Category Archives: ID Cards and Identification

Florida Cops Intimidate Would-be Complainants

Posted on February 25, 2006 by Michael Froomkin

Via Boing-boing, a link to this absolutely amazing piece of investigative reporting: Police Station Intimidation-Parts 1 and 2 in which “CBS4 News found that, in police departments across Miami-Dade and Broward Counties, large and small, it was virtually impossible to walk in the door, and walk out with a complaint form.”

Given I am currently doing work on ID cards, I was particularly struck by this transcript of the reaction of the Sea Ranch Lakes PD in Broward County, not all that far north of here:

cop; We don’t give you — we don’t give you a form. Where do you live?
tester: I don’t want to say.
officer: You don’t want to say?
tester: Where are you going?
officer: You want to play hardball? We’ll play hardball. I want ID.
tester: For what?
officer: I’m asking you for ID right now, that’s why. Here, hand it to me. Hand it to me.
tester: Are you kidding me? Here.
officer: I said, hand me your ID. What are you doing here? This is —
tester: I came to ask you how to file a complaint.
officer: This is very suspicious.
tester: Asking how to file a complaint is suspicious?
officer: Why don’t you shut up?
officer: I say this is very suspicious, that you pull in here at this time of night —
tester: Eight o’clock?
officer: You’re constantly butting in.
tester: I’m constantly butting in?
Mike: Sir, I would like to leave.
officer: I would love it, but he’s got your driver’s license, so you’re just going to have to stay.
Mike: Sir, are you detaining us?
officer: Okay, could I give you a ticket right now for improper backing.
Mike: You can do whatever you want, I suppose.
officer: Okay, that means yes, I guess you’re saying, right? ANd for backing up, correct, yes?
Mike: I was backing up, sir, because I was leaving.
officer: But because I’m a nice guy, okay, I’m going to give you a warning. Is that fair?
Mike: Yes, sir.
officer: Okay.

The TV station that broke the story reports that “Remarkably, of 38 different police stations tested around South Florida, all but three had no police complaint forms” yet it nonetheless felt obligated to introduce its report by saying that “Most police officers are a credit to the badge, serving the community and the people who pay their salary, getting criminals off the street, making the community safer for everyone.” Guess none of those guys happen to work the front desk, eh?

And much of the report is also devoted to quoting Miami police chief John Timoney saying that stuff like this can’t and shouldn’t happen, if it did it would surely have consequences. Not one suggestion that maybe Timoney himself might be a poster child for intimidatory policing.) To be fair, though, Timoney’s department, the City of Miami was one of the few south Florida jurisdictions that actually had complaint form on hand, and trilingual ones at that. Could be due to the high demand?

Posted in Florida, ID Cards and Identification | Comments Off on Florida Cops Intimidate Would-be Complainants

Join Me at the MIT Real ID Conference

Posted on December 5, 2005 by Michael Froomkin

Join me today, in person or virtually, at the MIT Public Forums on the REAL ID Act of 2005.

Posted in ID Cards and Identification, Talks & Conferences | 1 Comment

Miami Won’t Be Checking ID (Updated)

Posted on November 29, 2005 by Michael Froomkin

According to the local ACLU, whom I’d called to volunteer my services, the news story quoted below is all wrong:

This is a story the AP screwed up in two significant ways and they will soon be releasing a revised, corrected version. First, Chief Fernandez called AP to complain that he did not say that the Miami police would be stopping and demanding identification from people. Second, [executive director of ACLU of Florida,] Howard [Simon] was not told of the alleged stop and ID plan when he was contacted. Howard has talked to the reporter and will now be quoted as saying “If the Miami police plan on stopping people and demanding identification without any reason to believe that there is criminal activity, that is unconstitutional.”

Sounds like maybe it’s all a a false alarm!

Update: Here’s how the start of that AP story reads now:

Police are planning “in-your-face” shows of force in public places, saying the random, high-profile security operations will keep terrorists guessing about where officers might be next.

As an example, uniformed and plainclothes officers might surround a bank building unannounced, contact the manager about ways to be vigilant against terrorists and hand out leaflets in three languages to customers and people passing by, said police spokesman Angel Calzadilla. He said there would be no random checks of identification.

“People are definitely going to notice it,” Deputy Police Chief Frank Fernandez said Monday. “We want that shock. We want that awe. But at the same time, we don’t want people to feel their rights are being threatened. We need them to be our eyes and ears.”

“No Random checks of identification“

Posted in ID Cards and Identification, Miami | 2 Comments

All the ID Card You Need?

Posted on November 29, 2005 by Michael Froomkin

Given Miami’s new policy on ID Cards, I now plan to carry one of these on my person at all times: Bill of Rights – Security Edition:

The Bill of Rights – Security Edition is a single sturdy metal card, 2.5 inches across by 3.5 inches high. Each one is shipped with a fine plastic sheet on each side to protect it from minor scratches.

Update: Did I mention it is guaranteed to set off metal detectors, especially at airports?

Posted in ID Cards and Identification | 2 Comments

Miami Announces Plan for Random ID Checks

Posted on November 29, 2005 by Michael Froomkin

Miami cops go ‘in-your-face’ to deter terrorists – U.S. Security: Miami police announced Monday they will stage random shows of force at hotels, banks and other public places to keep terrorists guessing and remind people to be vigilant.

Deputy Police Chief Frank Fernandez said officers might, for example, surround a bank building, check the IDs of everyone going in and out and hand out leaflets about terror threats.

Leaving aside the obvious point that this won’t deter terrorists, who will obviously have some sort of fake ID, and who by implication have already braved the cameras that are always running in banks, this plan sounds like an organized series of illegal suspicionless search.

We accept the dragnet approach to stopping cars on the roads due to the legal rule (legal fiction?) that driving is a ‘privilege, and hence more regulable than, well, walking.

But that rule doesn’t apply to walking. Although the devil is always in the details, so one needs to know more before taking any firm stands, I don’t see the legal (or constitutional) justification for this dragnet approach to pedestrians.

If so, this plan is ripe for challenge, although I wonder if the 11th Circuit is likely to be the most hospitable place for such a law suit.

(Related post: ID Card Required to Ride a Public Bus?)

Update: I’m told that both the police official and the ACLU official quoted in the story now say the article is all wrong.

Posted in ID Cards and Identification, Law: Privacy, Miami | 3 Comments

ID Card Required to Ride a Public Bus?

Posted on November 22, 2005 by Michael Froomkin

In Denver, you now have to show an ID card to ride a public bus: Deborah Davis :: Want to Ride? Papers, Please.

But wait! It’s not just any bus — it goes through a federal facility (“the Denver Federal Center, a collection of government offices such as the Veterans Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey, and part of the National Archives”). That does distinguish it a little from a regular bus that goes on a normal street, but not very much, especially as there’s no notice as to the ID requirement before you board the bus, unlike at the entrance to a federal building.

The ACLU is on the case, and we’ll see what happens to this case presenting one of the issues left open in the unfortunate Hiibel decision.

The aspect of the case that especially caught my eye is the arresting officer’s statement in the Incident Report . The arresting officer states that he told the defendant (and I’m sure he honestly believes) that the Supreme Court approved of a requirement that an ID be shown. But — as I predicted would happen — this police version of the holding mis-states the law, at least as regards public spaces (federal buildings may be a different story).

In the most recent case on the subject, Hiibel, the Supreme Court explicitly left the “show your ID” question open: the Court said that state legislatures can enact “stop and identify” laws which empower a police officer to require a person to identify themselves — orally — in cases where there is some minimal reason to suspect someone (i.e. a Terry stop). That’s a far cry from both requiring showing of an ID, and especially from suspicionless ID requirements. Indeed, the Court explicitly did not decide whether an ID could be required.

In contrast, the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted NRS §171.123(3) to require only that a suspect disclose his name. See 118 Nev., at ___, 59 P. 3d, at 1206 (opinion of Young, C. J.) (The suspect is not required to provide private details about his background, but merely to state his name to an officer when reasonable suspicion exists.). As 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.

(The majority also said in no uncertain terms that the decision only applied when there were no 5th Amendment issues, but there presumably are not any in this case either.)

There isn’t much doubt that the courts accept that the government can require ID to enter public buildings, although this has occasionally been controversial in connection with some court proceedings in which the issue is whether the defendant must disclose ID. There’s some danger that this case might get decided on that issue rather than the broader right to travel which, unfortunately, is being eroded yet again.

Posted in ID Cards and Identification | 3 Comments