ID checker asking questions - name, destination etc.
#46
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2002
Location: NYC, USA
Programs: AA EXP 3MM, Lifetime Platinum, Marriott Titanium, HH Gold
Posts: 10,966
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?
#47
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,153
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.
#48
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
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.
#49
In Memoriam
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 361
Oh so wrong! Throughout history, those who acquiesce to government intrusions have faced more, not less, subsequent intrusion.
#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.
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.
#51
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
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 ).
#52
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2002
Location: NYC, USA
Programs: AA EXP 3MM, Lifetime Platinum, Marriott Titanium, HH Gold
Posts: 10,966
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.
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!
#53
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,249
If I show the clerk my boarding pass and ID, how have I not disclosed my name?
#54
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Programs: DL MM Gold
Posts: 1,676
#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
If you just want to insult TSOs, well then you and every member of your family is getting a pat down.
castro
#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
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
If you just want to insult TSOs, well then you and every member of your family is getting a pat down.
castro
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.
#57
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 145
(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?
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?
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
#58
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
It's nonsense, pure and simple, just another attempt at dominion by low-level government workers.
#59
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 145
I can very my tactics depending on whatever you do...
castro
#60
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Programs: DL MM Gold
Posts: 1,676
The documented documentation requirement should be sufficient.
Why is it suddenly not enough?