Random ID checks: Appropriate or not?

[Kingscrab]

Do you feel the authorities should have the power to randomly demand your ID in the name of "fighting terror"? Apparently, this will start happening in Florida.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/28/D8E5RPBO5.html

Here is one example of what happens when you refuse to give up your ID.
http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4274023,00.html

Personaly, I feel that if you are entering some sort of restricted area, or even a government building, then it is acceptable to demand some form of ID. In a public area however, ie: street, public bus, etc. I find this concept insulting. Unless you are an obvious suspect in a recent crime, (for example) just strolling down the road minding your own business, does not give the police the right to make such a demand.

Thoughts?

[GenocideAlive]

Well, I don't think that you should have to submit to any ID checks to enter or use public access property. There could be exceptions for extremely high-risk or highly-populated areas, but I don't think that people walking along the street should be permissibly accosted. She is not being prosecuted, so it looks like the government is considering this as well.

The problem is that you're not supposed to be accosted unless you're under suspicion for something. Otherwise it just looks like a legalese method of random or non-random searches without probable cause. :/

[psycho42b]

The idea of random I.D. card checks doesn't seem so bad unless you consider this: She said the guards just looked at the IDs and did not record them or compare them with any lists. If this is the case, then what is the point of doing it? Perhaps Having a mobile card reader that was uplinked to a national computer system that contained all the necessary data on a card holder, such as citizenship status, then making sure a person wasn't a terrorist or illegal immigrant might or might not be easier. Meh, may seem full of holes, but its my two cents anyway.

[UnHoly-Assassin]

A terrorist without a good fake ID is a shitty one anyways.

[frazz]

A terrorist without a good fake ID is a shitty one anyways.
lol.
I don't see any problem like if it's going on to a subway or some other high risk target. But it really isn't effective since there isn't much of a chance of catching the attacker with random searches. Besides, if the bomber gets called aside for investigation, he'll probably just blow himself up anyway.

[Nuts]

The sad fact of the matter is that this is completely legal so long as they're not discriminiating whom they pick. They've been doing this type of thing for years, have you ever seen a DUI roadblock?

[Kingscrab]

The sad fact of the matter is that this is completely legal so long as they're not discriminiating whom they pick. Yeah, it's true. I guess we're all suspect until we prove otherwise. Terrorists making us resent and be wary of the very police force meant to protect us. Sad indeed. :cry:

[GenocideAlive]

The sad fact of the matter is that this is completely legal so long as they're not discriminiating whom they pick. They've been doing this type of thing for years, have you ever seen a DUI roadblock?
Well, a DUI roadblock checks for an altered state of a driver, or open containers. You can give them a Breathalyzer test or a quick once-over and quickly determine whether or not they're in compliance. What exactly are you positing is parallel to checking IDs in DUI roadblocks?

[Nuts]

Both scenarios (checking ID and DUI roadblocks) are instituted without probable cause.

[Basan]

Well, a DUI roadblock checks for an altered state of a driver, or open containers. You can give them a Breathalyzer test or a quick once-over and quickly determine whether or not they're in compliance. What exactly are you positing is parallel to checking IDs in DUI roadblocks?

*Rofl* Checking for explosive contents inside vehicles (read, more as in other folks belongings like clothes/backpacks)? XD
For once I agree with with ya as far as this subject goes. Casual checks to me get in that fishy area of what's legal vs. starting to be persecutory. If they're only checking folks with a tan or even a muslim sub-racial reference lately, then I sure don't agree with it.

And KingsCrab, brought up the real issue imo. As of lately, it seems that we're all becoming guilty 'till proven otherwise. And you know what inverted onuses of evidence generally do, other than being contrary to the democratic principle. Start an over-policed state and no matter from which quadrant, either communist or fascist, since in most cases these extremes touch one another real fast. The "world's police shock trooper" isn't the latest trend and it's been a while now since it last was. :P

Furthermore, we can't forget that mess it was when the London Police tried to stop a Brazillian emmigrant short after the subway bobmbings. If anyone doesn't recall out it ended, allow me to remind - ended in a public apology to the family of the killed fella (just not to mention the additional compensatory fee). :shiftyl:

Alas, this is a worrying matter to not joke about. Definetly, imho, the mid-term between uncontrolled panic over it and the over the hill measures to prevent the terrorist acts to repeat themselves is the best move. Not making a big fuss about, but trying to be prepared for worse scenarios at the same time is the more adequate stance I can see as of now (somewhat as Spain is currently acting - similar to normal). That way terrorists don't think that they had an huge impact over that society as they want to, thus shunning their aim for mass panic and fear, probably discouraging'em to repeat future foul actions. ;)

[GenocideAlive]

Both scenarios (checking ID and DUI roadblocks) are instituted without probable cause.
Ew. Is this the only parallel you see? Your analogies really suck. Especially since nearly every DUI roadblock I've seen are on very popular drinking and driving lanes. Basically they're chosen on the statistical basis of the number of DUI busts that cops are getting in those areas.

[Nuts]

Ew. Is this the only parallel you see? Your analogies really suck. Especially since nearly every DUI roadblock I've seen are on very popular drinking and driving lanes. Basically they're chosen on the statistical basis of the number of DUI busts that cops are getting in those areas.

And yet it's still not reasonable cause. Which would make it a strong parallel (or "analogy") with randomly stationed ID verification operations. DUI blockades, no matter how busy the areas, are not based on probable cause, period.

You need to learn to how to choose your battles better.

[frazz]

In my opinion, all random searches are a waste of government money and the people's time. It'd be better to use that money to hire more officers.

[Kingscrab]

Basically they're chosen on the statistical basis of the number of DUI busts that cops are getting in those areas.

And yet it's still not reasonable cause. Which would make it a strong parallel (or "analogy") with randomly stationed ID verification operations. DUI blockades, no matter how busy the areas, are not based on probable cause, period. I see what GA is saying, but Nuts makes a good point as well. The very nature of the word "random" does kinda support the idea that there is no specific reasonable cause. Same could apply to a random ID check.

In my opinion, all random searches are a waste of government money and the people's time. I partially agree. I don't mind random searches in places like airports where you expect them to occur, (and the target is random) but randomly occuring searches... no thanks.

[GenocideAlive]

And yet it's still not reasonable cause.
What the fuck? A high number of drunk drivers on the road during specific times on a consistent basis (leading to fatalities) isn't reasonable cause? That sounds like good fucking cause to me.
Which would make it a strong parallel (or "analogy") with randomly stationed ID verification operations.
OK, waitasec. Reading straight from the attached document that he listed as "what can happen if you don't submit":
"Guards at the Federal Center gate always boarded the bus and asked to see all passengers' identification, she said."
Please point to the part where it says "randomly station ID verification operations". The "parallel" or "analogy" you're referring to "doesn't exist." More smartass, plz.
DUI blockades, no matter how busy the areas, are not based on probable cause, period.
What? You're now stating that every DUI roadblock in the nation isn't "based on probable cause, period"? Please, PLEASE point to any evidence that you have to this fact. ANY. In college, the same highway strech was roadblocked almost every other Friday and Saturday night for the entire time I was in that area. You were stopped, given a Breathalyzer, and sent on your way. It was because people travelling between neighboring towns often did so after visiting bars.
You need to learn to how to choose your battles better
You need to learn to take your own fucking advice, or learn to keep your dumbass mouth shut.

[Nuts]

Mmmmmmm, cursing is always a sign of a failing argument.

Do you have a clue what probable cause is? I doubt you do since you seem to toss it around so casually. I'll school you, and unlike your last attempt, I'll have a bit of factual data to support my "schooling."

Summary of 496 U.S. 444 Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/1103163004.html

Chief Justice Rehnquist had argued that violating individual constitutional rights was justified because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary. But dissenting Justice Stevens pointed out that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative." 3 And even if roadblocks were effective, the fact that they work wouldn’t justify violating individuals’ constitutional rights, justices argued.
The above paragraph summarizes the United States Supreme Courts decision regarding DUI roadblocks. You'll note that Justice Rehnquist admits that the roadblocks are indeed a minor violation of the Constitution, but for him, the end justifies the means. Justice Stevens reflects on the violation of Constitutional rights (i.e. probable cause.)

The actual decision can be found here:
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0496_0444_ZS.html

Stop being such an ignorant little twit. Stop and think before you type next time.

OK, waitasec. Reading straight from the attached document that he listed as "what can happen if you don't submit":
"Guards at the Federal Center gate always boarded the bus and asked to see all passengers' identification, she said."
Please point to the part where it says "randomly station ID verification operations". The "parallel" or "analogy" you're referring to "doesn't exist." More smartass, plz.

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.
Read. Comprehend. Repeat.

[GenocideAlive]

Do you have a clue what probable cause is?
Do you have a clue what the word "random" means? Because you seem to have completely dropped that entire half of your argument in favor of your little "IM GOIING TO DEFNE PROABABLE CAEUSE" blurb that has little/no impact on the actual discussion. It's probably for the better, though, because you're obviously in need of a subject-change to cover that gigantic blunder.

Your little snippet about Miami police bolds the word random (good job!) but completely neglects the fact that:
1. They announced their intentions ahead of time.
2. They're going to very public places.
You have to show your ID to interact with nearly every one of those places anyway; are THEY intruding on probable cause? OMFG call Nuts so we can properly define it!
You'll note that Justice Rehnquist admits that the roadblocks are indeed a minor violation of the Constitution, but for him, the end justifies the means. Justice Stevens reflects on the violation of Constitutional rights (i.e. probable cause.)
As I said before, this has little/no impact on the discussion. You're stating that it's NOT probable cause and are very rabidly defending this point, yet they very clearly made it legal. So basically you've abandoned the reality of its effects and its legitimacy in favor of a purist's onus of upholding the Constitution, and despite what is or isn't legal, you're arguing what's "right". Ultimately, you have the correct definition of "probable cause"; well, congratulations on defining it so clearly while gutting your entire stance in the same stroke.

If precedent is any indicator (as you've so kindly provided), non-random (look this up) ID checks will do just fine.

[Nuts]

Did you not ask me to parallel the two scenarios, ID checks and DUI roadblocks?
Did you not ask me "What? You're now stating that every DUI roadblock in the nation isn't "based on probable cause, period"? Please, PLEASE point to any evidence that you have to this fact."

If you can't follow the conversation then do yourself a favor and excuse yourself from future debates that contain more than a single line of thought.

And do yourself a favor, read my edit above and go back to your corner.

[UnHoly-Assassin]

If the random checks do turn up a sufficient amount of incriminating evidence, I don't see any major violations on the means that justify the ends. Random checks are not strip searches. If there is a large number of drunk drivers on a specific road, it's reasonable to be more cautious of who's a drunk driver. Since drunk drivers drive drunk more than once (mostly), there's a bigger chance of them getting caught. Therefore, I think the key phrase is that "It's Worth It".

The same thing cannot be said for searches looking for terrorists, though. The chances of encountering a terrorist during a random check is almost nil, therefore they should rely on more efficient intelligence in order to catch them.

[Nuts]

Had I been given a chance to post without having to defend my "analogy" I would have said that I happen to agree with DUI roadblocks, even though they do technically bend the Constitution to an extreme.

But of course, science boy wants to pick a fight over something he doesn't understand. Par for the course I imagine.

[Neo]

Random ID checks for no reason is retarded.

If they don't even run the ids, or anything, then what good is it?

Besides the fact that if your not getting off at that stop, then wtf does it matter if you have an ID or not?

And why kind of terrorist isnt going to have a good fake id already if they are planning to do something on/with a bus?

-Neo

[Basan]

And why kind of terrorist isnt going to have a good fake id already if they are planning to do something on/with a bus?

*Meh* What I thought. It would be better if they were after finding some more relevant points to look for. Like explosive materials without licenses for transport, guns without a permit... Oh wait, forget about that last one. You fellas there seem to have those on an eased basis (three weeks waiting period). :P

Just to clear things out on my behalf, I do agree with the road blocks to catch drunk drivers, but not the 'random' ones 'searching' for therrorists. For that, they'd (authorities) better have some sort of basic evidence leading to justify a roadblock. That, in order to try and get a precise, assured arrest or to simply investigate the vehicle (and it's other belongings) looking for more concrete ones. If it's indeed a dangerous activity(ies) those folks have in mind, then an arrest would be more effective and with less chances to release the cullpritt(s) when having solid proofs of their intentions. ;)

[FallenLord]

The sad fact of the matter is that this is completely legal so long as they're not discriminiating whom they pick.Ironic that terrorists' lack of ethnic/cultural/racial diversity (pick one or more) is the most important reason as to why "truly" random ID checks are mindless.

They can take our freedom, but they can never take our political correctness.