UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case No.8:02-CR-

MELISSA DOE,

Defendant.

--------------------------------------------/

MOTION IN LIMINE

TO END DEMAND FOR IDENTIFICATION TO ENTER COURTHOUSE

COMES NOW, the Defendant, MELISSA DOE, by and through her undersigned attorney, and moves to end the requirement of photo identification (ID) to enter the Courthouse on the grounds that potential jurors, and defense witnesses may be prevented from entering the courthouse, resulting in a denial of due process for the defendants herein. A motion to similar to this one was successfully made earlier in this case regarding a detention hearing, resulting in the granting of a rehearing in U.S. v. MELISSA DAWN DOE Case No. 8:02-CR. In support hereof the defendant would show:

1. Earlier in this case, at a detention hearing, counsel informed the court that he was expecting the attendance of certain witnesses for the defendant and that he was not aware of why those witnesses had not arrived. Later, after court had recessed and all parties had left, defense counsel informed the court's chambers that the witnesses had in fact been at the courthouse and had been instructed to leave. The three ladies, all potential witnesses for the court hearing, were instructed to leave the courthouse at the courthouse entrance gauntlet because they did not have "photo identification." They had all traveled a long distance and could not "dash back" home to fetch any ID. One witness had ID in her car, but by the time she went back to her car and returned the hearing was over. No one in the hearing knew that all three had not "failed to show up" but had been affirmatively kept from attending after trying to attend. No one inquired to the three people whether they were witnesses needed for testimony in a hearing. Before and during the hearing, no one informed the court that the three witnesses had been turned away by the courthouse's own policies. It is possible that no one would have ever known the true story other than by a chance meeting with defense counsel outside the courthouse after the hearing. If the chance meeting hadn't occurred it is possible that no one would have ever discovered what actually happened, in that the witnesses might have concluded that it was pointless and hopeless to have pursued the matter. The fact that the witnesses were turned away may have altered the outcome of the hearing. All of the preceding constitutes unprofessional and unethical conduct. It also constitutes a denial of every defendant's right to due process of law and the right to call witnesses in his/her own behalf. The process is still in effect at the courthouse entrance and there is no method by which anyone knows how often it happens and nothing to prevent it from happening in this case.

Many people who are summoned to Court are people who do not customarily carry ID. Many do not even have ID, photo or otherwise. It is not uncommon for people to lose their ID or for ID to be stolen. It is ironic that some people lack ID because the government has taken their ID from them for various reasons or denied them ID, or made it so unpleasant to acquire ID that many people go without.

There is no law that requires anyone to carry photo ID nor any ID at all. Thanks to our country's libertarian heritage, there is no law that requires anyone to even have photo ID nor any ID at all, much less to carry it. That is what makes the government in the U.S.A. not-quite-so-
offensive as governments elsewhere.

Every trial has the potential for unexpected defense witnesses to show up during trial. Under the present conditions, if such an important defense witness showed up without photo ID he/she would be denied entrance, and counsel would not know it was occurring, and counsel might not ever discover that a witness had been turned away by the court.

This is the only courthouse known to defense counsel to require photo identification for entry. This is the only courthouse known to defense counsel to require ANY identification. Even the courthouse that is blocks away does not follow this procedure.

There is no national photo ID, though there is the non-photo social security card that was created specifically with the (now broken) promise that it would not be used as identification. The media is full of articles on the federal agenda to turn the state-issued driver's license into a "national ID card" (For more information on this issue see the "Fight the Fingerprint" web page at www.networkusa.org/fingerprint.shtml.). When the so-called "driver's license" (why do we have to show them when we get on a plane; we don't intend to DRIVE the plane) already offers a police officer more info about the bearer than was available to an SS agent checking internal German travel papers in 1943 during the reign of the National Socialist Worker's Party of Germany.

The "papers on demand" program, much like random roadblocks to check for seatbelt violations and drugs and other 'Suspect Every Citizen' programs, are a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment states that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." The policy of chasing away defense witnesses is also a violation of a defendant's right to due process of law.

The "show me your papers" policy serves no good purpose. The ID cards are given cursory looks. No record is made of the ID. No check is made of the ID. The ID is not used "to sign people in." The ID is not made to keep track of who has left. The ID is not used to determine why the person is entering the building nor what hearing is being attended. Nor should any of these things be done. They are listed merely to point out the many reasons why the courts are damaging their own reputations because of the ID policy. The foregoing points are made to allow people to enter without ID, as they did such a short time ago and as they do at every other courthouse of which counsel knows.

If the ID policy is not ended then search procedures should be applied equally to everyone, (including prosecutors) and in full view of third-party strangers, and by security guards who do not know that they are handling judges and prosecutors (to avoid the deferential treatment that occurs when separate procedures are applied to select people at other entrances). Only in that manner will the procedures be applied in a non-discriminatory manner consistent with the universal rule of behavior, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Under the current policy jurors can observe that prosecutors and law enforcement are treated differently and deferentially (even sidestepping bag searches and personal shake-downs). Jurors see that attorneys and defense witnesses are treated like criminals. That fact deprives criminal defendants of a fair trial because it tells jurors that prosecutors and prosecution witnesses are trustworthy and defense attorneys and defense witnesses are not trustworthy.

The policy creates comical exchanges such as an attorney being told "Sorry, Tom, but I can't let you in if you forgot your ID." That type of exchange occurs at the courthouse entrance between people who know each other. The degree to which such exchanges have reduced respect for the federal government is probably too great to imagine. The security guards themselves must lack respect for policies that create such absurd exchanges.

The ID policy eliminates defense witnesses to the advantage of the prosecution. Defense witnesses are more likely to be chased away because defense witnesses are more likely NOT to have ID or to have forgotten their ID, or to have not been aware of the federal government's new policy of "present your papers on demand." On the other hand, prosecution witnesses (e.g. law enforcement officers) usually have ID. Federal districts are large, and civilians can come literally from miles (or entire states away) to attend federal court. People forget to bring ID. It is unprofessional and unethical to have a policy that turns people away when they may have come great distances and simply forgotten to bring photo ID, and they have no realistic opportunity to turn around and go get ID, even if they have ID. It is completely unprofessional and unethical to have a policy that turns witnesses away from an ongoing hearing and to not inform anyone about the official miscarriage of justice that has just been committed, and the violation of the defendant's civil rights.

The policy provides a splendid excuse for people to avoid coming to court. Many people who come to court do not want to come, and it costs people a day at work (or more), gas, food out, a long trip, and can be a very tedious and unpleasant experience. Eventually, as the photo-ID policy becomes better known, it might be deliberately utilized by people (e.g. defense witnesses) who would like to be denied entrance into the court. It might already be used in that manner. Even when counsel puts on a witness subpoena "The courthouse requires Photo ID" it is simply a signal to witnesses who have no photo ID to not show up at all, and it is a signal to reluctant witnesses to show up with no ID in order to be turned away.

No one knows how many people are being chased off by the federal government. There may even be people who deliberately refuse to come to the courthouse because they are aware of the ID policy and they know that they have no photo ID and they gladly stay home without ever telling anyone why they failed to attend. No one knows how many people see the "photo ID" signs upon entering the courthouse and then turn and leave, without comment. Retroactively inquiring about such numbers will not yield an accurate response.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Although the Federal Rules of Evidence do not explicitly authorize in limine rulings, the practice has developed pursuant to a district court's inherent authority to manage trials. A motion in limine is authorized under Fed. R. Crim. P. 17.1 (regarding pretrial conferences) and the doctrine enunciated in Luce v. U.S., 469 U.S. 38 (1984), and U.S. v Cook, 608 F.2d 1175, 1183-87 (9th Cir. 1979) (en banc), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1034 (1980).

Respectfully submitted,

________________________________

Ellis Rexwood Curry IV

Attorney for the Defendant

P.O. Box 8816

Tampa, FL 33674-8816	(813) 238-5371