government intrusions have faced more, not less, subsequent intrusion.
MaximumSisu is offline  
Old Jul 4, 2011, 8:14 am
  #50  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Programs: AGR,CO,PC,AA
Posts: 411
So why not just Boomhauer your speech. I am from the south so I have a full blown indiscernible hillbilly accent tucked away for special situations and this sounds like a good situation it is good for.

This is just like the "me no speak english" idea, but for those of us who are obviously born in America it is actually believable and you don't have to actually give the TSA any information.
Upstate is offline  
Old Jul 4, 2011, 8:34 am
  #51  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
Originally Posted by Upstate
So why not just Boomhauer your speech. I am from the south so I have a full blown indiscernible hillbilly accent tucked away for special situations and this sounds like a good situation it is good for.
I have a polysyllabic surname; when necessary/expedient to pronounce it I say each syllable slowly and in a manner suggesting I am dealing with a retard. (Supply your own punch line here ).
Wally Bird is offline  
Old Jul 4, 2011, 12:16 pm
  #52  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: NYC, USA
Programs: AA EXP 3MM, Lifetime Platinum, Marriott Titanium, HH Gold
Posts: 10,966
Originally Posted by RichardKenner
Hiibel holds that it's unconstitutional for a state to require physical identification be shown on request to an LEO because any such law would, by necessity, be vague as to what would be required since there's no requirement for anybody to have identification. But it also states that a requirement to "identify oneself" does not violate the 5th Amendment and specifically anticipates such an answer being given verbally.

The situation here, where physical ID is shown but a verbal identity is being demanded, is not reached in Hiibel. An interesting comment in that case is that they say there might conceivably be a case in which stating one's identification might be testamentary and incriminatory and in such a case might rule differently.

There is a tricky situation here. Let's suppose that a person was presenting a false ID. Clearly, in such a situation, a person cannot be compelled to answer because either a true or false answer would be incriminatory. But now let's suppose that what they presented was not a fake. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the 5th Amendment privilege doesn't only apply to those who are guilty of some crime, but to those who are innocent as well. However, a person must have some reasonable believe that giving a truthful answer would put them at risk of being charged with some crime. Here's that's not the case.

On the other hand, if you have a situation where somebody is permitted to invoke the privilege only if they present a fake ID, then one can derive the falsity of the ID from an assertion of privilege, which is not permissible.

So I'm going to change my response to say that, although in general, a request to state one's name is not a violation of the 5th Amendment, the request to do so after showing physical ID is too tricky for me to assess with my knowlege of 5th Amendment law and I'll defer to somebody who knows more about it than I do.

Thank you so much for this fascinating analysis. I hope we can continue the discussion with other legal/con law experts weighing in!
ESpen36 is offline  
Old Jul 4, 2011, 1:13 pm
  #53  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,249
Originally Posted by RichardKenner
Be careful: only testamentary speech is protected by the 5th Amendment, not evidentiary speech. The Supreme Court has held (in Hiibel) that one's name is evidentiary and hence a requirement to disclose it is not in violation of the 5th Amendment.
If I show the clerk my boarding pass and ID, how have I not disclosed my name?
halls120 is offline  
Old Jul 4, 2011, 1:22 pm
  #54  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Programs: DL MM Gold
Posts: 1,676
Originally Posted by halls120
If I show the clerk my boarding pass and ID, how have I not disclosed my name?
You've disclosed it perfectly well. The verbalization demand is just a power ploy. It adds nothing to security.
TheRoadie is offline  
Old Jul 4, 2011, 1:49 pm
  #55  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 145
Interesting thread...I have never seen this requirement implemented. However I don't have any problem with a TSO asking for a passenger to pronounce his name at the TDC station. If that passenger doesn't want to communicate with the TSO or supervisor, then I don't see how your ID can be verified.

If you just want to insult TSOs, well then you and every member of your family is getting a pat down.

castro
castrobenes is offline  
Old Jul 4, 2011, 1:55 pm
  #56  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
Originally Posted by castrobenes
Interesting thread...I have never seen this requirement implemented. However I don't have any problem with a TSO asking for a passenger to pronounce his name at the TDC station. If that passenger doesn't want to communicate with the TSO or supervisor, then I don't see how your ID can be verified.

If you just want to insult TSOs, well then you and every member of your family is getting a pat down.

castro
(Bold is mine.)

I have at least three govt. issued photo ID's with me at any one time. Why does that not properly identify me? The TSA web site says that need only to produce a govt. issued ID and a valid BP. There are no additional requirements. Can the local TSA unilaterally add requirements outside SOP?

So the retaliation for an insult is a pat down of my family? Who determines the level of insult? Where is that in the SOP?

From the TSA web site:

ID Requirements for Airport Checkpoints

Airtravel
Identity Matters

Adult passengers (18 and over) are required to show a U.S. federal or state-issued photo ID in order to be allowed to go through the checkpoint and onto their flight.

We understand passengers occasionally arrive at the airport without an ID, due to lost items or inadvertently leaving them at home. Not having an ID, does not necessarily mean a passenger won’t be allowed to fly. If passengers are willing to provide additional information, we have other means of substantiating someone’s identity, like using publicly available databases.

Passengers who are cleared through this process may be subject to additional screening. Passengers whose identity cannot be verified by TSA may not be allowed to enter the screening checkpoint or onto an airplane.

Acceptable IDs include:

U.S. passport
U.S. passport card
DHS "Trusted Traveler" cards (NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST)
U.S. Military ID (active duty or retired military and their dependents, and DOD civilians)
Permanent Resident Card
Border Crossing Card
DHS-designated enhanced driver's license
Drivers Licenses or other state photo identity cards issued by Department of Motor Vehicles (or equivalent)
A Native American Tribal Photo ID
An airline or airport-issued ID (if issued under a TSA-approved security plan)
A foreign government-issued passport
Canadian provincial driver's license or Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) card
Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)

Non-US/Canadian citizens are not required to carry their passports if they have documents issued by the U.S. government such as Permanent Resident Cards. Those who do not should be carrying their passports while visiting the U.S.

This standardization of the list of accepted documents better aligns TSA with other DHS components, including Customs and Border Protection, and REAL ID benchmarks.
InkUnderNails is offline  
Old Jul 4, 2011, 2:15 pm
  #57  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 145
Originally Posted by InkUnderNails
(Bold is mine.)

I have at least three govt. issued photo ID's with me at any one time. Why does that not properly identify me? The TSA web site says that need only to produce a govt. issued ID and a valid BP. There are no additional requirements. Can the local TSA unilaterally add requirements outside SOP?

So the retaliation for an insult is a pat down of my family? Who determines the level of insult? Where is that in the SOP?
If you do something to arouse my suspicions, then I can't clear you to go any further unless I can resolve my concerns. If you won't cooperate to help me do that, then I can't complete the screening process. You have to go through the screening process in order to get to your flight.

Standard pat downs are part of the screening process. TSOs and management officials in charge of the checkpoint have the explicit authority to utilize all parts of the screening process whenever the situation dictates.

castro
castrobenes is offline  
Old Jul 4, 2011, 2:21 pm
  #58  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
Originally Posted by castrobenes
If that passenger doesn't want to communicate with the TSO or supervisor, then I don't see how your ID can be verified.
By the two documents in hand. To argue otherwise is to suggest the blacklight, loupe etc. are completely useless.

It's nonsense, pure and simple, just another attempt at dominion by low-level government workers.
Wally Bird is offline  
Old Jul 4, 2011, 2:32 pm
  #59  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 145
Originally Posted by Wally Bird
By the two documents in hand. To argue otherwise is to suggest the blacklight, loupe etc. are completely useless.

It's nonsense, pure and simple, just another attempt at dominion by low-level government workers.
There's a million ways I can respond to this at the checkpoint. My favorite is "Well sir, if you don't want to communicate with me then there's a whole bunch of other people in line who are willing to work with me to help them get though the process. Let me know when you want to go through the screening process, meanwhile I will help all these other nice people."

I can very my tactics depending on whatever you do...

castro
castrobenes is offline  
Old Jul 4, 2011, 2:34 pm
  #60  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Programs: DL MM Gold
Posts: 1,676
Originally Posted by castrobenes
If you do something to arouse my suspicions, then I can't clear you to go any further unless I can resolve my concerns.
It's OF CONCERN to us that an undocumented, uncommunicated (by web site or signage) demand to verbalize ones name will mutate tomorrow into a demand to verbalize ones destination, home address, phone number, jock size or whatever else the TDC decides to make up on the spot to enhance their ability to execute the "Big Catch."

The documented documentation requirement should be sufficient.

Why is it suddenly not enough?
TheRoadie 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.