UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

V.	Case No. 8:02-CR

MELISSA DAWN DOE

MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

MOTION TO END DEMAND FOR IDENTIFICATION TO ENTER COURTHOUSE

COMES NOW, the Defendant, MELISSA DAWN DOE, by and through her undersigned attorney, and requests a rehearing of the detention hearing previously held in this cause and also moves to end the requirement of photo identification (ID) to enter the Courthouse on the grounds that three defense witnesses were denied entry to the prior hearing. In support hereof the defendant would show:

1. At the previous 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. One witness would have testified, and will testify, that she is willing to pledge the remaining equity in her residence as collateral on a bond and to allow the defendant to reside with her. All three indicate a willingness to sign personal signature bonds, to act as third party custodians, and to testify in favor of the defendant's release.

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.

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. Some people probably think that the federal courthouses are is trying to change that.

The ID policy is again playing into police-state stereotypes of the federal government forcing everyone to routinely carry identification and to present it on demand, without any legal basis and without any probable cause, and in an unprofessional and unethical manner that sabotages individual rights and chases away witnesses who would testify against the government. Our country resisted the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to avoid such a society here. The ID policy plays right into some unfortunate stereotypes that the federal government is a growing leviathan that is leading the way to a police state and a national ID card and the command "show me your papers!!" That stereotype is heightened by the fact that other courthouses (mere blocks away) do not follow the same policy.

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 constant erosion of freedom has been based on the government's failed war on drugs. Now, the "war on terrorism" is used as the excuse (though Congress has declared no war at all, and the federal government previously armed, trained and subsidized Afghanistan and the Taliban, and then failed to foresee or prevent the blowback that came on 9-11-2001). In recent news articles, the federal government is trying to tie the war on drugs in with the war on terrorism (see http://reason.com/sullum/020802.shtml and http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=564).

The War on Drugs boosts the price of illegal drugs by as much as 17,000 percent — funneling

huge profits to terrorist organizations. If you support the War on Drugs or vote for the politicians

who wage it, you're helping support terrorism. Get the facts at www.LP.org/drugwar.

http://www.lp.org/action/files/!drugwar.pdf My client and her witnesses are victims of the government's failed war on drugs, the undeclared war on terrorism, and the government's non-stop excuses for the constant growth of power, control, and the erosion of personal liberty.

The demand for papers followed 9-11-2001 and the so-called "war on terrorism." When the policy started, many people failed to see any logical relationship between avoiding future 9-11's and the new demand for papers by the federal courthouse. The Washington Post reported that Federal officials said that all 19 terrorists who participated in the September 11 attack had Social Security cards -- and that 13 of them had the cards legally. (11/02/01). Furthermore, planes require passengers to show photo ID, as they did with the terrorists who flew. On 9-11-2001 twelve gun-less terrorists hijacked 200 people in 4 planes and crashed them into buildings slaughtering thousands. The government (via the FAA) had searched, disarmed and cowed the passengers, the crew and even the pilots. It was a search procedure similar to that at the courthouse.

After 9-11-01 the courthouse began demanding photo ID. Understandably, this caused many people to scratch their heads. Some people might misperceive the "present your papers" policy as a heavy-handed attempt to "punish" the entire public (including the bar) for 9-11, or as a futile attempt by the government to pretend it is "doing something."

The tragic events of 9-11-2001 are a reminder of the need to greatly reduce the size of our government, and its hypocrisy and intrusiveness. The current antidisestablishmentarianism is damaging the relationship between the judicial system and the public (including attorneys). Ending the requirement of photo ID can be another reversal of the drastic growth of our socialistic government, to reclaim a libertarian society.

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. Nor is any of the foregoing intended to inspire new rules to mandate tatooing in order to prevent people from using the excuse that "their ID was forgotten, lost or stolen." The foregoing is to allow people to enter without ID, as they did such a short time ago and as they do at most courthouses.

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.

Oddly enough, 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 completely 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 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.

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 probably not yield an accurate response.

The procedures for ending the demand for papers can be implemented immediately. There is no reason for delay.

The foregoing motion was written as a pro bono public service to the Court and to the bar, in a benevolent effort to help the court retain respect among the public (and the bar) by ending bad policies.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Defendant relies on this court's discretion, as well as on 18 U.S.C. Section 3142(f), which provides in pertinent part that,

The [detention] hearing may be reopened before or after a determination by the judicial officer, at any time before trial if the judicial officer finds that information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community. 18 U.S.C. Section 3142(f).

WHEREFORE, defendant asks the Court to schedule a rehearing of her previous detention hearing and to end the requirement of photo ID for entering the courthouse, so as to avoid in the future, the problems that occurred in this case.

Respectfully submitted,

______________________________

Ellis Rexwood Curry IV

Attorney for Defendant

P.O. Box 8166

Tampa, FL 33674

813 238-5371