Zillionaire Suing Gov't Over Airport ID Check

[karyn]

from adult fyi

Zillionaire Suing Gov't Over Airport ID Check

claims that the requirement to show ID before boarding a plane is unconstitutional

--law.com



WWW- Bespectacled, bearded and Birkenstocked (with Dr. Seuss socks), John Gilmore cut an appropriately iconoclastic profile Thursday as the centerpiece of a notebook-wielding gaggle in front of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Gilmore, a tech-boom multimillionaire who can't fly on airplanes due to his refusal to show identification at airports, is a star -- and major funder -- of the electronic privacy movement.

He's been at the center of an increasingly strange piece of litigation for the past three years since he sued the government, claiming that the requirement to show ID before boarding a plane is unconstitutional.

Complicating matters -- and nourishing conspiracy theories -- is the government's ongoing refusal to disclose what, if any, such requirement is on the books.

Gilmore's case was dismissed last year by Northern District of California Judge Susan Illston, on the grounds that Gilmore lacked standing (his right to transportation could be exercised in ways other than flying, Illston wrote) and that complaints about airport restrictions should go directly to the 9th Circuit.

So on Thursday, Gilmore's lawyer, James P. Harrison, argued to have the suit reinstated in front of three 9th Circuit judges keenly aware that the litigant was suing to make a point.

"What better reason is there?" Harrison said after his spirited oral argument. "Just because he made a fortune doesn't mean he shouldn't stand up for other persons' and his rights. Just because he can buy an airplane doesn't mean he has to."

The 9th Circuit panel of Judge Richard Paez and Senior Judges Thomas Nelson and Stephen Trott -- "a terrible panel," Harrison said, since Nelson and Trott are "law and order" judges -- was certainly skeptical of Gilmore's claim that asking for ID was an illegal search. Trott was especially doubtful that asking for identification comprised a search at all.

"What case says that simply asking someone for ID in a public setting is a search?" Trott asked Harrison, who protested that the ID check is part of an "administrative search" undertaken at airports.

"I assume what you're telling me is there is no case," Trott replied. Earlier in the arguments, he told Harrison that asking for ID "is an inquiry, it isn't a search."

But all three judges also seemed troubled by Justice Department appellate attorney Joshua Waldman's argument that the government does not have to publicly disclose what kind of ID law it does or doesn't have on the books, since the requirement is a confidential "law enforcement technique" and involves "sensitive security information."

Prior to oral arguments, the court denied a motion by the Justice Department to submit applicable documents under seal, so the judges -- but not Gilmore or his counsel -- could see the ID requirement, sparking what Nelson referred to as "a brouhaha."

"We offered to show it to a panel of three impartial judges," Waldman told the panel. "I don't see what's wrong with that."

In the end, Harrison asked the judges to remand the case to the trial court, where a record could be established for the 9th Circuit to review.

Waldman, on the other hand, asked for a complete dismissal -- or for the 9th Circuit to address it directly.

"The government is clamoring to get in front of the 9th Circuit? Be careful what you wish for," Trott said.

If the 9th Circuit does take it directly, Harrison said he'd like to submit additional briefs challenging all transportation-related ID checks.

For his part, Gilmore -- surrounded by reporters, lawyers and the PR specialist he pays to build publicity for the case, and wearing a button that says "suspected terrorist" -- said after the arguments that he has problems with all ID checks, including, apparently, the one at the door of most federal buildings, which meant it wasn't cheap to get into the 9th Circuit Thursday.

"My lawyer signed me in," he said.

[Mindgames]

I can see his point - if someone in authority is going to insist on seeing something, I'd like to see the law I'm being asked to submit to. It sounds like there isn't one watertight enough to publish, which is worrying on far more levels than just this case.

In balance though, I assume Mr Gilmore is a US resident with no intention to leave domestic airspace - or is showing his passport OK if he's on his way to a vacation in Bermuda?

mG

[Morning Glory]

ok, well from a law enforcement standpoint...
an officer has the right to ask you anything at anytime, however, simply a verbal exchange of ideas, without any specific commands for complience, means that you do not have to talk to him and are free to leave. If you ask him if you are free to leave, he must tell you yes. He does have the right to ask for an ID at any time, but you don't have to comply.

If an officer tells you to "come here" or implies that he is giving you a command to comply, then he is detaining you, or "seizing your person" under 4th ammendment procedure. an officer must have "reasonable suspsicion" of criminal intent to detain you. He may be able to detain you on a "hunch" or "intuition" "leading to reasonable suspicion" but he will have to justify it to a magistrate that the action was appropriate. At this time you have been seized and must comply with his instructions of not leaving, allowing him to search you for weapons, and showing an ID. If you refuse to comply he can use force including handcuffing, and other safety related methods to ensure you cooperate.

At this time you are not under arrest, and he needs to have some evidence that connects you to a crime to place you under arrest.

This only applies to law enforcement personnel. Non-law enforcement personnel have the right to request any information or actions from you including searches on private property. You do not have to comply with these request and they cannot use force on you. They can ask you to leave the property and have the right to deny you any service. If they feel this is a security risk they can use force justified in self-defense. At any time they can also invite a law enforcement member to assess the situation and do what they feel the need to.

[Morning Glory]

The fact that the person conducting a search might have intended to assist law enforcement does not transform him or her into a law enforcement agent so long as he or she had a legitimate independent motivation for engaging in the challenged conduct. See United States v. Shahid , 117 F.3d 322 (7th Cir. 1997)

the fact that the challenged conduct took place at a public facility...does not affect the character of what otherwise is non-law enforcement conduct. See Gallagher v. Neil Young Freedom Concert , 49 F.3d 1442 (10th Cir. 1995) (searches conducted by private security company at concert promoted by private company held at a public facility leased from state university did not constitute state action under civil rights statutes)

[Morning Glory]

oh yeah and it's my understanding that there is no real law saying that you have to show ID to get into a public place, unless it is in complience with other obvious laws about ID. I'm not really sure whethere federal buildings constitute as private or public property. I guess that's another case.

also, there are some states laws such as proposition 300, I believe it is, in AZ that says law enforcement can ask you for ID for any reason and that you must comply, whethere you are being detained or not. I personally feel this IS in violation of the 4th, but all the ignorant ass idiot citizens voted it in, so there's not much that can be done about it.

[Mindgames]

On the days I'm stuck in the UK I get to watch the same debate raging about them bringing in compulsory ID cards, and I for one think it's a seriously slippy slope back to a police state. I'm all for the idea of preventing crime, but the issue is what arguments are being used for the concept.

The UK (and majority of US) arguments refer to preventing terrorism, but both 9/11 and the London/Madrid bombings would have happened with or without ID cards as hardly any of them were known by name as a threat.

ID cards of any form can be faked if you need to, and without running everything through computers all it does is prove you're carrying a piece of plastic with your face on it. You're not proving you're you, you're proving you have a piece of plastic. The more criminally dangerous you are, the better your forgeries will be.

The major threat is not from foreign nationals hiding their identity, it's from citizens or foreign nationals perfectly happy to admit to who they are. Asking for ID has no relation to your political views or what's in your backpack, and the only realistic ways to infer one from the other would be to discriminate ( "hey, you're called Abdullah.. Spread em, punk-ass!" ).

Losing privacy is OK provided there's a benefit, and being forced to show ID in a domestic scenario doesn't seem to offer one. I'm happy for someone to search me if I want to enter a Federal building, but showing them a drivers license seems to just feed curiosity. Fine if I'm flying internationally as there's legit reasons of immigration, but surely the last thing on the mind of a suicide bomber is someone finding out his middle name...

/blabber

mG

[Kidthorazine]

yeah on the surface having to show an ID doesnt seem like a big deal but the way its being treated in court with the government refusing to disclose laws requiring it (if such laws exist) has major implications and i think that is rather frightening to be honest.

[Toe Cutter]

an officer must have "reasonable suspsicion" of criminal intent to detain you. He may be able to detain you on a "hunch" or "intuition" "leading to reasonable suspicion" but he will have to justify it to a magistrate that the action was appropriate.

Look at that hippie! Birkenstocks THAT beard and I bet he smells like patchuoli.

[Pull~My~Hair]

Look at that hippie! Birkenstocks THAT beard and I bet he smells like patchuoli.

HAHA HIPPIE

[Morning Glory]

well yes, it pretty much breaks down to this: cops sees hispanic looking guy. cop asks for ID, since the guy is not a citizen he doesn't have one. guy get's deported. it's a great way to say no we are not discriminating against poor minorities, we are just discriminating against people that don't have ID, which is not racist. It just happens to be a coincidence that the people who don't get IDs happen to be poor minorities, we had no idea.

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

I just want to take a moment to thank god for the crazy millionaire who will stand up for the rest of us.

If I were illegally searched on my way to a flight, I could not afford to miss the flight. This means people like me have to take it. Even if I could afford to miss the flight I couldn't afford the lawyer to fight it. If I was lucky the ACLU would take up the case, but even then I would have to take time off work and not fly. And let's be honest, if this happened to Trump he would just bypass the system and screw the rest of us.

So lift a glass to the crazy millionaire who look after us and one more in hopes that if we become the millionaire we will maintain our convictions.

[malcolm]

rich hippie can't board planes cus he dont wanna show his id........

boo-fuckin-hoo!

he's RICH. he can probably afford his own fuckin plane.
personally, it sounds like it's just the rich guy wanting to give the average working joe a hard time about his job.

[Buster Friendly]

bullfucking shit.

if the govt. won't even disclose which laws require ID checks, then fuck them.

it was a big propaganda point during wwII that the nazi's ran a police state where everybody had to fucking have ID papers, and we were a free country (unless you weren't a honkey) so we had a duty to fuck their shit up...

...and now look at you.

...dude it's just my job to implant this GPS chip in your ass cheek, don't give me any shit okay, I got a morgage to pay asshole. it's not my problem if the credit card companies are going to be tracking your stoopid ass everywhere you go. that's what you get for signing the cell phone contract bitch.

it's for your own good, you fetish porn watching little perv freaks. (yeah this barcode scanner that I just used to ID the UPC tat on your neck informs me of the cookies your web browser picks up.)

we're watching you, you little shit.

don't you ever forget that.

[malcolm]

uracunt.

[Buster Friendly]

yeah, well according to your Citizen Consumer Revenue Source Data Base you recently purchased a funnel, 6 pounds of cod roe, and a tube of KY jelly.

just what kind of sick freak are you anyway Citizen?

remember, we're always watching you.

[Morning Glory]

you both bring up good points.

seriously though, we all know that we leave a paper trail everywhere we go, however this is not so often used by Big Brother as we might like to believe. it's usually used by Big Brothers little brother, which is commerce and marketting. industry is primarlily the one that's going to be keeping tabs on you becuase they want to find out if you have money and if they can get some. we can all argue about bar codes and visas till the cows come home and the pittfalls of free information in regards to privacy, but it really has very little to do with anything we are talking about her. at this point all forms of ID and paper trails are voluntary. if you don't want to have crediters looking you up, don't open a bank account. etc, ad infinitum.
let's face it, if the spooks want to keep tabs on you...like J Hoover's Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO), Homeland Security Act... then they are going to do it, and it has fuck all to do with your rights or little peices of plastic.

[Toe Cutter]

well yes, it pretty much breaks down to this: cops sees hispanic looking guy. cop asks for ID, since the guy is not a citizen he doesn't have one. guy get's deported. it's a great way to say no we are not discriminating against poor minorities, we are just discriminating against people that don't have ID, which is not racist. It just happens to be a coincidence that the people who don't get IDs happen to be poor minorities, we had no idea.

Your over simplifying and confusing seperate issues. The story was about boarding a plane without ID, I don't see how race has anything to do with that. In addition to that, I doubt many poor minorities can afford to fly anyway.

[Dark Z]

Well, that's interesting and all, BUT he has no chance in hell.

the 4th Amendment is a restriction on the search/seizure of people and property.

Under existing case law (For instance: Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), and INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (1984)) The government requesting your identification is NOT a search violating the 4th amendment.

Now, if you give your ID, you have just done so Voluntarily. If you refuse, two things can happen, you can either walk away and nothing happens, or you can try to walk away and the officer will demand your ID (Then becoming a seizure of your person.)

In the case of an Airport (and any port of entry), you have an even lesser expectation of privacy then you would on the street.

So, if someone wants to avoid ID checks, flying is not the way to go unless you want to charter a plane.

[malcolm]

shit, they ask for ids on the bus now too. especially around border areas. but it's not just one specific person they check-they have border patrol stand at the door and require everyone to whip out their id's as they leave.

[Morning Glory]

hey better not talk about that malcolm or the resident thread cop will bust you for being off topic.

seriously though, that ties into what I was saying, which ties into the overall subject of dicussion which is laws pertaining to ID.

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

Yes we leave paper trails everywhere. Yes we do have some other options (like walking to canada to catch an international flight, or buying a plane). But really is this any reason not to fight to make it better? Maybe if he wins this fight someone will fight to protect our banking information.

The government may or may not have a law we don't know about. That alone is reason enough to sue.

But all three judges also seemed troubled by Justice Department appellate attorney Joshua Waldman's argument that the government does not have to publicly disclose what kind of ID law it does or doesn't have on the books, since the requirement is a confidential "law enforcement technique" and involves "sensitive security information."

[malcolm]

this guy should be more concerned about finding a razor for that sad growth of pubic hair on his face than he should be about suing the airlines.

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

Why? Millionairs don't need to shave.

[malcolm]

think he'd look like this fi he did