checking ID on the T

[juldea]

Hey Bostonians and civil liberties advocates:

Apparently the Boston police have begun stopping T subway trains to check passenger IDs. It had been mentioned in the Boston Globe, and now someone in the b0st0n community has confirmed it happening.

So, yeah. Suck.

Comments

[baronbrian.livejournal.com]

I wonder what happens if you refuse to ID yourself? Can they force the issue?

[descant.livejournal.com]

Boston's one of the hit spots for the next terrorist threat. The entire scenerio makes me rather antsy.

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the heads-up.

[mr-teem.livejournal.com]

That's a lawsuit waiting to happen. I'll bet they can cover their ass because the MBTA is also responsible for rail transportation that's covered under the...urr....urrr...brain failure...there's a rail transportation security act that I'm forgetting the name of. But, dammit, they can't declare public transit to be a security zone. Why don't we all wear fucking bracelets and chant to Christ, Marx, Wood and Wei. Grumble.

The TSA site of course doesn't cover it and I don't see the MBTA advertising the authority they allegedly have to do this. I should ping ACLU-MA and see if they're on it.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

I'm not certain. It depends on whether the T is a government or private business, I think. Those asking for ID are actual police, and I believe it's against the law not to identify yourself to the police if asked, correct? Either way, I'm sure that refusal would get you escorted off of the train for the time being, and perhaps forever. :P

[juldea.livejournal.com]

I have to say I'm desensitized... none of it worries me anymore. :P

[juldea.livejournal.com]

I hope there's no need for a lawsuit, and the MBTA drops this crap soon. The Transit Watch (http://www.mbta.com/traveling_t/pdf/MBTA_TW_Brochure.pdf) program is scary enough. ("If you see something, say something. Join the Transit Watch.")

[baronbrian.livejournal.com]

There was a recent case that went to the Supreme Court where a man refused to give his ID and was arrested because of it. But he had been accused of something while people are just riding in this case. It's murky. They could get you for not helping the police but then again, helping them do what? It's all about probable cause.

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

Those announcements have been annoying and creeping me out. The tone reminds me of Principal Synyder: "Shape up, you degenerates, I'm watching you..."

The content, on the other hand, reminds me of nothing so much as Night Watch, from B5.

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

they can't declare public transit to be a security zone

Depends on what usage of "can't" you're using. For instance, one would think from the First Amendment that the entire USA was a Free Speech Zone, but that hasn't stopped 'em...

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Yup. I've been thinking of the Nightwatch ever since I heard that the first time.

[mr-teem.livejournal.com]

You know, I don't have a problem with Transit Watch because it's optional. It'll be part of the background chatter of traveling soon, like the endless similar reminders at airline terminals.

In Israel, everyone does pay attention--the threat is real and urgent. If it puts a few more eyes looking around and deters some fraction of [bipeds], fine with me.

[mr-teem.livejournal.com]

I was using can't as a shorthand. Was feeling too annoyed to be properly eloquent. :-)

I could elaborate it this way: It is facially unconstitutional to declare taxpayer-funded public transportation to be a security zone which requires users to carry identification at all times and display it on demand.

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

http://papersplease.org/hiibel/

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

It may shortly not be.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Because we all know, identification can't be faked.

[mr-teem.livejournal.com]

If it won't be, it wouldn't be "shortly". Such a fundamental assault on civil liberties has to be justified by those taking them away or challenged by those affected, in court, all the way to the top if necessary.

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

Yes, but the Supreme Court is currently not the most reliable defender of civil rights. Don't make me enumerate...let's just wave at the most recent incident where reporters got their rooms searched and materials seized for recording a certain Justice.

So "going all the way to the top" may result in a *Definitive* no. :-(

[mr-teem.livejournal.com]

Oh, I have a small list as well. The incidents you cite haven't actually been challenged yet by any of the journalists involved--to my knowledge--it seems really interesting that that SC Police have their own set of principles that seem to be counter to constitutional guarantees. If and when someone does, it will be interesting to see which Justices recuse themselves.

Many laws and regulations and actions based on mandates occur that are arguably unconstitutional. (Heh, to pick one on another hot topic: The Defense of Marraige Act, which has arguments against it both on Ninth and Fourteenth amendment grounds.) My point was in response to the adverb "shortly". It won't be "shortly". It takes time for the challenge to work it's way through the system to get that definitive Yes or No. The CDA knockdown took over two years, for instance.

I'm looking forward to Hiibel v. Nevada since that might be a good indicator on how a challenge like this would be handled. I'm not terribly optomistic. The Rehnquist court has been slowly eroding away at Miranda and suspect's rights for the last several cases. On the other hand, they don't seem to accept "terrorists are under every rock--aieeee!" as an exigent circumstance yet.

Coincidentally, my ACLU renewal came in the mail today...time to write them another check.