Real ID is dead. Thirty-six states currently do not meet compliance standards set by federal law, 14 of which have passed binding legislation prohibiting participation in Real ID. In all, twenty-four states have enacted bills or resolutions that oppose the Real ID Act. The people have spoken. Americans have a long and proud tradition of resisting government intrusion into their private lives, and Real ID is just that: a needless, ineffective and burdensome intrusion.
Over the past weeks, much has been made of the rapidly approaching compliance deadline for Real ID. The hand wringing stems from a concern that, come January 1st, 2010, New Mexicans may have to carry their passports if they wish to board a plane or enter a federal building. While this is a frightening prospect, the deadline is almost certain to be extended. With over half the states in non-compliance, suddenly forcing Americans to use their passports for internal travel during one of the year’s busiest travel times would throw airports and airlines into a state of chaos. Is DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano so foolhardy as to risk paralyzing the nation and further wounding an already reeling American economy?
Congress passed the Real ID Act in May 2005 without a single hearing in the Senate, ostensibly to provide Americans with greater security in the wake of the September 11th attacks. Rather than make America safer, Congress created a 20 billion dollar boondoggle (the cost of which would be borne by the states and individuals) that saddles the nation with a big burden and a small security return.
ID-based security is inherently unreliable. What do Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski and Major Nidal Hasan all have in common? They all would have had zero difficulty obtaining Real ID compliant cards. Bad actors will inevitably find ways of obtaining fraudulent cards and may already be eligible to acquire them by legitimate means. The idea that imposing the United States’ first-ever national identity card system will make us safer is founded on a false premise.
What Real ID would do is open the door to greater intrusions on individuals’ privacy and widespread identity theft. These de facto national identity cards could ultimately result in a situation where citizens’ movements inside their own country are monitored and recorded through these “internal passports”. Invasions of privacy will only increase as the purview of Real ID expands over time to encompass other activities necessary to participate in society. Simply look to how the role of drivers’ licenses has expanded beyond merely authorizing one to operate a motor vehicle.
Furthermore, Real ID and its slightly watered-down successor, PASS ID, call for an unprecedented amount of personal information to be collected, stored and consolidated in a system of interlinked databases. This amounts to a one-stop-shop for individuals’ personal information that will prove to be an irresistible lure to determined identity thieves, further exacerbating the fraud epidemic that already costs Americans billions every year.
Leaving aside the logistical nightmare, financial strain and security concerns they create, the bottom line is that Real ID and PASS ID limit the freedom of Americans. They place needless burdens on the constitutionally protected right to travel and various First Amendment guarantees by restricting access to federal buildings. These are all essential liberties we should never give up willingly. And certainly never for the sake of a law that provides so little benefit and creates the potential for so much harm.
Diane Wood, Policy Director ACLU of New Mexico
(This letter first appeared 12/10/09 in the Opinions section of the Albuquerque Journal.)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 15, 2009
Contact: Micah McCoy, (505) 266-5915 Ext. 1003 or [email protected]
ALBUQUERQUE, NM – The ACLU of New Mexico (ACLU-NM) filed suit against the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO) and several of its deputies today, claiming that sheriff’s deputies coerced Angelicka Serna, a hearing-impaired woman, to falsely accuse her fiancé, Jose Herrera, of domestic abuse. The suit alleges that BCSO deputies violated the plaintiff’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they threatened to take away her infant son if she didn’t confess that her boyfriend assaulted her. The suit also alleges that the Defendants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act by failing to use a certified sign language interpreter when Serna requested one.
The incident occurred in November of 2008 as Serna, her fiancé, and their child attempted to leave an apartment where they had just been caught in the middle of an altercation involving other individuals.  BCSO deputies arrived outside as they were leaving and noticed the minor bruises and scrapes the couple sustained in the confusion of the fracas. When questioned by the deputies, Serna produced a card that explained she was hearing impaired and requested the presence of a qualified interpreter. Ignoring her request, the deputies instead separated the couple and relied instead on Jose’s half-brother, Louis Herrera, who possesses only rudimentary sign language skills and is not a qualified interpreter.
“This incident is an excellent example of why we have laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act,” said ACLU-NM Executive Director Peter Simonson. “If the sheriff’s deputies had taken the time to procure a certified sign language interpreter as required by law when one was requested by Ms. Serna, the misunderstanding would not have led to the shocking violation of her rights and the wrongful arrest of Jose Herrera.”
The ACLU of New Mexico is suing BCSO on behalf of Angelicka Serna for damages and also demands that BCSO alter their regulations to be compliant with the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. The case was filed by ACLU-NM Staff Attorneys George Bach and Brendan Egan and ACLU-NM Cooperating Attorney Matt Garcia.

###

The mission of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico is to maintain and advance the cause of civil liberties within the state of New Mexico, with particular emphasis on the freedom of religion, speech, press, association, and assemblage, and the right to vote, due process of law and equal protection of law, and to take any legitimate action in the furtherance and defense of such purposes. These objectives shall be sought wholly without political partisanship.
Related Documents:

Serna Complaint

Tenth Circuit Affirms that BCSO Overstepped the Constitution
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 15, 2009
CONTACT: Micah McCoy, (505) 266-5915 Ext. 1003 or [email protected]
ALBUQUERQUE, NM — The ACLU of New Mexico (ACLU-NM) settled a major lawsuit today against the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO) on behalf of a family who was subjected to a police search of its home solely because plaintiffs were in-laws of suspected cop-killer Michael Astorga. This follows a landmark ruling on the case by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals which affirms that familial association with a suspected criminal is, alone, insufficient to establish “probable cause” for obtaining search warrants. This decision and the subsequent settlement set a clear limit to ensure that law enforcement officials do not overstep the bounds of the constitution in their pursuit of justice.
The Tenth Circuit included this statement in their decision: “Although we are sympathetic to the urgency of the officers’ search for Astorga, we conclude that these actions violated the Fourth Amendment. Adhering to established Supreme Court precedent and the unanimous case law of this and other courts, we hold that a familial relationship is insufficiently particularized to justify invading an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy.”
The controversy surrounding this issue erupted in March of 2006 as law enforcement officials began a massive manhunt for Michael Astorga, who was suspected of shooting and killing Sheriff’s Deputy James McGrane, Jr. during a routine traffic stop. Astorga’s father-in-law, Rick Poolaw and his daughter, Chara Poolaw immediately began helping law enforcement efforts to apprehend Astorga after BCSO notified them he was a murder suspect. At the time, Astorga was married to another daughter of Rick and Cindy Poolaw.  Fearing for their daughter’s safety, the Poolaws offered up information that they thought might lead the police to Astorga. However, despite their unwavering cooperation and Rick Poolaw’s honorable 25 year service record as a State Police Officer, BCSO officers obtained a search warrant for the Poolaw residence based solely upon the fact that the Poolaw daughter, then Astorga’s wife, was known to stay at her parents’ house from time to time.
On the evening of March 24th, 2006, officers surrounded the Poolaw residence with guns drawn and ordered Rick, Cindy, and other family members to exit their house. After handcuffing each of them, the officers proceeded to search the Poolaw property and residences. Officers also confiscated several items belonging to the family. Four days later, BCSO officers seized Chara outside of her workplace in front of her colleagues and clients and held her at gunpoint while they searched her car. Despite her cooperation with BCSO, the officers performed this search without a warrant and only on the grounds that she was an in-law of Astorga.
“We and the Poolaws have always been sympathetic to BCSO officers for the death of one of their own,” said ACLU-NM Co-Legal Director Jane Gagne. “We also have high regard for the great risks that law enforcement officers face every day in the line of duty. But our sympathy and our regard do not diminish our determination and our duty to honor and protect the Constitution. Rick, Cindy, and Chara Poolaw were deeply hurt by BCSO's actions against them, especially since Rick Poolaw is a respected retired State Police Officer, and they had helped BCSO in the search for Astorga. The Poolaws are gratified that the New Mexico Federal District Court and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals have confirmed that the Fourth Amendment retains its vitality even in times of tragedy.”
ACLU-NM Managing Attorney George Bach, along with Co-Legal Directors Jane Gagne and Phil Davis, filed the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs.

###

The mission of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico is to maintain and advance the cause of civil liberties within the state of New Mexico, with particular emphasis on the freedom of religion, speech, press, association, and assemblage, and the right to vote, due process of law and equal protection of law, and to take any legitimate action in the furtherance and defense of such purposes. These objectives shall be sought wholly without political partisanship.
Related Documents:

Press Release (9-29-2006)
.

10th Circuit Ruling