John Gilmore's Search for the Mandatory ID Law 1568
powerline22 writes "John Gilmore, the millionare who cofounded the EFF, has been prohibited from travelling because he refused to show an ID while boarding an airplane. He's been under this self-imposed ban since 2002. From the article: "The gate agent asked for his ID. Gilmore asked her why. It is the law, she said. Gilmore asked to see the law. Nobody could produce a copy. To date, nobody has. The regulation that mandates ID at airports is 'Sensitive Security Information.' The law, as it turns out, is unavailable for inspection. What started out as a weekend trip to Washington became a crawl through the courts in search of an answer to Gilmore's question: Why?"
Read what John himself says ... (Score:5, Informative)
This writeup on Gilmore v. Ashcroft [papersplease.org] is kinda interesting too as is FreeToTravel.Org [freetotravel.org] that includes an FAQ from John [freetotravel.org] - all of this has been around for a while, but I guess the mainstream media just "re-discovered" John's story - don't think there has been any significant change in over a year (?)
No progress lately? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Private Company... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Read what John himself says ... (Score:3, Informative)
His case is coming up for oral argument before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. His attorneys have begun to tour law schools, holding moot courts to practice. They begam this here at the UO Law school.
Re:Private Company... (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs10-ssn.htm
Unfortunately, John WAS allowed to travel w/o ID (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Unfortunately, John WAS allowed to travel w/o I (Score:5, Informative)
It seems that the text of the secret rule might allow the TSA to forego the ID requirement in exchange for more strict physical searches.
Re:Old Soviet rules... (Score:5, Informative)
Xenix (Score:2, Informative)
At one time, Microsoft did sell a UNIX port called Xenix. It eventually became SCO OpenServer.
RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Unfortunately, John WAS allowed to travel w/o I (Score:3, Informative)
There he was informed that if he was not willing to show ID he could fly, but only if he submitted to a far more intrusive search than what every passenger goes through at the security checkpoint. (emphasis mine)
Re:Private Company... (Score:3, Informative)
This has been on Slashdot before.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's getting out of hand. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Unfortunately, John WAS allowed to travel w/o I (Score:5, Informative)
This says that he _did_ consent to being searched ... and was then later pulled out, after passing through security.
Re:Keep reading - that isn't the whole story (Score:3, Informative)
John then went to San Francisco International Airport and attempted to fly to Washington, DC on United Airlines.There he was informed that if he was not willing to show ID he could fly, but only if he submitted to a far more intrusive search than what every passenger goes through at the security checkpoint.
He politely declined the search and again was not allowed to fly.
Related cases are increasing. (Score:5, Informative)
One of the basic issues driving the airport case is the question of when ignorance of the law IS an excuse. The typical educated layman's answer is never - "Ignorance of the law is no excuse.". While that's generally good advice, real case law is slightly different. It sometimes involves a concept called scientier. The U.S. Supreme Court has defined "scientier" in one set of cases as: "a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud.". In various legal situations, it's definition is broader, but is generally about the intent of the accused.
Several scientier related cases have established that ignorance of a law can become an excuse - IF the ignorance is not the sole fault of the accused. One example of this would be a case where the state itself has put impediments in the way of learning what the law is, and another would be a case where there were substantial natural impediments.
There have been successful challenges at the highest levels (The Supremes basically), in cases where the impediment was natural: One classic case in the area is that of a bookstore (general , rather than "adult") owner, who was found not guilty of violating obscenity law on this principle. He displayed for sale copies of a Grove Press work that had made the state's banned list. However, the copies he recieved from his normal distributer had rather innocuous cover art and a title that was not particularly indicative of the type of work. The court ruled that his defense was sound - the law did not compel a normal person to go to the rediculous length of personally reading every book in a shipment of tens of thousands of copies, or paying thousands of dollars each year for the necessary (at that time) postage and labor to constantly check a lengthy inventory against a state list not made widely available, just to comply.
There are fewer good precidents for cases where the action of the state is involved, and fewer still that have made it to superior courts or the U.S. Supreme court. This looks to be a possible one.
Right now, there is a claim in Texas that holds some of the state laws on sexual conduct are invalid. It's based on the fact that an agency of the state government struck out specific references to those laws in the state's high school text books. The theory is that once one arm of the state acts to make it harder for a person to become educated about the law, the whole state government loses the normal claim that ignorance is no excuse.
This case hinges on the same claim. If it's really that hard to get to see an actual copy of the law involved, how can an individual who intends to comply with the law actually do it? A decision here will impact not just cases like the one in Texas, but may impact a lot of IRS/Tax law, as one of the claims frequently advanced there is that the law is literally too complicated to be understood.
Re:Related cases are increasing. (Score:1, Informative)
totally separate issue from what's being discussed here.
and the "claim in texas" that this guy is talking about is (most likely) lawrence v. texas, which was decided about 8 months ago, and had nothing to do with secret laws.
back to studying.
Re:No proof there is such a law (Score:2, Informative)
The way it works is that in order to fly without your ID you need to flash them a credit card you bought the ticket with and submit to a search. You are SOL if you dont have your CC that you bought the ticket with. Also you have to notify the ticket agent that you have no ID and they usually print another ticket that flags you to be searched.
While you dont need your ID they need a document that is attached to you period.
No, there really are secret laws. (Score:3, Informative)
Uhhhh, you should take your lead helmet off. The government acknowledges that there is a secret law requiring a person to show ID to fly.
-russ
No, wrong airport. He was allowed to fly at SFO. (Score:5, Informative)
See: http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/facts.html [papersplease.org]
Re:Dude! wtf? (Score:3, Informative)
An officer can pull you over for just about anything, I have been pulled over for low tire pressure( they will check it, and also check tire tread) they can be pricks if they want.
Re:Unfortunately, John WAS allowed to travel w/o I (Score:3, Informative)
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=140827&
He consented to the search and was still denied access. It's unclear whether this was in the first or second attempt to fly sans ID.
Hey, I've done this (Score:3, Informative)
We flew from BWI to SFO, and back and she had NO ID at all. not even a library card.
They just searched her. And at BWI, we were so late for the plane, they didn't even search her.
The TSA people were pretty nice about it, too.
The difference between Us and John Gilmore? We're not millionaires who think bureaucracy should be spat upon at every step. Sure it sucks, but this is a persons job- show 'em some respect and they chill out (*'cept for the real jerks).
Speaking of which, you should see us get past TSA security with TWEEZERMAN tweezers- they come to two sharp points; every x-ray flags 'em. And everybody goes to their boss to double check 'em.
Re:Unfortunately, John WAS allowed to travel w/o I (Score:3, Informative)
But United at SFO *would* allow him to fly with no ID if he, again, submitted to an intensive search. This time, he declined, and was not allowed to fly.
See http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/facts.html [papersplease.org] for details.
Re:Favorite quote from TFA (Score:3, Informative)
I've done this before on a business trip. The guy I was travelling with had his license suspended the day before we flew out, and he was in charge of renting the car that time out. So he paid, I drove. No big deal.
Just so long as someone gets fucked over if I decide to take the car to Mexico and never come back - they don't care who.
Re:Except that he could travel by air without ID (Score:3, Informative)
No. They let him thru the security check point, but then stopped him from boarding the plane. From way down the article:
Also, note that regulations which are needed to enforce laws have the full force of law and need to be just as transparent as the laws themselves if we are to live in a free society. From further down:
It's this complete lack of transparency that makes it difficult for a US Senator to get on a plane to get to a vote! How can the typical citizen expect to get justice out of a system so opaque and byzantine that even a US Senator has a hard time flying?
Re:ObCatch-22 quote (Score:5, Informative)
I'd say The Trial is in fact more interesting than Catch 22 in this context. Catch 22 is easier to read though.
Re:Favorite quote from TFA (Score:1, Informative)
You have to be 25 to rent a car in most places.
re: decompression (Score:3, Informative)
re: overpowering air marshals -- israel flies multiple air marshals on each plane. undercover. its quite unlikely terrorists would be able to discover them all and overpower all of them at once (which is the point).
re: cockpit doors. afaik they are completely bulletproof. (again, which is the point).
re: egyptian air lines -- the plane ran out of fuel and crashed into the sea because the terrorists were stupid and stubbornly insisted on flying the plane to a destination it couldn't possibly reach.
Not "the law" everywhere in the USA (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why, indeed! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Favorite quote from TFA (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Unfortunately, John WAS allowed to travel w/o I (Score:2, Informative)
Shortly thereafter, look for SDO'C to step down, and then ShrubCo will have Scalia + Thomas [pfaw.org] + Thing 1 + Thing 2 to pass any agenda he wants, no matter how wacky.
Re:Why, indeed! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Of course show receipts (Score:5, Informative)
This serves three purposes:
a) to make sure cashiers don't mess up like the grandparent mentioned
b) to make sure people aren't shoplifting
c) to provide a visible deterrant for shoplifters
I was never explicitily told the true purpose of the door checkers, but I'd bet its a little bit of both.
Now all theory aside, in practice the vast majority of people who would work at the doors would hardly check at all. If they did, a huge line would build up of people waiting to leave. Of course some people were real careful, but most of us simply didn't care. Whenever they put me on the door, I would pretend like I was checking everything, look up and down at the receipt a couple times, and then after 10 seconds or so let them go on. I really only checked for very expensive items.
Even if no one actually checked if people were stealing, it still provided a deterrant for people who might be thinking about shoplifting. The average shoplifter doesn't know that most things aren't checked, so seeing someone at the door checking things might persuade them into not stealing.
There was one funny instance where a kid that had just started was working the door, checking receipts, and I was helping this guy who had just bought a huge flat-screen TV. I helped get it from inventory, rang it up at my register, and then helped him put it in his car. On the way out the door, the new kid asked to see the man's receipt, and the man said, "Oh no, I just won this TV" and kept on walking with the TV. He had already paid for it of course, but we had a good laugh as I was helping him get it into his car.
Re:Favorite quote from TFA (Score:3, Informative)
My little brother used a company similar to Rent-A-Wreck for a while when he was still 18. They rent older cars, more or less on a weekly/monthly basis.
They will rent to anyone if pressed. Just press 'em.
Re:Keep reading - that isn't the whole story (Score:2, Informative)
"They reached a strange agreement for an argument about personal privacy: In lieu of showing ID, Gilmore would consent to an extra-close search, putting up with a pat-down in order to keep his personal identity to himself. He was wanded, patted down and sent along.
As Gilmore headed up the boarding ramp a security guard yanked him from line. According to court papers, a security agent named Reggie Wauls informed Gilmore he would not be flying that day.
"He said, 'I didn't let you fly because you said you had an ID and wouldn't show it,' " Gilmore said. "I asked, 'Does that mean if I'd left it at home I'd be on the plane?' He said, 'I didn't say that.' ""
Read the last bit
Re:Why, indeed! (Score:1, Informative)
I let them check about half the time, probably less than that actually. Just the other day I returned something with an unmarked receipt (to a different Fry's even...). No problems whatsoever. Not even a single comment. I had some other stuff to pick up at the same time and let them mark my reciept on the way out. Seriously, it doesn't matter at all.
Re:Favorite quote from TFA (Score:5, Informative)
That may be true. However, I can't think of any administration in the past 100 years that wasn't an equally "wretched hive of scum and villainy". Anyone who thinks there is ultimately any difference at all between the GOP and the Dems has been fooled. The focus of both parties is to remove rights from ordinary citizens.
What we need is for everyone to be aware of Jury Nullification [greenmac.com]. The job of a jury is not limited to determining the facts. The real job is to ensure justice is done. This is especially needed to combat the War on Drugs. All we need is one person on each jury who will refuse to convict for drug offences and "Prohibition II" would be over. The same tactic can be used to fight other thefts of rights from the States and the People.
Re:Favorite quote from TFA (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I don't get it... (Score:2, Informative)
He was told it was not the airline's choice, but rather the result of an "Administrative Order" by the Department of Heimat Security.
Said order is protected by secrecy for some reason. I'd be willing to wager because if flags brown people or arab sounding names for additional checks.
Re:The "We suggest you take off your shoes" rule (Score:3, Informative)
In some cases it's just the agent being a dick. My dad got this, they told him to take of his shoes and he knew that was unnecessary so he said no. Sure enough, got sent over for more screening. That agent did the scan, which turned up nothing. The agent asked "Why did they send you over here?" My dad told him about the shoes, which earned an eye roll and a muttered "idiots" from the agent who then told him to have a nice day and apologised for the trouble.
So I'm not so sure it's a secret rule form the government, more a per airport thing that the TSA people may not fully understand.
Re:So (Score:5, Informative)
Please RTFA before making stupid comments like this.
FROM THE ARTICLE...
The regulation under which the Transportation Safety Administration, an arm of the Department of Homeland Security, instructs the airlines to collect such identification is classified as "Sensitive Security Information."
I don't think it can get much clearer than that.
Re:So (Score:4, Informative)
That's only part of the story. If you look at Sept. 11 it was conceived in Afghanistan, it was planned in Germany, it was funded in Dubai, it was executed in America and they used Saudis.
15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, and of those, 10 were persona non-grata in the Kingdom.
Say whatever you want about whatever else, but you make it sound like the hijackers were working on orders from the Saudi kingdom. They were following orders from an expelled citizen. They were largely already known to be criminals in the kingdom, and had all expatriated.
Re:Constitutionality (Score:3, Informative)
Personally I think it is remarkably honest of a set of politicians to get advice from the experts before passing laws. Most places they just pass the laws and let the courts try and sort out the mess later.
Re:Why, indeed! (Score:3, Informative)
Gilmore's point is simple (RTFA): Showing ID for domestic travel does NOTHING to increase security, and does EVERYTHING to erode our personal freedom and personal liberty.
If you're so clever, explain how showing an ID to fly increases security. You might want to check out the recent article in Slate describing exactly how to circumvent the current security checks at an airport. The point? Even with the current rules, anyone can fly without proper ID.
Showing your ID to fly on a plane gets you NOTHING but a misplaced belief (and the government's "word") that you're safe, and a loss of your right to be anonymous. And you accuse me of not having blood in my brain? Whatever. You might want to think things through yourself, though, before jumping all over me.
Re:Why, indeed! (Score:2, Informative)
Details on the case from FindLaw (Score:1, Informative)
Aviation Law Alert: Court Recently HoldsThat Identification and Search Requirements at Airports Are Constitutional
April 2004
Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, regulations and statutes have been implemented to ensure the safety of the public, both in the air and on the ground. Many of these newly enacted laws are facing challenges in the court system. One such challenge to the requirement that airline travelers identify themselves and allow themselves to be searched was recently decided in favor of the enforcing organizations.
On July 4, 2002, the plaintiff, John Gilmore, purchased a commercial airline ticket for travel from Oakland, California, to Baltimore, Maryland, in order to "petition the government for redress of grievances and to associate with others for that purpose." At the airline check-in counter, the plaintiff refused to voluntarily produce a government-issued identification, but was offered the option of consenting to a search at the screening checkpoint, which he did.
Once at the boarding gate, the plaintiff was again asked and again refused to provide a government-issued identification. This time he was not permitted to board his flight.
The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit against a number of private and federal government entities, including the TSA and the FAA, arguing that the requirements to produce a governmentissued identification and to consent to search as a condition of commercial air travel were unconstitutional. The plaintiff also alluded to arguments that the government was exceeding its authority to examine passenger names and identifying information against "no-fly watch lists" through the Consumer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System ("CAPPS").
The plaintiff brought the following constitutional causes of action in his lawsuit styled John Gilmore v. John Ashcroft, et al., No. C02-No. C02-3444 SI (N.D. Cal.):
1. Fifth Amendment: violation of his due process rights as an unconstitutionally vague government policy or directive;
2. Fourth Amendment: violation of his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures where he faced the "penalty" of being denied permission to fly if he refused to comply with either;
3. Right to Travel: violation of his fundamental right to domestic travel as the requirements were unreasonable government burdens and restrictions on his movement;
4. Freedom of Association: violation of his First and Fourth Amendment rights to freely associate with others who also sought to travel to Washington, DC, for political purposes;
5. Right to Petition Government for Redress of Grievances: violation of his fundamental right to petition government by unduly burdening his exercise of travel to where the seat of government is located.
The named defendants subsequently moved the district court to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On March 23, 2004, the district court issued an order dismissing all of the plaintiff's claims, finding that the identification and search requirements
1. were not necessarily vague as they were permissible means of providing screening of all passenger and property aboard a passenger aircraft (49 U.S.C. section 44901) and the airline was within its right to deny transport to passengers who refused consent to search (49 U.S.C. section 44902)--since the plaintiff's claim squarely attacked the orders or regulations issued by the TSA and/or the FAA with respect to airport security, the district court was without jurisdiction to hear the challenge and, without the unpublished regulations or statutes before it, th
Re:Why, indeed! (Score:3, Informative)
Thanks to activist judges [ratical.org] (to put it in the most ironic modern vernacular) corporations got rights in 1886. (For reference, women didn't get the right to vote in the US until 1920 [wikipedia.org].)
Please find more information on the topic:
click here [google.com]
Re:Favorite quote from TFA (Score:3, Informative)
there was only one person that voted against it in the senate. and i am proud to say feingold is my states representative in that corrupt arena.
Re:Where do you live? (Score:3, Informative)
The few main issues are:
So to bring it back around to the issue of secret laws and double speak, the Healthy Forest Initiative is yet another example of this administrations consistent attack on the publics ability to hold their government accountable.
Re:So (Score:1, Informative)
I know several people who have had to be careful because their U.S. visas had expired. The problem was the backlog in the visa renewal process, not anything these people were doing (or planning) to do illegally.
If anything, using visa expiration as an indicator of possible "terrorist" activity is even more useless than it was before!
Re:So (Score:2, Informative)
Al Queda does not have a green fucking banner or any other "banner" color. That's Hamas. But hey, all them ragheads are the same, right?
Hey, keep working on that moon landing thing.
Re:Jim Kramer's usually a smart guy (Score:4, Informative)
just a policy based on a memo (Score:5, Informative)
I logged out to post this, because I am an Anonymous Coward.
The Federal Aviation Administration does have a policy against traveling without ID. But it is not a secret law. It is not even a federal law. It is just a policy based on a memo by someone at the FAA. The 3 branches of government do not feel the need to correct the FAA, because so few people complain. CFRs are trumped-up administrative rules. Only USCs are laws, and there are no USCs requiring passengers to have photo IDs for domestic flights.
I know a little about governments and IDs.
The FAA policy reminds me of Florida Fish And Wildlife posting (everywhere) that it is illegal to carry a concealed gun in state parks. But the state attorney states that Fish And Wildlife has no statutory authority over guns and anyone with a conceal carry permit may carry in state parks.
I've had a similar problem with Walmart sporting goods managers telling me that it is against county law to sell ammo after 9 PM. It is not. It is just their store policy, but they want to use the excuse that it is a law.
The problem is not with the Federal government. The problem is with the general public. We need to have more people like John Gilmore. At a basic level, we're imposing this dictatorship on ourselves.
Perhaps we should start a petition to have the movie 1984 played on a TV network. Might wake up the sleeping public. Another step would be to have the Constitution and, at least, the first 10 Amendments printed on the back of our paper currency, not mystic, cryptic Masonic symbols.
But the US is hardly becoming a dictatorship. I consider this graphic as evidence of the health of our freedoms.
Got to love a government that trusts you to take a gun into a bank.
http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/all+united+ states [packing.org]
The reason that I voted for Bush/Republicans in 2004 is because Bush agrees the Second Amendment protects our individual right to own and carry guns.
http://www.nraila.org/images/Ashcroft.pdf [nraila.org]
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm [usdoj.gov]
I fail to see how an administration that supports the right to own weapons that can overthrow a government is the bogeyman of tyranny. For those that don't think that civilians with their "puny" guns could take down a hypothetical American dictatorship, consider that there are more than 240 million guns owned by 85 million civilians in the US.
The 2nd Amendment is the most liberal and radical law in history. http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/radical.htm [ucla.edu]
To really understand the tone of the 1st and 2nd, one should read the preamble to the 10 amendments. (Usually not taught in government schools, so most have never heard of it) "The conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."
The first phrase of the 2nd is a declarative. It was the style of writing legal documents in the late 1700's to include a preamble. The preamble states a purpose, not a limitation on the language in these government charters. The phrase "well regulated" means well-trained and well-equipped, in proper working order. Ex: "a well regulated clock." "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Interestingly, the Militia Act of 1792 was law until 1903 (updated by 10 USC). The Militia Act of 1792 stated "That each and every free able-bodied white ma
Re:Not "the law" everywhere in the USA (Score:2, Informative)
The requirement for ID is not in law (Score:2, Informative)
The Federal Register Act requires that regulations must be published in their entirety in the Federal Register so that the people can be given notice of the manner in which the laws are to be administered to them. This Act also requires that the complete text of a regulation be published so that there are no "secret" regulations. The airlines will not show to you Federal Aviation Administration Security Directive 108-01-10 (issued Sept. 28, 2001), which they will say authorizes them to limit your substantive right to liberty and to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. This constitutes a secret regulation, which is not allowed by the laws of the United States or by the Constitution.
If ignorance of the law is no excuse, then how can I be expected to comply with law that is not publicized?
There is no mandate from CONgress that government issued identification is to be required in order to fly domestically. The regulations were transferred from 14 CFR part 107/108 to 49 CFR parts 1540 &seq on 22 Feb 2002 - 67 FR 8377.
If you look thru Title 49 United States Code in Chapters 401 thru 501, the only hit on "identification" will be identification numbers of aircraft. If you look thru Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 1540 &seq, you will find no mention of the word "identification" except with relationship to aircraft -- not passengers.
The requirement for identification is in the contract of carriage with the airline. You buy the ticket, you are bound by the contract. The contract states that they can refuse boarding to those who refuse to show "positive identification." That is why Gilmore's suit will ultimately fail.
I do not have any state issued identification. I cannot get any without a social security number and I do not have one. only aliens applying for permanent residency are required to make application; see 42 USC 405(c)(2)(B)(i)(I). For all others (citizens) it is contigent upon receiving direct benefits payable in federal funds; see sub paragraph (II). I am in neither catagory.
I use my Sam's club card. Have never been refused boarding.
The "secret" security directive says that the AIRLINES, not the Air Gestapo, are to check ID. If the person does not have ID (is unable, rather than unwilling to show ID), then they are to do "positive bag matching," which means my bags do not get on the plane until I do. This suits me fine, as my bags are invariably the first ones off the plane and on the carousel.
If you do not know what the law says, then you cannot enforce it. If they do not tell you what the law says, then you are not obliged to obey it.
Re:Why, indeed! Didn't work for me-They called 911 (Score:2, Informative)
Well he grabbed my shirt and wrestled with me until I stopped just outside the door. The Manager inside yelled "Call 911!" and 6 clerks surrounded me shoulder-to-shoulder preventing my further departure (in a well rehearsed move).
They demanded to inspect my receipt and to search me. I politely said no and it was clear their intent was to argue with me until the police arrived. I asked if I was under Citizen's arrest and they said "No, but I still cant leave the store". I pointed out that I was 5 feet outside the door and they had no good answer. They said there was an anti-shoplifting law that granted them this right to search me. I knew that pushing them aside would constitute assault on my part.
Not wanting to deal with the police (I don't have the independent wealth or free time necessary to afford a legal defense in this situation) I eventually allowed them to see the receipt and look in my Fry's bag (they had so SURE I was shoplifting). They were incredibly shocked to find out I was not in fact shoplifting, and let me depart.
I checked with the police the next day and they told me that Fry's can and does do this commonly and that its supported by law somehow and if I wanted to know more, I could contact a lawyer.
I was forced to sue or let the matter drop. I wish had the funds/time to sue them, for I think, given my understanding of the law, I would have won on several grounds, including false imprisonment and assault.
Alas with my later day job as a Whitehat security consultant, had I let myself be arrested (even if not charged or later acquitted) I would have not been hired and would have failed several different background checks. So, for me, I guess I made the right choice given the realities of the screwed up world.
To this day, I wish I could have afforded being a privacy rights crusader, but alas twas not to be.
As an aside, at the time I worked as national IT manager of a major Silicon valley based corporation and I justified and pushed through a "No Fry's" policy that cost them probably a couple of hundred thousand in lost sales.