Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

Mocek now suing for civil rights violations

Mocek now suing for civil rights violations

Old May 30, 2011, 2:49 pm
  #46  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 31,066
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
May be worth your time to read the original thread here:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...g-show-id.html
Why - specifically?

I have over it's life read a good 2/3d's of that thread. Did I miss something specific?
anrkitec is offline  
Old May 30, 2011, 3:23 pm
  #47  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
Originally Posted by anrkitec
It may be a surprise to some here but merely "deleting" digital storage media doesn't actually erase the data until the media has been overwritten by new data - and sometimes even more than once.

The defense then submitted the recovered video and the prosecution was sent scrambling to redesign their case to try and fit the new video evidence.
I wonder when the TSA will start using 3G and Wi-Fi jammers at the checkpoints so people can't just upload their images and video as they're taken, rather than let the TSA have the local goon squad erase them "by accident."
Caradoc is offline  
Old May 30, 2011, 4:04 pm
  #48  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,010
Originally Posted by anrkitec
Why - specifically?

I have over it's life read a good 2/3d's of that thread. Did I miss something specific?
Information about what happened and links to additional information was provided.

Phils postings and his links would clear up what happened and who did what.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old May 30, 2011, 9:15 pm
  #49  
Ari
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,509
Originally Posted by PhoenixRev
Ah, okay. I was thinking they would since the news article cited states possibly going after the TSA.
Ah, the media . . .

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
From the content of this letter http://www.scribd.com/doc/56475027/P...of-Albuquerque it doesn't seem like TSA is the target of any action.
That letter wouldn't say one way or another if there are any claims against the TSA because it is a notice of intent to file a claim with the City-- the purpose of the letter is only to put the City on notice of the claims against the City. If there are claims against the TSA, the City wouldn't be liable for them so they wouldn't be part of the letter.
Ari is offline  
Old May 30, 2011, 11:01 pm
  #50  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
Even if the TDC screener thought filming was illegal does that resolve that person of not knowing the regulations? I thought ignorance of the law was never a defense.
That's in the context of committing the crime that the law makes illegal. If I see somebody take an action that I think is illegal and I notify the police of that, I don't believe that I have any liability for that notification as long as it was taken in good faith (meaning that I believed that the action in question was illegal). The police have an obligation to know the law before arresting somebody for violating it, but I don't believe that a private citizen (which is the role that the TSO had in that case) has an obligation to know it before making a report to an LEO.
RichardKenner is offline  
Old May 30, 2011, 11:07 pm
  #51  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by pmocek
When airport security guard Jonathon Breedon, who examined my boarding pass before calling the police, addressed his supervisor, Gerald Romero, he expressed two concerns, saying, "First of all, he's refusing to show ID. Second, he's videotaping and taking pictures of the process."
Now that you point it out, I remember that. But it's odd that he'd view it as a reason to call the police because less than a minute earlier, he'd used words like "no problem" to describe the ID situation. My understanding is that the reason for that comment was that it was the job of the STSO, not Breedon, to fill in the no-ID form. So that if you hadn't been videotaping, he'd still have to call his supervisor. In other words, I interpreted his remark as "I was about to call you to process this no-ID, but then he started videotaping".
RichardKenner is offline  
Old May 31, 2011, 1:09 am
  #52  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: AA Gold AAdvantage Elite, Rapids Reward
Posts: 38,293
Originally Posted by pmocek
When airport security guard Jonathon Breedon, who examined my boarding pass before calling the police, addressed his supervisor, Gerald Romero, he expressed two concerns, saying, "First of all, he's refusing to show ID. Second, he's videotaping and taking pictures of the process." This can be seen at 20 seconds into the video of my arrest.

Thanks, everyone, for the encouraging words.
You are responsibility for your behaviors at airport. You can't do that. You have respected with TSA. You have show your ID. You didn't follow the TSA regulations. You failed to show your ID. You should listens to TSA instructions. You were one of them that you refusing to show ID.
N830MH is offline  
Old May 31, 2011, 1:24 am
  #53  
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Orange County, CA, USA
Programs: AA (Life Plat), Marriott (Life Titanium) and every other US program
Posts: 6,410
Originally Posted by Caradoc
I wonder when the TSA will start using 3G and Wi-Fi jammers at the checkpoints so people can't just upload their images and video as they're taken, rather than let the TSA have the local goon squad erase them "by accident."
They can't even get their own video cameras to work consistently. What makes you think they could make illegal jammers work?
sbrower is offline  
Old May 31, 2011, 3:54 am
  #54  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DC area and San Francisco
Programs: SWA A-List, OnePass, AA, U-MP, more
Posts: 170
Originally Posted by sbrower
They can't even get their own video cameras to work consistently. What makes you think they could make illegal jammers work?
It's "not illegal" (by a loose definition) when the government does it. And they would pay for high-end equipment.
eastport is offline  
Old May 31, 2011, 4:38 am
  #55  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 555
Originally Posted by sbrower
They can't even get their own video cameras to work consistently. What makes you think they could make illegal jammers work?
Their illegal jammers would work because it would be in their best interest that they work. Their cameras, on the other hand . . . . . not so much.

~~ Irish
IrishDoesntFlyNow is offline  
Old May 31, 2011, 4:40 am
  #56  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 555
Originally Posted by eastport
It's "not illegal" (by a loose definition) when the government does it. And they would pay for high-end equipment.
Even the government can't jam communication signals -- ask the Maryland State Department of Corrections, which has very good reason to want to jam signals and cannot.

~~ Irish
IrishDoesntFlyNow is offline  
Old May 31, 2011, 6:38 am
  #57  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Programs: SSSSS
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by IrishDoesntFlyNow
Even the government can't jam communication signals -- ask the Maryland State Department of Corrections, which has very good reason to want to jam signals and cannot.

~~ Irish
And has been since the Communications Act of 1934.
greentips is offline  
Old May 31, 2011, 6:42 am
  #58  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: back to my roots in Scotland!
Programs: Tamsin - what else is there to say?
Posts: 47,843
Originally Posted by anrkitec
Maybe someone with a much more precise recollection of the events could correct me but before the trial I seem to remember there being a continuance granted to the prosecution in light of "new video evidence" being offered by the defense.

At the time I thought that was odd as I assumed that the defense would have given over or the police would have confiscated any and all video evidence at the the time of the incident.

That led me to wonder at the time if what had happened was that the cops had in fact erased Phil's video on the night in question, the prosecution made it's case based on the testimony of the cops [and lack of video], and then between then and the eve of the trial Phil was able to send his storage media to a professional data recovery service who were able to recover the original video.

It may be a surprise to some here but merely "deleting" digital storage media doesn't actually erase the data until the media has been overwritten by new data - and sometimes even more than once.

The defense then submitted the recovered video and the prosecution was sent scrambling to redesign their case to try and fit the new video evidence.

Could this also be why the prosecution did not call several of the witnesses they has previously said they would - because in light of the new video there was no way to spin their testimony as anything other than lies?

If this is the case then it seems to this non-lawyer that the cop who lied and any others who helped him to erase the video could be in serious trouble, perhaps even federal trouble, and might face real prison time; tampering with evidence, abuse under color of authority, civil rights violations, false arrest, etc. not to mention any possible civil penalties.

If this is even close to what happened then I am even more surprised that the prosecutor didn't immediately dismiss all charges.
It actually says in the letter linked in this thread that the LEOs had tried to delete what was on the video but that the recording had been recovered.

(the letter to the City of Alberquerque is a good Cliffs Notes )

good luck with the case...
Jenbel is offline  
Old May 31, 2011, 6:43 am
  #59  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by N830MH
You have show your ID.
No, you don't. And TSA explicitly said so.
RichardKenner is offline  
Old May 31, 2011, 6:52 am
  #60  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
Originally Posted by IrishDoesntFlyNow
Even the government can't jam communication signals -- ask the Maryland State Department of Corrections, which has very good reason to want to jam signals and cannot.
Of course - the Maryland State Department of Corrections also cannot operate uncertified-by-the-FDA X-ray equipment.

I'll bet the TSA will try it. Just because they think they're above the law anyway.
Caradoc is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.