bocastephen

When was I chirping over photography beyond the standard and often encountered response from airport and street police when they see someone taking photos and try to invent non-existent authority or laws to stop it, or even try and confiscate the camera equipment. If a facility wishes to control commercial photography, they do, as you point out, have a right to offer or deny permission. A private citizen has the right to photograph any public building or facility, except where a prohibition is posted (military base, etc.). A private citizen may photograph any private facility or building if they are doing their photographing from public property - which is why, for example, American Airlines cannot prohibit me from taking photos of their aircraft from public property, but can prohibit photography of their crew while onboard the plane (private property).

As to the issue presented in this thread, I will only repeat what I've written countless times, and where I find very deep fault with silly judges who trip over themselves trying to play 'tough on crime'. Fruits of an Administrative search must be restricted to items germane to the purpose of the search - if the search is required for aviation security, the only admissible fruits should be guns, knives, bombs or other threats to aviation security. Period. Franky, the TSA should have absolutely positively no business calling the police over for 10K of cash, drugs, porn or anything else unless it's an obvious crime involving safety or property (a head in a bag, for example).

If the TSA or any authority conducting an administrative search (and this would include everyone from building security to the security checking your bags before you board the Statue of Liberty ferry) wants to involve the police, and the search will change from administrative to criminal, then the person being searched must be given the opportunity to refuse the criminal search, and the 'tattle' offered to the police cannot in itself be sufficient grounds to hold the person and their bags and request a warrant. Only an intelligent, properly informed and Constitutionally-aware judge would rule in this manner - but unfortunately, most of our judges have become lackeys to the criminal justice system and are no longer fair and balanced arbiters who are focused on ensuring justice is served and our rights are protected.

Global_Hi_Flyer

You may be perfectly fine with it. Unfortunately, apparently some of your law-enforcement brethren see it differently: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...ak-police.html

SgtScott31

I agree, but the main airport Terminal (although open to the public) can create and enforce its own policies.

MNAA Code #2.60.230 Photography.

No person shall take still, sound or motion pictures for commercial use on airport property without the approval of the executive director or his designated representative. This does not apply to those taken on lease airport tenant areas for private or promotional purposes.
(Prior code § 4A-1-15)

If you are in the Terminal building and/or on airport property, the above policy applies for those taking still, sound or motion pictures for commercial use. The latter of the policy indicates that we do not have control over those taking pictures in leased areas, only the leasee. So if you are in the common areas of the building (whether before or after security), or on surrounding airport properties and taking photos for commercial use, you need permission. If you do not have permission, you need to get it or you will be asked to leave. Refusal to comply could possibly lead to criminal trespass charges. You and others must understand that there are actually people who conduct surveillance for criminal purposes. We investigated some individuals not too long ago conducting surveillance on a large computer facility adjacent to airport property, who turned up a few weeks later in NC. Subsequent investigation revealed they were cargo thieves (out of South America) who had a history of stealing millions in equipment from distribution centers. Although there are probably far more that take photos with non-criminal intentions, should we allow anyone and everyone to take photos without so much as to walking up and asking them questions (non-detention/non-custodial situation)?

Here is where you and I will have to agree to disagree. I'm sure you are aware that the 9th Circuit has some of the more liberal judges than the other appellate courts across the US. There were actually many in the law enforcement community that were surprised in this ruling. I do not see many judges across the other federal courts who will disagree with the Aukai ruling, but that has yet to be determined.

In my eyes, simply allowing anyone to leave a security checkpoint after a search has been initiated (by putting bags on the x-ray belt and/or walking through the WTMD) gives every terrorist (or anyone else with the intent do to public harm) the opportunity to test the system and get away without a scratch if their test fails. If joe plumber knows that he can simply walk away from a search, then what good is a checkpoint? If his bag gets pulled for secondary screening because something is suspicious on the x-ray, and he says "no, I want to take my bag and leave the secure area," what the he** is the point of even having a checkpoint? Eventually if enough tests are conducted, someone is going to get through. Guess who is going to take the blow? TSA or whomever is doing the screening. So basically from your standpoint, they are dam*ed if they do, dam*ned if they don't.

I would think that most judges who get appointed, specifically at the federal appellate level or SCOTUS are very "Constitutionally aware" of what is going on with searches, especially at federally mandated checkpoints.

Ari

You can start a conversation with whomever you want-- the bigger question is what do you do if/when that person tells you go pound sand.

Top Tier

How sad (and scary) is it when our liberty and private property rights hinge on Sgt Scott's "feelings"?
I always get a chuckle when people who don't know the difference between mute and moot call others "dumb".

I imagine living in a police state is not so bad when you ARE the police.

SgtScott31

Where I felt "based on training, experience and knowledge of interdiction."

Is that better?

You know what I mean, but it's so much easier to try and chomp at the bit isn't it? Hurts to know when there is something that you disagree with (no matter how little you know about it) that you cannot do anything about.

Typing at 80+ words per minute, it's definitely not the first time I've typed one thing and meant another out of several thousand posts. Any more attempted insults you want to throw this way?

Are you planning on contributing anything that relates to the topic at hand? Or do I need to start my next post with "Sticks and stones..?"

pmocek

What do you do if that person remains silent? You've not seen him doing anything wrong. You find on him an amount of money that you consider to be suspicious. You, a police officer, give him a chance to convince you that he is not doing anything wrong by carrying that money. He remains silent. What then?

pmocek

Would you be fine with the checkpoints being elsewhere?

I don't think anyone here has argued that you have seen anything indicating that we'll be putting checkpoints on the street. In your opinion, SgtScott31, should we put government checkpoints on the streets? If you think not, then why not? Now assume that cost of erecting and operating the checkpoints is not prohibitive. Should we do it? If not, why not?

pmocek

Yes! A hundred times, yes! If someone is simply photographing in that situation, leave him alone. As for the "non-detention/non-custodial" nature of your interrogation, it is for all intents and purposes not such if you are taking advantage of someone's ignorant belief that when a police officer questions him, he does not have the option to simply walk away from you. I suspect that you know as well as I do that in most such cases, you will be taking advantage of someone's misperception of the extent of your authority.

Therein lies the crux of the issue. In your hypothetical situation, the checkpoint is still good for keeping dangerous items off airplanes -- its stated purpose and the reason for which we allow these otherwise unconsitutional searches at airports -- but it's not so good for conducting an unconstitutional dragnet operation. The latter is what you want, isn't it?

Your opinions are dangerous to the United States of America -- more so if you are truly an officer of the law.

Trollkiller

Phil, even when we don't see eye to eye I love watching you get fired up. ^

ttjoseph

I think you may be missing the original point here. If someone can walk away from a search at a TSA checkpoint, a malicious group can simply keep testing the checkpoint using different methods of concealment until one works. In this way they can, without penalty, learn how to bring some dangerous item on a plane (such as a gun or 4 ounce bottle of shampoo), and then actually do it.

If you assume the TSA's approach to security is fundamentally reasonable (ha ha) then this line of reasoning does have merit.

Trollkiller

That was the logic the courts used to hold up a supposed consensual search that you can't revoke consent on. Glad they are not dating any of my daughters.

SgtScott31

Normally I don't detain unless (a) I have reasonable suspicion to do so, or (b) I am told to by the Feds. Besides, I don't have a problem letting anyone walk by. If they actually turn out to be someone wanted, they get stopped on the other end. No skin off my back.

It is not my intention at all to take advantage of anybody. Walking up and asking someone some questions does not interpret into a detention or cutodial situation. If someone feels that way, then it is ignorance on their part, not mine. The courts agree.

For the same reason everyone else does not want a checkpoint out on the street. Problem is, FlyerTalk folks feel that checkpoints are not necessary at airports unless the TSOs apply horse-blinders and only look for C4 and Uzis. I have never expected a checkpoint to do my job for me, but I DO expect anyone with a conscious to report illegal items to the authorities just as I would expect someone to report crimes witnessed on the streets. You all disagree. That's your right.

Why? because they are different from yours? My opinions are reinforced by the mere fact that contraband discovered at checkpoints and reported has been upheld in every court since the beginning of aviation screening.

You took my statement out of context. I asked what good is a security checkpoint if someone with weapons can simply discontinue the screening process if they know they are about to get caught? This is what occurred with Aukai. Although it was drugs, what if it was a pistol or explosives? Would I hear any griping from you then? You simply can't have it both ways. Citizens of this country should be able to report illegal activities to the police. As long as TSA's primary focus is on dangerous items, why is it so wrong that they also report other contraband to law enforcement? How do you impose a policy that forces them to turn a blind eye to anything but weapons? It just isn't going to happen. So all this bickering is not really worth it now is it?

RadioGirl

As other have said, Yes.

Some evildoers have engaged in a particular activity. Drug smugglers carry large sums of cash, cargo thieves take pictures at an airport, Richard Reid wore shoes. This doesn't make everyone with cash, a camera and/or shoes an evildoer, or even suspicious. As you say, there are far more (no "probably" about it) photographers with non-criminal intentions. By a very large margin. A lot more people with shoes than there are Richard Reids.

I'm betting all the 9/11 terrorists were breathing when they got to the airport. Does that make breathing a suspicious activity in today's airport? (Dear God, don't let Idiot Boy Hawley read FT today. Thank you.)

Oh, and do you really think someone taking photos to case a neighboring warehouse is going to say so? Your initial intention of "asking them questions (non-detention/non-custodial situation)" is almost certainly going to turn into something more serious and inconvenient if you start "feeling" that they're up to no good.

Maybe someone should put a lock on the door at the computer facility and hire a real security guard, instead of protecting it by hassling amateur photographers at the adjacent airport.

HSVTSO Dean

As was summed up quaintly in United States v. Christian Hartwell, thusly, with the pertinent part put in bold: