Airport ID Checks Constitutional 807
chill wrote to mention the decision handed down from the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of appeals in the case of Gilmore vs. Gonzales. The court found in the government's favour, saying "We hold that neither the identification policy nor its application to Gilmore violated Gilmore's constitutional rights, and therefore we deny the petition ... The Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation."
Re:No particular, but any? (Score:2, Informative)
Amtrack, yes, Greyhound not obviously (Score:3, Informative)
-russ
Probably constutional (Score:4, Informative)
Also the amount of reason needed is variable. Since your home is considered to be very private, a warrant is mandidated. Cars are much less private, so probable cause is usually the standard (varies by state). Means the police need a specific reason and something to back it up, but they don't have to go in front of a judge first. Now if you go some place like a courthouse, then it's not a question, you WILL be searched, and so will your bags.
Re:It's the airline's property.... (Score:3, Informative)
Ninth amendment to the U.S. Constitution: (Score:0, Informative)
Re:Constitutional Right to Hide in a Corner (Score:3, Informative)
Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
and the tenth reiterates it:
Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
By any reasonable reading that seems to means that if the Constitution doesn't say "you must show photo id to travel" then you should have the right to travel without a photo id.
Sorry, but you're wrong... (Score:3, Informative)
The driving controversy in the case was not necessarily the ID requirement but that the regulations requiring ID are technically illegal under FAA regulations that require all regulations to be publically available. The ID requirement is secret. A secret law in a free country. Now that should give you pause.
Re:No particular, but any? (Score:5, Informative)
(1) "the right of a citizen of one state to enter and leave another state";
(2) "the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second state"; and
(3) "for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents, the right to be treated like other citizens of that state."
Re:No particular, but any? (Score:3, Informative)
That ruling doesn't say what you claim it does. It refused to support demands for presenting ID. It does require providing your name if asked.
From the decision:
In contrast to the "credible and reliable" identification requirement in Kolender [which was overturned as unconstitutional], the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted the instant statute to require only that a suspect disclose his name. It apparently does not require him to produce a driver's license or any other document. If he chooses either to state his name or communicate it to the officer by other means, the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs.
Re:No particular, but any? (Score:4, Informative)
That's funny - I have bought 3 cars so far and not once did I need to "submit" to a credit check by the seller or anything even vaguely resembling one.
the airline has "a right to know who you are" if that's the condition they sell their tickets under.
Does that right include blaming the government and claiming that the condition is not their policy but the government's?
It is law and NOT secret (Score:3, Informative)
119 STAT. 312 PUBLIC LAW 109-13--MAY 11, 2005
(1) DRIVER'S LICENSE.--The term ''driver's license'' means
a motor vehicle operator's license, as defined in section 30301
of title 49, United States Code.
(2) IDENTIFICATION CARD.--The term ''identification card''
means a personal identification card, as defined in section
1028(d) of title 18, United States Code, issued by a State.
(3) OFFICIAL PURPOSE.--The term ''official purpose'' includes
but is not limited to accessing Federal facilities, boarding federally
regulated commercial aircraft, entering nuclear power
plants, and any other purposes that the Secretary shall determine.
(4) SECRETARY.--The term ''Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Homeland Security.
"...any other purposes..." Hmmmmm. Kinda vague, no?
Full text of the law is here:
http://tinyurl.com/9y4gk
The above link will bring up a PDF file. Search it for "Real ID". It will take you to almost the end of the 93 page document. The law is a rider on a defense appropriations bill. There is also stuff in there to beef up US border security.
The article I read about the national ID is here:
http://tinyurl.com/aln9j
--NS
Re:No particular, but any? (Score:4, Informative)
I think this website gives plenty of info. We _are_ in such a society, and the courts have upheld it.
Haha eh (Score:1, Informative)
Constitution Act, 1982
Enacted as Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.) 1982, c. 11, which came into force on April 17, 1982
PART I
Canadian charter of rights and freedoms
6.(1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
2) Point to where in the constitution they said you were guaranteed anonymity
1)'s a little tricky. It's not so much "prevents" as chills and infringes on.
The right to travel to the seat of government to petition for redress is one of the privileges and immunities protected by the 14th amendment p&i clause.
2) We have the first amendment because Peter Zenger was busted for running a printing press to print anonymous criticism of the king's goons.
Talley v California, 1960, explains that the right to free speech includes anonymity and privacy. Thomas, concurring in McIntyre v Ohio Elections Commission, explains the history in more detail.
The other two cases that discuss the constitutional right to anonymity are American Constitutional Law Foundation and Watchtower v Stratton. You can read those cases at majors.blogspot.com [blogspot.com] or findlaw.com.
Re:Your papers are not in order! (Score:5, Informative)
Not according to the SCOTUS definition of interstate commerce. The SCOTUS definition of interstate commerce includes growing wheat for yourself in your own farm for your own consumption. As established in Wickard v. Filburn [wikipedia.org] (1942).
Further, the reason why the medical marijuana case (Gonzales v. Raich [wikipedia.org] (2005)) was decided in favor of the U.S. Government was due to the fact that selling marijuana in California affects the underground market for the drug, which crosses state broundaries.
Given these two SCOTUS decisions it seems pretty clear that purchasing a ticket in order to leave one state and enter another is interstate commerce. Further, boarding in one state and exiting in one state is probably interstate commerce too as the option to buy that seat was open to others outside the state and thus your action influenced their market value.
It's a crappy interpretation, imho, but it's currently what we've got.
Re:No particular, but any? (Score:5, Informative)
Unamerican, huh?"
Actually, quite valid and entirely American. IANAL, but if you are in public, the cops can question you, and you can walk away. If they physically detain you, then you have them for false imprisonment and illegeal seizure. If you resist arrest at that point, then false imprisonment flies out the window. If they ask for your identification, you can refuse. If you comply, then you consented--entirely Constitutional. You can also challenge them. Without your consent, a warrant, then they must have a reasonable suspicion that there is a crime afoot and you're the culprit.
If they did all this to you, then you should file suit or stop complaining about it. Except, it happened two years ago, so the statutory limitations period has likely expired in your jurisidiction.
"When a law enforcement officer stops you anywhere, and you are not free to walk away, you are technically under arrest. If you don't believe it, try walking or driving away next time a law enforcement officer asks you to stop. You'll then be charged with any of a variety of charges, which will land you in jail for months to years."
Except, you can walk away. If you try it and they arrest you, then you can sue them for abuse of police power and any other number of torts. They may charge you with various crimes, but the prosecutor has to press them. Then, go for malicious prosecution. Especially when you a have a bouncer and other witnesses.
Re:Makes Total Sense (Score:4, Informative)
There is not a secret law at work here. There is a law in the USC requiring the airlines to develop and implement security procedures. This law requires them to keep these regulations secret. The security guard in question probably had no knowledge of the USC, but he has been through training that told him he is not required (or allowed) to show any of his regulations to customers.
This arrangement works out ok if you see the airlines and the gov't as separate entities. If you see them as two intertwined octopus-like organisms then it starts to look more like an intentional evasion of Constitutional guarantees.
I'm not sure where I stand on this issue, exactly. I do know that I used to tell stories about just how bad airport security was, from the perspective of someone who knew. Since Sept 11 I don't think those stories are funny anymore.
Re:No particular, but any? (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe I've just been lucky. I've been pulled over a couple of times for expired registration, and each time the officer was very polite. Each encounter I've had with a cop outside of the car has been polite and professional. A woman who lived directly across the hall from me in an apartment complex was found dead in her apartment, and all I was asked was how long I'd lived there, whether I knew the deceased, and if I'd seen her recently. No demand for ID, no orders that I tell them things; just a few simple questions.
Here in Italy too! Was created by Mussolini... (Score:1, Informative)
A friend of mine refused to show him his ID, and they took it to the police station, and they recorded the fact on it's criminal record. Now he won't be able to work in any public agency because he has a record.
Just for information, the aforementioned law was created during the fascism, some other european countries like France and Holland don't have anything like that.
giandrea