I believed that I had mastered the bondage behind the gates of penitentiary. I mastered it because I knew what I wanted, and what I needed to work towards once I was released back into my community.

Little did I know, on that last day, when I was finally dressed and the gates to freedom opened to me, everything that I knew I wanted and what I believed I could achieve would be altered by the reality of what inmates called, “the real world.”

Nothing in the penitentiary prepared me for the many trials and the many failed attempts I would have while trying to regain what I lost.

I paid my debt and served my time. And, instead of providing returning citizens like me an opportunity to prove I can be a productive citizen, we mount barriers to every step of returning to our democracy. What we’re really telling returning citizens when they reenter society is, “You may have paid your debt, but we’re not going to help you become productive.”

And that’s why so many returning citizens fail after they re-enter society. We should not be judged forever because of a mistake we made on our worst day.

There are so many barriers to successful reentry. We struggle for a second chance at employment, housing, education and more. How can I prove that I am redeemable if I never get a chance to even provide adequate food or shelter for myself? To live with full dignity?

I have two minimum wage jobs, an education that I can’t afford, and everyday I make the difficult decision to either buy groceries or pay money towards getting my driver’s license. Because I’m trying so hard to make ends meet, I have to find new and creative ways to explain to my child why I can’t attend their school functions.

I paid my debt eight years ago, and I am still considered “not redeemable” by some.

To get through this, I’ve had to learn how to accept and believe that the relationship between the person I was, and the person I am becoming will have to be enough. And that that person deserves a full and unfiltered second chance.

It wasn’t easy getting to that place, but I did it by believing four important things:

1. I learned to take each rejection as a step towards the right direction.
2. I learned to never give up. I didn’t let the word “No” defeat me or keep me from becoming a better version of myself.
3. I believed everyday had a chance at being a small beginning for something great. Never despise small beginnings. (This one is biblical, Zechariah 4:10, New Living Translation [NLT])
4. I believe the way I viewed myself had a direct effect on the way the world viewed me, and I am more than my past mistakes.  

These affirmations have helped me over the last eight years. They have kept me from going back to jail or prison when times get hard to bear.

I paid my debt and I earned my second chance. It’s time we remove barriers to reentry for folks like me and give us a true opportunity to reintegrate in our communities.

In February 2017, two U.S. CBP officers stood on a jet bridge at New York’s JFK Airport to meet Delta Flight 1583 as it taxied to the gate upon arrival from San Francisco. As passengers prepared to deplane, they were told by flight attendants — at the direction of the two officers — that all passengers would have to show identification documents to the officers in order to exit. The passengers were held on the plane as the CBP officers, standing immediately outside the aircraft door, scrutinized each traveler's identification upon exit.

Passengers were confused, nervous, and afraid, and felt they had no choice but to comply. When some passengers asked why they were being held and forced to show identification, the officers provided no justification or explanation. In response to press inquiries, CBP characterized the officers’ actions as “routine” and consistent with agency policy.

The incident generated significant public outcry — and for good reason. The government does not have the authority to detain us on a plane, even briefly, or to require us to show identification documents without reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. We do not live in a police state, and what CBP did that day was unconstitutional.

Today we’re announcing a settlement agreement to prevent what happened on Flight 1583 from happening again.

%3Ciframe%20allow%3D%22accelerometer%3B%20autoplay%3B%20encrypted-media%3B%20gyroscope%3B%20picture-in-picture%22%20allowfullscreen%3D%22%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%20height%3D%22315%22%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FFS3HEb8y8jg%3Fautoplay%3D1%26version%3D3%22%20...

Privacy statement. This embed will serve content from youtube.com.

The agreement comes in a lawsuit we filed with Covington & Burling LLP on behalf of nine passengers on Flight 1583. Our clients — who were outraged by the officers’ actions and concerned that something like this would happen again — challenged CBP’s suspicionless detention and identification checks as a violation of their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The government moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the document checks were voluntary and likely wouldn’t recur. The court denied the motion and allowed the case to proceed. After taking the depositions of government officials and learning more about what happened with Flight 1583, the parties came to an agreement on terms to settle the case.

As part of the agreement, CBP will circulate a policy directive nationwide clarifying that the agency does not have a policy or practice of checking the identification of deplaning domestic passengers. If CBP officers seek to check identification, the directive outlines clear protocols restricting those checks. Officers must now:

• Make clear through their words and actions that participation in the document checks is voluntary;
• Provide an unimpeded path for passengers to exit the airplane;
• Explain, if asked, that passengers who decline to participate will face no law enforcement consequence as a result; and
• Request that airline personnel announce over the airplane’s public address system that participation is voluntary.

Taken together, these requirements make clear that officers cannot detain domestic flight passengers for suspicionless searches. CBP will recirculate the directive nationwide again in two years.

This settlement is a win for the Fourth Amendment rights of all travelers on domestic flights. It makes clear what should have been obvious to the CBP officers: the Constitution protects passengers deplaning domestic flights just as it protects people on the street or in a car. CBP is bound by those protections, and this settlement helps make sure the agency stays within those bounds.

Although CBP has the authority to stop people arriving from abroad to determine that they are admissible to the United States, that authority does not extend to people arriving on domestic flights. If officers want to check those passengers’ identification documents, they can only do so with the passengers’ consent. And if a passenger does not consent, the officers cannot detain that person, even for a brief period, without reasonable suspicion of a violation of the law.

The settlement agreement also addresses the problems that can arise when officers seek passengers’ “cooperation” in producing identification. Many of the Delta flight passengers were unaware that CBP — or any other police agency — cannot legally compel such checks or detain anyone who declines to “cooperate.” Passengers were understandably intimidated when confronted with uniformed officers demanding identification. For these reasons, the settlement agreement includes the critical requirement that officers make clear through their words and actions that participation is voluntary.

What CBP did to the passengers of Delta Flight 1583 in February 2017 came on the heels of then-White House press secretary Sean Spicer declaring the president wanted to “take the shackles off” of CBP and other immigration police agencies. This settlement is a forceful reminder that, despite the administration’s claims, CBP’s authority is limited — by statute and by the Constitution. We’ll continue to make sure CBP stays within those limits, that the United States remains a nation of laws, and that people have rights that they can — and should — assert when necessary.

Hugh Handeyside, Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU National Security Project
& Anna Diakun, Nadine Strossen Fellow, ACLU National Security Project