kaukau

Seemed to have the same result. 25 minutes of getting berated for being a smarty pants.

flyinbob

Someone should go through the same checkpoint with a baggie that says "Kip Hawley is my HERO!", or "Bush / Cheney '04". See their reaction then. If they let you through without any problems then you have a solid case.

GUWonder

That's like saying that putting an egg in the frying pan or tossing it into an active volcano has the same result.

If I say "jump" within earshot of the dog, the dog jumps. If I say "jump" within earshot of the paranoid homeless woman wandering around DC who thinks the post-2000 election America is made in God's image, she doesn't jump. But if I say "hi" to her, she jumps like a scared cat. Same results, different causes, different situations. That is, apples to oranges.

GUWonder

"Kip Hawley is a genius" would be more comparable.

Ari

The OP would have a solid equal protection case.

The First Amendment case here is already solid since "Kip Hawley is an Idiot" is clearly protected speech.

You may not be allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, but you are allowed to yell "The fire martial is an idiot".

etch5895

So you've met my ex, then. Glad to hear she is still well.

GUWonder

I don't know if I'd call her well, but she looks more well-fed.

So who here will be the next to go through with a plastic bag marked with benign political commentary?

"The Freedom Bag".

Gargoyle

Please remind me, what nation did this happen in?

Superguy

The United States of Amerika, Komrade.

Travellin' Fool

Because the LEO had to come over, he did have the right to run your name for warrants and it is common practice for a LEO to take down information for anything he's involved in. It's no big deal. Never be seen as verbally abusive to a LEO or you'll probably wind up in serious trouble, whether it was justified or not, which obviously wasn't your case. However, the TSA idiots should never have brought it that far. And they have no right to get your personall information. Even if you are arrested the TSA should not have your personall information. Only the LEO. I would have demanded to see the airport authority right then and there. They have juristiction of the TSA agents and LEO's assigned to that airport.

I can't believe i have to fly tomorrow...

themicah

You can only yell "The fire martial is an idiot" if a reasonable person wouldn't be incited to panic by your yelling it. Words that incite a disturbance of the peace are not protected by the First Amendment, and context matters.

Again, I think the OP's words are protected, but the deputy was completely correct in pointing out that not all speech is protected, and even the TSA guy was somewhat correct in saying that your First Amendment rights are more restricted in the airport than outside the airport--although that doesn't mean he was correct in saying that the OP's words were proscribable even in the context of an airport.

jonesing

In almost any jurisdiction you are required to produce identification to a *sworn law enforcement officer* (aka peace officer) when asked to do so. Since airports are given some special leeway (ie 4th Amendment search issues) you also need to produce ID for other officials--airlines, TSA etc. If you refuse to produce ID then the LEO can detain you until he/she is reasonably certain of your identity. Providing an ID (driver license, passport etc) just makes it easier for the LEO so as to not have to detain--but not arrest--you in the form of taking you to the station to run your fingerprints.

Providing your passport was a good move. Typically, yes, you have to surrender the identification article produced while the LEO does his/her check...the idea is to keep you from running off; after all, if it's a traffic stop, a bad guy isn't going to drive away without your license, right?

Yes, you could have refused to provide your address. But then you run the risk of being held up for another 10 minutes while you try to convince them they don't really need your address. If you had given your state ID/DL then and address is on the card and they would have simply used that. But other gov't IDs (since you don't have to use your ID/DL to get through airport security) that don't have addresses puts the LEO in an odd spot...he/she probably does need an address to complete the report (just for the sake of filling in the box but reports are filled all the time without said information) so then the LEO has to rely on you to provide a genuine address. Of course how can the LEO know RR 1234 Box A is your primary address? They usually insist on a street address and RRs are perfectly valid. I have a friend who is a total privacy nut so when people *insist* they need his address or phone number he uses 87-135 Brompton Road, Knightsbridge, London SW1X 7XL phone 020 7225 6633 (Harrod's) if he feels they really don't need the information other than putting it into a computer or filling a form (Radio Shack, returns at CompUSA, etc).

Gargoyle

Perhaps there is a droplet of truth in what the TSA guy said; however, in this context what he did was a direct assault on the constitution and the bill of rights by a government official. IMHO that is treason. OP, please don't let this slide; talk with the press and the ACLU. Quite simply, you are the patriot, and they are the terrorists.

(I'm no Spiff, but this one makes my American blood boil)

kaukau

It's all heresay. As galling as it is. All heresay. Am I wrong? Hard to prove a suit, but makes a great story.

PTravel

This is fairly well-trod ground from a constitutional perspective. Cohen v. Superior Court upheld the right to engage in political speech, even offensive political speech, in public and quasi-public fora. Cohen addressed wearing a jacket with the words "F**k the Draft" printed on the back. I don't see much difference between the facts in Cohen and the OP's facts, except that the OP's political speech was neither profane nor offensive. I suspect that TSA's authority is comprehensive enough to determine that the writing on the bag wasn't indicative of instability or threatening behavior on the part of the OP. Once that was determined, however, everything else was a signficant over-reaction that, clearly, has a chilling effect on speech.

What would happen if, when I go through the WMD tomorrow with my partner on our way to a business meeting, I say to her, "I think this whole security thing is a dog-and-pony show. Any politician who supports it, as well as anyone who devised it, is an absolute moron."

Will I be detained? Being detained and having my name and address recorded for engaging in this kind of speech would clearly be violative of my First Amendment rights.