Jason Eppink ([info]jasoneppink) wrote,
@ 2006-11-29 20:45:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Entry tags:9th circuit court of appeals, airport, civil liberties, continental, flying, id, papers please, rights, secret laws

The "Flying Without ID" Chronicles
Today I attempted to board an airplane without presenting ID. This is your right, according to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but few airport workers know it, and even fewer flyers know it. No civilian has actually been able to look at this law. It's a secret law. You are governed by a law you are not allowed to see. These things actually exist in the United States!


I made it all the way to the security theater checkpoint without being asked to prove my identity. The lady checking boarding passes and IDs was a bit incensed when I didn't present her with photo ID and said quite plainly I couldn't fly without any. When I said I didn't have a photo ID, she sent me back to the ticket desk, saying I needed to be escorted up by someone from there. (I guess her first statement was false, then?)

I waited in the baggage check/boarding pass line again to speak to the person directing that traffic. She wanted to know how I had checked my bags without showing ID. (I had wondered this myself, but hadn't brought it up at the time.) I couldn't find who had checked in my bags - it was an older man - and after a few seconds of looking around for him, she lost interest I guess and pointed me to the information desk.

When I spoke with this man, he asked if I had any sort of ID. I said I had my credit card with which I had purchased the ticket. He asked to see it, and because I have a One Pass account with Continental, he looked up the account address, asked me to repeat it to him, and that was enough.

He then escorted me to the security line and filled out a book that seems like a sort of manual override of the security system. There's a place for type of ID (most of them were "C/Card") and a flyer name and security signature and such.

I apologized for the inconvenience (ha!) and he was very nice. He said it was a good thing I had a One Pass account with them or they would have to run a name check with the Port Authority. I'm guessing it's hard to exercise your full right to fly without ID here. I've read other accounts where airport officials were aware of this rule, but no one else at Newark seemed to know it.

I made it to the security theater lady again who looked for an okay wave from the man who had escorted me, then let me through. Once through the metal detector, I handed my boarding pass to the screener who takes those things. He asked me to step aside and asked another screener what the "SSSS" on the boarding pass means. (This was written by the guy who escorted me to designate that I was to undergo a secondary screening. According to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, I submitted to this secondary screening in lieu of presenting ID, which accounts for 3 of the 4 S's)Close up on the SSSS

From there I was patted down and two men went through my belongings somewhat thoroughly with cloths to check for traces of explosives. (These cloths were analyzed in a machine.) It was over in about 10 minutes. Though more for show than anything, the two men were very friendly and professional and treated my property very carefully. One man asked the other man if my sandals had checked out so I wouldn't have to be barefoot through the whole process (little did they know I preferred to be).

All in all it was a very educational experience. It wasn't a complete success (I did have to surrender a credit card) but at least there was a system in place for that. I'm curious what will happen next time.



(5 comments) - (Post a new comment)

a coupla things
[info]yablonovyy
2006-11-30 07:34 am UTC (link)
Man, you're just baiting me with law stuff now that I popped up again, aren't you? Anyway! I've never read this case before, and I read it quickly now, but here are some points worth noting:

1. Ninth Circuit law doesn't apply to anywhere but the Ninth Circuit, even though it's a federal court, so this case may not have applied to your airport.

2. On my reading, the court didn't hold that you have a right to a separate search. The court held that the Security Directive operates such that you have a choice between either presenting ID or becoming a selectee. That the regulation operates to give you that choice doesn't necessarily mean you have a right to one option or the other.

3. In fact, the court also noted that Security Directives can sometimes change week-to-week, and may vary by airport. Which means that whatever Directive is in place at any given airport may not provide for the choice of no-ID screening.

4. Furthermore, the court held that while one has a right to travel, one does not have a right to travel by any particular means. Which is consistent with the notion that even if the government were to require ID, with no other options, thus prohibiting anonymous air travel, it would be upheld. Because one could always not fly.

5. And of course, Fourth Amendment claims fail because the only right we really have when it comes to this sort of thing is the "right of a person to avoid search by electing not to board the aircraft."

Soooo. None of what I've said is meant to be normative. But it's possible that someday you (meaning both the collective you, and you Jason) may not be allowed to fly without presenting ID. And it's likely such a policy would be upheld by the courts as perfectly legal.

(Reply to this)


[info]yablonovyy
2006-12-01 04:50 pm UTC (link)
I know, I know, you love it when I'm a killjoy.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Quite the contrary!
[info]jasoneppink
2006-12-05 12:34 am UTC (link)
Thanks, actually, for bringing some of these issues to light. Several websites I've consulted, including some projects sponsored by the EFF, are a little light on facts and even contradict with things you've mentioned, so it's good to get another (dare I say...level-headed?) opinion:

1) I wondered if this was the case. However, if the secret FFA directive does specify that a traveler can opt for the secondary screening, that option would seem to apply to the entire US. Of course, as you say in (3) the directives are dynamic and may be outdated by the time any one directive is taken to court. Did the 9th Circuit point to a direction it might have ruled had there not been an option to consent to a secondary screening? I got the impression that without this concession, it may have ruled the ID request illegal.

4 & 5) This is where I think things get muddy. As the airline industry is heavily regulated and heavily subsidized by the federal government, when does it cease to be private property? And when do airports become locations where, because they're (essentially) public property, the public has full rights on them? (My question is: what is the precedent for this?)

And yes, maybe I'm baiting you just a little. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Quite the contrary!
[info]yablonovyy
2006-12-05 04:43 am UTC (link)
Glad to hear you don't mind my weighing in. I need to go to bed, but I want to comment on a few things in a slightly nonresponsive but hopefully useful way.

Here's my translation of some of the meaty parts of the decision:

--------------------
Part II: Due Process
Gilmore sez: This law is secret, and thus vague, and thus void for vagueness.

Paez sez:
- It's not a criminal/penal law, so "void for vagueness" doesn't apply. [8]
- It's not vague, anyway; you had plenty of notice of what it required. [9]
- Your other due process arguments are silly. [10]

--------------------
Part III: Right to Travel

Gilmore sez: you have impeded my right to travel by putting a federal condition on flight.

Paez sez:
- The government can force you to be ID'ed to drive, so it can force you to be ID'ed to fly. (zing!) [11]
- There is no fundamental right to travel by air, anyway. Take a nice walk. [12]

-------------------
And at that point, his most credible (again, imho) claims are off the table. The fourth amendment stuff is almost all controlled by established precedent, including the question of whether he has to be given the option of a non-ID search. The money quote is from Davis, where the court has already held that it is a completely meaningful choice to say, "[you] may submit to a search of his person and immediate possessions as a condition to boarding; or [you] may turn around and leave." Since the court has already upheld that two-option choice (show ID or take a hike), there's no reason to expect that adding another choice is constitutionally required.

The first amendment stuff isn't credible; I would guess that the court just dealt with it give Gilmore a full and fair hearing.

--------------------
And that's what I think they're holding. I really like these exchanges; let me know what you think.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]jasoneppink
2006-12-08 07:22 am UTC (link)
My biggest beef is with [11]. The ID requirement for driving is to make sure you have the skills necessary to properly operate the vehicle. Plus, you don't need an ID to be a vehicle passenger. I don't see how this equates to a mandatory ID for flying at all.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(5 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…