Philly flyer arrested trying to file a TSA complaint
Feb 6, 2015, 10:48 pm
#61
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 729
I'm rather inclined to start insisting on a witness for all interactions with TSA. Patdown in public? Witness. TSA wants to swab my property? Witness. TSA wants to search my luggage? Witness. Asking a question of a TSA employee? Witness.
Feb 7, 2015, 12:53 am
#62
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Manhattan NV
Programs: Hilton LTD, Hyatt Glob, Marriott LTTE, AA LTP, Avis PC, National EE, Seabourn DE
Posts: 3,029
Unfortunately, this is all too characteristic of some in law enforcement.
I am a middle-aged, professional, white guy. Once, I was hand-cuffed and put into a police car while walking along a city street one day (probably 7-8am) because I "mathced the description" of someone who had been reported minutes earlier as having vandalized several cars on another nearby street.
Luckily, I was taken to the persons who had lodged the complaint and it was confirmed that I wasn't the perp. However, the few minutes leading up to that point (including being Mirandized; patted; cuffed; and hauled off in a squad car) made me realize that all the things that I'd been told by my parents as a kid about law enforcement being on your side weren't necessarily true.
While I know there are two (or more) sides to any story, my experience and the one in the article, and many others like them, make me really really question whether the police are telling the full, true story in cases like Michael Brown and the many others of recent times.
I am a middle-aged, professional, white guy. Once, I was hand-cuffed and put into a police car while walking along a city street one day (probably 7-8am) because I "mathced the description" of someone who had been reported minutes earlier as having vandalized several cars on another nearby street.
Luckily, I was taken to the persons who had lodged the complaint and it was confirmed that I wasn't the perp. However, the few minutes leading up to that point (including being Mirandized; patted; cuffed; and hauled off in a squad car) made me realize that all the things that I'd been told by my parents as a kid about law enforcement being on your side weren't necessarily true.
While I know there are two (or more) sides to any story, my experience and the one in the article, and many others like them, make me really really question whether the police are telling the full, true story in cases like Michael Brown and the many others of recent times.
Feb 7, 2015, 3:54 am
#63
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
Read The Propaganda Carefully...
Our officers examining the X-ray of a passenger’s carry-on bag saw a PVC pipe capped at both ends with unidentified items, including something that looked like a watch, placed inside. They also saw batteries and an unidentified organic mass in the same bag. Components of a possible improvised explosive device? If you were the officers, what would you do? Based on the items in the carry-on bag and interaction with the passenger, they contacted the Philadelphia Police Department. A responding PPD officer decided to place the passenger under arrest. TSA screening personnel do not have the legal authority to place any passenger under arrest and they did not do so in this case.
Back in the linked post, he wrote this one shorter paragraph:
Suspicious Image At PHL – An ominous image was discovered on the X-ray monitor at Philadelphia (PHL). It appeared to be a possible pipe bomb. While screening the bag, the passenger became upset and stated: “I can bring a bomb through here any day I want and you will never find it.” The item ended up being a GPS watch inside a PVC pipe with two end caps. Philadelphia Police responded and arrested him on a state charge.
Feb 7, 2015, 5:27 am
#64
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
I already do this informally. Every time I go through security, I watch how others are treated and what is going on. As I put myself back together after the CP, I watch the pat down areas. I do this specifically to be able to step up and be a witness if I serendipitously end up in a position where I can be one. I would do it in a New York minute is it becomes a possibility.
Feb 7, 2015, 5:35 am
#65
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SEA
Programs: Delta TDK(or care)WIA, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 1,869
He did the same sort of thing in the Phil Mocek case. Vanderklok should add him to the case, add a count of libel and add him to the case in his personal capacity.
Feb 7, 2015, 6:23 am
#66
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,565
Feb 7, 2015, 6:34 am
#67
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,100
It's not clear to me if testimony was just the verbal offering by the TSA Supervisor or if the checkpoint video was also played impeaching the TSA employee.
I can easily imagine a different outcome if the video had not been available which seems to be the usual case when TSA is involved.
I can easily imagine a different outcome if the video had not been available which seems to be the usual case when TSA is involved.
Last edited by Boggie Dog; Feb 7, 2015 at 6:41 am
Feb 7, 2015, 8:40 am
#69
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
And the paragraph itself was lies. 2 years after the arrest, and after the judge found the passenger innocent immediately after hearing the clerk's testimony, clerk Bob talks about the "arrest" of the passenger. and then says "Based on the items in the carry-on bag and interaction with the passenger, they contacted the Philadelphia Police Department." That's a lie. It had already been proven in court that they didn't contact the police "based on the items in the carry-on bag", and it was likewise proven in court that the "interaction with the passenger" was the passenger's request to file a complaint. By saying "interaction with the passenger," Clerk Bob is deliberately misleading.
He did the same sort of thing in the Phil Mocek case. Vanderklok should add him to the case, add a count of libel and add him to the case in his personal capacity.
He did the same sort of thing in the Phil Mocek case. Vanderklok should add him to the case, add a count of libel and add him to the case in his personal capacity.
Feb 7, 2015, 10:52 am
#70
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,668
I already do this informally. Every time I go through security, I watch how others are treated and what is going on. As I put myself back together after the CP, I watch the pat down areas. I do this specifically to be able to step up and be a witness if I serendipitously end up in a position where I can be one. I would do it in a New York minute is it becomes a possibility.
You're the best, Ink! I'm going to start doing this as well.
Feb 7, 2015, 5:31 pm
#71
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: AA Gold AAdvantage Elite, Rapids Reward
Posts: 38,318
I agree with that. He will eventually wins. He had no reason to be arrested. He want to file complaints from TSA.
Aug 31, 2016, 5:57 am
#73
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
Here's an update on Vanderklok's case against the TSA:
TSA stalling
TSA stalling
But last month, U.S. District Judge Gerald Pappert ruled that there was enough evidence potentially favorable to Vanderklok that his case against Kieser could proceed to trial.
That was supposed to happen last Thursday, but at the last minute, the TSA appealed the ruling. So Vanderklok's quest for justice has once again been kicked down the road.
That was supposed to happen last Thursday, but at the last minute, the TSA appealed the ruling. So Vanderklok's quest for justice has once again been kicked down the road.
Aug 31, 2016, 9:29 am
#74
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 396
Not sure about "last month" and a ruling, but from google scholar I found this:
August 16, 2016
Before the Court is Kieser's motion for summary judgment on the three remaining claims against him: First Amendment retaliatory prosecution, Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution and Fourth Amendment unconstitutional search and seizure. Vanderklok does not oppose Kieser's motion with respect to his Fourth Amendment unconstitutional search and seizure count. The Court accordingly grants Kieser's motion with respect to that count only. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies Kieser's motion with respect to Vanderklok's First Amendment retaliatory prosecution and Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claims.
August 16, 2016
Before the Court is Kieser's motion for summary judgment on the three remaining claims against him: First Amendment retaliatory prosecution, Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution and Fourth Amendment unconstitutional search and seizure. Vanderklok does not oppose Kieser's motion with respect to his Fourth Amendment unconstitutional search and seizure count. The Court accordingly grants Kieser's motion with respect to that count only. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies Kieser's motion with respect to Vanderklok's First Amendment retaliatory prosecution and Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claims.
Aug 31, 2016, 9:42 am
#75
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 396
What I read is worse than stalling. It borders on incompetence.
Kieser is represented by 2 United States Attorney (US Attorney Office) and it appears private firm. Kieser is claiming "qualified immunity"; this defense essentially is that a right of an individual was not clearly established so as to put the State actor on notice that her conduct violated individual rights.
Kieser, claims is that it is not clearly established "that falsely accusing someone of a crime for wishing to make a complaint was unlawful."
Thankfully the Court had a nice statement about that "qualified immunity is intended to give "ample room for mistaken judgments by protecting all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law")